TIP: SSD or HDD for boot or game disk?
Page 1 of 1
TIP: SSD or HDD for boot or game disk?
by MrBurns Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:56 am
What kind of drive is the best solution for putting my OS on?
Well, NOT an SSD, and here is why:
An SSD can only handle around 100 write operations per block before errors start to occur, also known as the SSD lifetime.
And since the boot drive contains your save game folders, temporary internet folder and other folders that have data written to them very frequently, the boot disk is the drive with the highest write I/O's in your system.
Therefore, if you decide to use an SSD as boot disk, it is just a matter of time before drive failures and write errors start to occur and your system won't boot anymore.
Also, NEVER use an SSD for your windows page file (swap file).
So, the best solution is therefore using a fast reliable mechanical drive (WD Velociraptor or SAS drive) as a boot disk, with a secondary small SSD attached as a (read only) caching disk.
This means that only the most frequently read files are written onto the SSD, such as your windows files, allowing much faster boot times and much quicker access to frequently used programs without affecting the durability or reliablity of the boot drive.
In my case, I have connected a 300 GB Western Digital Velociraptor (WD3000HLFS) sata 2 10.000 rpm harddrive to a 60 GB Adata S511 sata 3 solid state drive using my motherboards (Asus P9X79 Deluxe) onboard Marvell SATA 3 ssd caching controller.
This is not as fast as SSD only, but still around 3x faster in terms of read I/O's with access times similar to an average SSD.
The size of the SSD you use should be at least 32 GB, since a caching SSD requires overhead and some of the space on the SSD should remain empty to ensure maximum performance.
The actual cache used is about half the size of the drive, so 16 GB if your SSD is 32 GB.
This is enough to cache all windows files and a few programs.
Any SSD larger then 64 GB is just a waste of space, and is more useful as a caching ssd for your game drive or as a game drive if it's 256 GB or larger.
Which brings us to the game drive.
Since games are getting bigger and bigger, if you are a fanatic gamer and you have more then 10 games, then 256 GB is pretty much the minimum of space you'll need.
And that brings us to the biggest problem: MONEY.
Realisticly, the average fanatic gamer will need about 500 GB (that's about 20 to 25 games of space) to store all their games, and unless you raid up multiple small ssd's that means you are going to have to buy a 512 GB or larger SSD, which are bloody expensive.
Using a single 1 TB harddisk with a 128 GB caching SSD and a hardware raid controller will cost you around 100 dollars less, and give you twice the space with rougly similar performance.
Should you have more then that to spend then you could use multiple large ssd's, which would be both fast and silent and use very little power, but then you are looking at several hundreds of dollars minimum for a relatively minor increase in actual game speed, apart maybe from map / level loading screens.
A more cost-effective solution would be to RAID several mechanical drives and use a combination of ram and ssd caching.
My solution was to put 8 WD velociraptor 160 GB drives in RAID 10 (striped + mirrored), creating one 640 GB ( 4 x 160 raid 0 + mirror 4 x 160 GB ) disc with 400 MB/s sequential write and 800 MB/s sequential read speeds, 400 MB/s random read and combine these with a Highpoint 3560 raid controller with 2 GB ram cache (2400 MB/s) and 1 GB of system ram cache (8000 MB/s).
You may have noticed that I do not use a caching SSD for my game drive, since it's already faster then an ssd and with ram caching also has lower access times and a lower latency.
If you want the absolute maximum speed and still something reliable and have way too much money, then this would be the ultimate solution:
- Get a fast hardware raid controller with as much ram cache as possible.
- Get a whole bunch of really fast mechanical drives and put them in RAID ( 8 drives for RAID 10, 12 for RAID 50/60, 16 for RAID 100/101, 24 for RAID 500/501 )
- Get a whole bunch of SLC SSD's and put them in RAID ( 4 for RAID 0, 8 for RAID 10 ) do NOT use RAID 5 or 6 on SSD's!!!
- Get a lot of RAM ( low latencies are ALWAYS more important then bandwith, so DDR3 1333 CL7 is faster then DDR3 2400 CL11 )
Use the mechanical RAID array as data drive (any data that needs high speed and low access times, like your bittorrent down- and upload folder or your windows swap file).
Use the SSD RAID array as level 2 read-only (if you value durability) caching disk.
Use your RAM as level 1 caching disk.
So let's say you have a hardware RAID controller like the one I have, a Highpoint 3560 24-channel sata 2 raid controller with 2 GB ddr2 667 ecc memory and a PCIe x8 bus, allowing for a maximum read/write I/O of 2666 MB/s (the maximum speed of the ram cache, bus speed is 4000 MB/s).
If I put 24 velociraptor 160 GB disks in RAID 101, I end up with a 960 GB (24 /2 /2 = 6 x 160 GB) capacity, big enough for 50 top-end games, with 600 MB/s sequential write and 2400 MB/s sequential read speeds.
Combine that with 8 x 32 GB SLC caching ssd's in RAID 10, you get a 128 GB caching disk with 3200 MB/s sequential and 1600 MB/s random read speeds with a random access time of less then 6 microseconds.
