In news:uGQyF7rcJHA.2444@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
Twayne typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:00:02 -0500:
>> In news:O$Uj0PqcJHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:48:01 -0700:
>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>> In news:u0ZtvkocJHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:37:28 -0400:
>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In news:udaUlOncJHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:03:17 -0400:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ardent wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days with
>>>>>>>> no deterioration in performance - editing video and audio
>>>>>>>> files.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits of
>>>>>>> running without a pagefile?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi John! Some machines I use a pagefile and some I don't. I
>>>>>> started not to since using SSD instead of hard drives. As too
>>>>>> much writing to a SSD slows them down and shortens their
>>>>>> lifespan.
>>>>>
>>>>> A few days ago you told us that your SSD drives had a very long
>>>>> life expectancy. Do you intend on living longer than 228 years?
>>>>
>>>> Yes true and since I limit my writing to the SSD to about 100MB per
>>>> day, my 8GB SSD should last over 22,000 years. But writing a lot
>>>> unnecessary can reduce one to a short 11 years.
>>>
>>> But the point I made before (given a typical SSD 100,000 maximum
>>> disk writing cycles, and with most of those going on continously
>>> behind the scenes by the operating system) comes out to about 3
>>> years, not 11 years.
>>
>> How do you figure Bill? I figured that you have to rewrite the whole
>> SSD 24 times a day and it would only last 11 years. I am not
>> including wear leveling which I guess could make it ½ as bad (but
>> doesn't matter with whole SSD writes anyway). But with me on the
>> computer all day browsing, email, and newgrouping I only average
>> about 100MB writes a day. I know this because I buffer all writes to
>> RAM with MS EWF before commiting. That would take like 22,000 years
>> to wear out one of my 8GB SSD @ 100,000 complete writes. Or the worst
>> case with wear leveling acting with every write (which is very
>> unlikely), 11,000 years.
>> One manufacture figured out that that the average SSD will last 228
>> years. Obviously they plan on more writing than I am doing. I do turn
>> off the pagefile as this greatly decreases my writes and improves
>> performance. Although I must have enough RAM to make this possible.
>>
>> There are times that I do write a lot like converting video files
>> which can be GB worth. Here I throw on an USB hard drive (or network
>> to one) for these big writes. But I don't do this a lot and it isn't
>> a big deal to do so.
>>
>> So while you believe you can wear out a SSD in 3 years, I seriously
>> doubt that unless you used all of your time to actually try too. Then
>> and only then, maybe. But most users I don't believe they can wear
>> one out in 100 years using it normally.
>
> Actually, considering the case of running an OS on one, the lifetime
> would be seriously cut short of the numbers normally tossed about. And
> remember, things like MTBF and write cycles are all statistical
> calculations complete with a bell curve and all. Get a component
> that's too far to the side of the bell, and it's not going to last
> long, even though it carries the same life expectancy numbers.

Yes and I gave the worst possible case that I know of. That was taking a
8GB SSD and totally writing it over for 24 times a day, it would take
over 11 years to write over every location 100,000 times. First of all,
I seriously doubt anybody could write over a 8GB SSD completely 24 times
a day. But let's say they could, that is tons of work and couldn't be
done if most people tried.

> Anyway: That's because of the constant read/write accesses to the
> registry among other system files. Since those writes are going to go
> to a consistantly identifiable address set, those locations would get
> a lot of writing to them over the course of a day, even if the machine
> weren't used. Consider just the clock, for instance, and

I use MS EWF which keeps a running tab on writes. In fact it buffers all
writes until I tell it to write. I too thought that Windows with all of
the registry hits and updating all of the last accessed timestamps would
push this to a very high amount. But I use a SSD all day and the average
is 100MB per day (like in 8 hours, although today it is more like 100MB
in 18 hours).