Then let's say you have an Intel Core i7 on a socket 2011 motherboard, with the maximum 64 GB of memory, which ideally would be DDR3 1600 with low latencies, or faster ram that has been "underclocked" using XMP, in the same way I used my DDR3 2133 CL11 to run at 1600 CL9, and I use 16 GB of that memory as ram cache, which combined with the overhead (32 GB) gives me 16 GB of "free" memory for my OS, games and other programs.
This will give me roughly 4000 MB/s random and 5000 MB/s sequential read and write speeds with access times in the nanosecond range.
So using the sample above this 960 GB harddisk would be faster then the fastest sata 3 ssd in write speeds, and MUCH faster then any ssd (even the Revodrive pci-e) in terms of read speeds and access times.
Replace the sata RAID controller with a 24/32-channel SAS controller, the sata drives with 15k rpm 3.5" SAS drives and you effectively double your continious throughput and lower your random access times by half.
Of course putting 32 ssd's in RAID 101 would be even faster, and eliminates the need for a SSD caching disk, but I would only recommend using multiple SSD's in RAID either as a caching disk or a game drive, but NOT for your bittorrent downloads or other server purposes that requires high write I/O's, which includes the windows pagefile / swap file.
All the figures above are based on averages achieved using Atto Diskbench, CrystalDiskMark and average copy times in windows explorer.
- WD Velociraptors score better as size increases, but average around 100 MB/s read/write when copying large files.
- SAS drives, 3.5" 15k rpm have 33% faster seek / access times but read and write speeds only exceed WD Velociraptors if the size is >66%, so only a SAS drive of equal size is actually faster then a WD Velociraptor, which means a 72 GB sas drive is slower then a 160 GB Velociraptor, but a 146 GB 15k sas drive is faster.
- A decent A-brand serial ata 3 ssd will operate around 500 MB/s sequential and 220 to 240 MB/s random read / write, with sustained copy speeds of 180 to 200 MB/s.
- SLC ssd's tend to be slower, most will operate around 400 MB/s sequential and 100 MB/s random read / write, copy speed is about the same (100 MB/s).
- Ramdisks do not vary in speed much, independant of the ram you use. You'll never get the theoretical maximum (8000 MB/s), but with DDR3 1333 or better you should easily pass 4000 MB/s, up to 6000 MB/s, averaging around 5000 MB/s.
I have not included pictures or printouts of these tests, since you can look these up yourself so if you doubt my words just google it and factcheck my work.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask below.
- Signed:
MrBurns
Senior Forum Administrator
Original founder of ArmadaShells
Well, NOT an SSD, and here is why:
An SSD can only handle around 100 write operations per block before errors start to occur, also known as the SSD lifetime.
And since the boot drive contains your save game folders, temporary internet folder and other folders that have data written to them very frequently, the boot disk is the drive with the highest write I/O's in your system.
Therefore, if you decide to use an SSD as boot disk, it is just a matter of time before drive failures and write errors start to occur and your system won't boot anymore.
Also, NEVER use an SSD for your windows page file (swap file).
So, the best solution is therefore using a fast reliable mechanical drive (WD Velociraptor or SAS drive) as a boot disk, with a secondary small SSD attached as a (read only) caching disk.
This means that only the most frequently read files are written onto the SSD, such as your windows files, allowing much faster boot times and much quicker access to frequently used programs without affecting the durability or reliablity of the boot drive.
In my case, I have connected a 300 GB Western Digital Velociraptor (WD3000HLFS) sata 2 10.000 rpm harddrive to a 60 GB Adata S511 sata 3 solid state drive using my motherboards (Asus P9X79 Deluxe) onboard Marvell SATA 3 ssd caching controller.
This is not as fast as SSD only, but still around 3x faster in terms of read I/O's with access times similar to an average SSD.
The size of the SSD you use should be at least 32 GB, since a caching SSD requires overhead and some of the space on the SSD should remain empty to ensure maximum performance.
The actual cache used is about half the size of the drive, so 16 GB if your SSD is 32 GB.
This is enough to cache all windows files and a few programs.
Any SSD larger then 64 GB is just a waste of space, and is more useful as a caching ssd for your game drive or as a game drive if it's 256 GB or larger.
Which brings us to the game drive.
Since games are getting bigger and bigger, if you are a fanatic gamer and you have more then 10 games, then 256 GB is pretty much the minimum of space you'll need.
And that brings us to the biggest problem: MONEY.
Realisticly, the average fanatic gamer will need about 500 GB (that's about 20 to 25 games of space) to store all their games, and unless you raid up multiple small ssd's that means you are going to have to buy a 512 GB or larger SSD, which are bloody expensive.
Using a single 1 TB harddisk with a 128 GB caching SSD and a hardware raid controller will cost you around 100 dollars less, and give you twice the space with rougly similar performance.
Should you have more then that to spend then you could use multiple large ssd's, which would be both fast and silent and use very little power, but then you are looking at several hundreds of dollars minimum for a relatively minor increase in actual game speed, apart maybe from map / level loading screens.