> I don't know about the 3 years but I do suspect that number isn't too
> far off. The "wear" of writing is not an overall number. When you
> get it pinned down, EACH address location can be written to so many
> times. After that, the location is going to become unreliable and
> eventually deteriorate to non-useful, even though overall, the rest
> of the locations are going to be just fine, as in, for example, where
> your own writings land in the addressing scheme. Those vary and the
> timing formulae work.
> There are always gotchas to these things.
>
> OTOH, I do think that with some of the technologic advances we're
> seeing, that it won't be too long before we see something akin to SSD
> being turned into a disk drive with no moving parts. At that point,
> alpha migration and all that obscure stuff becomes the life-span
> determinants. There are already some types of SSD-like drives
> available but it will be quite awhile yet before they see prime time.
> THAT is where they become really interesting!

No, no, Twayne! Modern day SSD uses wear leveling. I asked and thought
the very same thing you did and I asked what happens when one spot hits
over 100,000 times? The answer was the SSD is smart enough to mark it as
unusable and nothing bad happens except the amount of usable bytes goes
down. And unlike a hard drive which becomes worthless if some locations
becomes dead (like the boot sector), SSD can ignore any area and replace
it.

That seems pretty acceptable to me. As overtime, the capacity starts to
drop off and I could adjust and probably get a new SSD. But wait, it is
much better than this. SSD also includes wear leveling. What does this
mean? That means it is impossible to write one area 100,000 times
without writing the rest like 100,000 times. Thus if you save 4kb over
and over again, it isn't saving to the same place over and over again,
but different locations over and over again.

Thus once the SSD starts dropping in capacity, it is time to get rid of
it very quickly. As once this happens, every location is very close to
be written 100,000 times and you don't have much time left. I have never
seen this yet in my lifetime, but I have heard for others who has. All
from cheap flash memory of course which probably doesn't have wear
leveling and maybe only good for 10,000 writes or less.

I have 5 SSD and one I hit very hard. The rest are very little. So if
they actually have a short life, I will soon know about it. But as far
as my figures, I won't be alive by the time it actually fails. Time will
tell of course, but they are good for at least 6 months so far.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

BillW50 wrote:
> In news:uJgorFrcJHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:24:25 -0700:
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>> In news:O$Uj0PqcJHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
>>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:48:01 -0700:
>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>> In news:u0ZtvkocJHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:37:28 -0400:
>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In news:udaUlOncJHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:03:17 -0400:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ardent wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days with
>>>>>>>>> no deterioration in performance - editing video and audio
>>>>>>>>> files.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits of
>>>>>>>> running without a pagefile?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi John! Some machines I use a pagefile and some I don't. I
>>>>>>> started not to since using SSD instead of hard drives. As too
>>>>>>> much writing to a SSD slows them down and shortens their
>>>>>>> lifespan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A few days ago you told us that your SSD drives had a very long
>>>>>> life expectancy. Do you intend on living longer than 228 years?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes true and since I limit my writing to the SSD to about 100MB per
>>>>> day, my 8GB SSD should last over 22,000 years. But writing a lot
>>>>> unnecessary can reduce one to a short 11 years.
>>>>
>>>> But the point I made before (given a typical SSD 100,000 maximum
>>>> disk writing cycles, and with most of those going on continously
>>>> behind the scenes by the operating system) comes out to about 3
>>>> years, not 11 years.
>>>
>>> How do you figure Bill? I figured that you have to rewrite the whole
>>> SSD 24 times a day and it would only last 11 years. I am not
>>> including wear leveling which I guess could make it ½ as bad (but
>>> doesn't matter with whole SSD writes anyway). But with me on the
>>> computer all day browsing, email, and newgrouping I only average
>>> about 100MB writes a day. I know this because I buffer all writes to
>>> RAM with MS EWF before commiting. That would take like 22,000 years
>>> to wear out one of my 8GB SSD @ 100,000 complete writes. Or the
>>> worst case with wear leveling acting with every write (which is very
>>> unlikely), 11,000 years.
>>
>> It's not the actual number of MB (megabytes) written a day to the HD
>> that's spec'd. It's the number of actual disk writes to the HD that
>> counts (not the file sizes in MB, (IIRC). And I don't think it has
>> to be rewriting the whole SSD for that figure of 100,000 maximum
>> writes, but I don't recall all the details.
>>
>> So, if we assume there are nominally say 100 writing cycles to the HD
>> each day, with many going on behind the scenes (this may be a low
>> number), then given the 100,000 maximum write spec of a SSD, we get:
>> 100,000 / 100 per day = 1000 days, or 3 years, more or less.
>
> No it doesn't work that way. As one small area can be written 100,000
> times. Then the next small area can be written 100,000 times and so on.
> So the SSD itself can be written zillions of times. Every area has to be
> written 100,000 times. The worst case is writing everything in one pass.
> This would take 11 years writing 24 times a day. Which is normally
> impossible unless you are trying to do so.

OK.

>>> One manufacture figured out that that the average SSD will last 228
>>> years.
>>
>> But as I mentioned in a previous post, that may be just sitting
>> there, not taking into account the actual number of disk writes going
>> on in RL.
>
> No the number of writes only effect a very small part of the SSD. Only
> if you write to the whole SSD every time it would be only 100,000
> writes. But who overwrites the whole SSD 24 times a day? Writing smaller
> blocks, writing becomes many times more than 100,000 times. We are
> talking about billions or more writes.
>
>>> Obviously they plan on more writing than I am doing.
>>
>> I just don't know that for a fact. Who knows. But if you look at
>> my calculations above, obviously something is wrong somewhere in some
>> assumptions.
>>
>> <snipped for brevity>
>
> Not really! The 100,000 writes means every small segment has to be
> written that many times. If you are only writing 100MB per day with a
> 8GB SSD, that won't happen for like 22,000 years.
>
> I didn't mention wear leveling. As this makes sure that one area isn't
> written too much more than the other areas. Kind of like defrag except
> to equal out all of the writes evenly. And the worst case is it has to
> move everything during every write (which is like impossible, but let's
> just say it has too). Then my 22,000 year example would only last 11,000
> years. The truth is that it would last somewhere between 11,000 to
> 22,000 years.

Well, if that's the case, then I'm mistaken, and I guess we won't have much
to worry about.

I'll probably have to wait until the 32 GB SSDs are more affordable. I
haven't looked at the prices yet, so I wonder how much one of those costs,
and if it really could be used to replace the internal system HD with no
drawbacks or problems. Well, I'd still need the other one for larger
storage, but at least that one could be used to store all programs and
system files and most of my data (except for the audio and video files).

BillW50 wrote:
> In news:er41EDscJHA.556@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
> Twayne typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:14:19 -0500:
>> BillW said:
>>
>>> what John fails to understand that I am also a retired electronic
>>> engineer. Now if he wants to claim I don't know how the process
>>> address space works. I beg to differ. As I am sure I know far better
>>> than he does about this subject just by his reply. And if he actually
>>> knew what he was talking about, he wouldn't have made that claim in
>>> the first place.
>>
>> No offense, but I don't see that as meaning a single thing w/r to
>> credence or abilities. I'd also question the "electronic" part of
>> that comment - I doubt that's what's on your sheep skin unless it was
>> a diploma from a 3rd worlder.
>
> Oh geez! Do I have to go into ones and zeros and how logic circuits
> work? Most computer users don't have a clue and it isn't necessary to
> know how a computer works to actually use them. And to do it correctly,
> it would take about 2 years anyway to go into all of the details. That
> being said, I *do* know how addresses and data lines actually works,
> thank you very much. And to question a hardware engineer how the
> hardware works is a bit like telling a rocket scientist how a rocket
> works. Yes I have engineered computers to control missles too, so I
> think I know a little of what I am talking about here.

Sometimes the ones that don't actually have the degree make those snide
remarks.

The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 8:13:48 PM, and on a
whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:

> BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:uJgorFrcJHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:24:25 -0700:
>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>> In news:O$Uj0PqcJHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
>>>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:48:01 -0700:
>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>> In news:u0ZtvkocJHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:37:28 -0400:
>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In news:udaUlOncJHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:03:17 -0400:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ardent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days with
>>>>>>>>>> no deterioration in performance - editing video and audio
>>>>>>>>>> files.
>>>>>>>>> Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits of
>>>>>>>>> running without a pagefile?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi John! Some machines I use a pagefile and some I don't. I
>>>>>>>> started not to since using SSD instead of hard drives. As too
>>>>>>>> much writing to a SSD slows them down and shortens their
>>>>>>>> lifespan.
>>>>>>> A few days ago you told us that your SSD drives had a very long
>>>>>>> life expectancy. Do you intend on living longer than 228 years?
>>>>>> Yes true and since I limit my writing to the SSD to about 100MB per
>>>>>> day, my 8GB SSD should last over 22,000 years. But writing a lot
>>>>>> unnecessary can reduce one to a short 11 years.
>>>>> But the point I made before (given a typical SSD 100,000 maximum
>>>>> disk writing cycles, and with most of those going on continously
>>>>> behind the scenes by the operating system) comes out to about 3
>>>>> years, not 11 years.
>>>> How do you figure Bill? I figured that you have to rewrite the whole
>>>> SSD 24 times a day and it would only last 11 years. I am not
>>>> including wear leveling which I guess could make it ½ as bad (but
>>>> doesn't matter with whole SSD writes anyway). But with me on the
>>>> computer all day browsing, email, and newgrouping I only average
>>>> about 100MB writes a day. I know this because I buffer all writes to
>>>> RAM with MS EWF before commiting. That would take like 22,000 years
>>>> to wear out one of my 8GB SSD @ 100,000 complete writes. Or the
>>>> worst case with wear leveling acting with every write (which is very
>>>> unlikely), 11,000 years.
>>> It's not the actual number of MB (megabytes) written a day to the HD
>>> that's spec'd. It's the number of actual disk writes to the HD that
>>> counts (not the file sizes in MB, (IIRC). And I don't think it has
>>> to be rewriting the whole SSD for that figure of 100,000 maximum
>>> writes, but I don't recall all the details.
>>>
>>> So, if we assume there are nominally say 100 writing cycles to the HD
>>> each day, with many going on behind the scenes (this may be a low
>>> number), then given the 100,000 maximum write spec of a SSD, we get:
>>> 100,000 / 100 per day = 1000 days, or 3 years, more or less.
>> No it doesn't work that way. As one small area can be written 100,000
>> times. Then the next small area can be written 100,000 times and so on.
>> So the SSD itself can be written zillions of times. Every area has to be
>> written 100,000 times. The worst case is writing everything in one pass.
>> This would take 11 years writing 24 times a day. Which is normally
>> impossible unless you are trying to do so.
>
> OK.
>
>>>> One manufacture figured out that that the average SSD will last 228
>>>> years.
>>> But as I mentioned in a previous post, that may be just sitting
>>> there, not taking into account the actual number of disk writes going
>>> on in RL.
>> No the number of writes only effect a very small part of the SSD. Only
>> if you write to the whole SSD every time it would be only 100,000
>> writes. But who overwrites the whole SSD 24 times a day? Writing smaller
>> blocks, writing becomes many times more than 100,000 times. We are
>> talking about billions or more writes.
>>
>>>> Obviously they plan on more writing than I am doing.
>>> I just don't know that for a fact. Who knows. But if you look at
>>> my calculations above, obviously something is wrong somewhere in some
>>> assumptions.
>>>
>>> <snipped for brevity>
>> Not really! The 100,000 writes means every small segment has to be
>> written that many times. If you are only writing 100MB per day with a
>> 8GB SSD, that won't happen for like 22,000 years.
>>
>> I didn't mention wear leveling. As this makes sure that one area isn't
>> written too much more than the other areas. Kind of like defrag except
>> to equal out all of the writes evenly. And the worst case is it has to
>> move everything during every write (which is like impossible, but let's
>> just say it has too). Then my 22,000 year example would only last 11,000
>> years. The truth is that it would last somewhere between 11,000 to
>> 22,000 years.
>
> Well, if that