A more cost-effective solution would be to RAID several mechanical drives and use a combination of ram and ssd caching.
My solution was to put 8 WD velociraptor 160 GB drives in RAID 10 (striped + mirrored), creating one 640 GB ( 4 x 160 raid 0 + mirror 4 x 160 GB ) disc with 400 MB/s sequential write and 800 MB/s sequential read speeds, 400 MB/s random read and combine these with a Highpoint 3560 raid controller with 2 GB ram cache (2400 MB/s) and 1 GB of system ram cache (8000 MB/s).
You may have noticed that I do not use a caching SSD for my game drive, since it's already faster then an ssd and with ram caching also has lower access times and a lower latency.
If you want the absolute maximum speed and still something reliable and have way too much money, then this would be the ultimate solution:
- Get a fast hardware raid controller with as much ram cache as possible.
- Get a whole bunch of really fast mechanical drives and put them in RAID ( 8 drives for RAID 10, 12 for RAID 50/60, 16 for RAID 100/101, 24 for RAID 500/501 )
- Get a whole bunch of SLC SSD's and put them in RAID ( 4 for RAID 0, 8 for RAID 10 ) do NOT use RAID 5 or 6 on SSD's!!!
- Get a lot of RAM ( low latencies are ALWAYS more important then bandwith, so DDR3 1333 CL7 is faster then DDR3 2400 CL11 )
Use the mechanical RAID array as data drive (any data that needs high speed and low access times, like your bittorrent down- and upload folder or your windows swap file).
Use the SSD RAID array as level 2 read-only (if you value durability) caching disk.
Use your RAM as level 1 caching disk.
So let's say you have a hardware RAID controller like the one I have, a Highpoint 3560 24-channel sata 2 raid controller with 2 GB ddr2 667 ecc memory and a PCIe x8 bus, allowing for a maximum read/write I/O of 2666 MB/s (the maximum speed of the ram cache, bus speed is 4000 MB/s).
If I put 24 velociraptor 160 GB disks in RAID 101, I end up with a 960 GB (24 /2 /2 = 6 x 160 GB) capacity, big enough for 50 top-end games, with 600 MB/s sequential write and 2400 MB/s sequential read speeds.
Combine that with 8 x 32 GB SLC caching ssd's in RAID 10, you get a 128 GB caching disk with 3200 MB/s sequential and 1600 MB/s random read speeds with a random access time of less then 6 microseconds.
Then let's say you have an Intel Core i7 on a socket 2011 motherboard, with the maximum 64 GB of memory, which ideally would be DDR3 1600 with low latencies, or faster ram that has been "underclocked" using XMP, in the same way I used my DDR3 2133 CL11 to run at 1600 CL9, and I use 16 GB of that memory as ram cache, which combined with the overhead (32 GB) gives me 16 GB of "free" memory for my OS, games and other programs.
This will give me roughly 4000 MB/s random and 5000 MB/s sequential read and write speeds with access times in the nanosecond range.
So using the sample above this 960 GB harddisk would be faster then the fastest sata 3 ssd in write speeds, and MUCH faster then any ssd (even the Revodrive pci-e) in terms of read speeds and access times.
Replace the sata RAID controller with a 24/32-channel SAS controller, the sata drives with 15k rpm 3.5" SAS drives and you effectively double your continious throughput and lower your random access times by half.
Of course putting 32 ssd's in RAID 101 would be even faster, and eliminates the need for a SSD caching disk, but I would only recommend using multiple SSD's in RAID either as a caching disk or a game drive, but NOT for your bittorrent downloads or other server purposes that requires high write I/O's, which includes the windows pagefile / swap file.
All the figures above are based on averages achieved using Atto Diskbench, CrystalDiskMark and average copy times in windows explorer.
- WD Velociraptors score better as size increases, but average around 100 MB/s read/write when copying large files.
- SAS drives, 3.5" 15k rpm have 33% faster seek / access times but read and write speeds only exceed WD Velociraptors if the size is >66%, so only a SAS drive of equal size is actually faster then a WD Velociraptor, which means a 72 GB sas drive is slower then a 160 GB Velociraptor, but a 146 GB 15k sas drive is faster.
- A decent A-brand serial ata 3 ssd will operate around 500 MB/s sequential and 220 to 240 MB/s random read / write, with sustained copy speeds of 180 to 200 MB/s.
- SLC ssd's tend to be slower, most will operate around 400 MB/s sequential and 100 MB/s random read / write, copy speed is about the same (100 MB/s).
- Ramdisks do not vary in speed much, independant of the ram you use. You'll never get the theoretical maximum (8000 MB/s), but with DDR3 1333 or better you should easily pass 4000 MB/s, up to 6000 MB/s, averaging around 5000 MB/s.
I have not included pictures or printouts of these tests, since you can look these up yourself so if you doubt my words just google it and factcheck my work.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask below.
- Signed:
MrBurns
Senior Forum Administrator
Original founder of ArmadaShells
MrBurns- Admin
- Posts : 13
Join date : 2014-01-26
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum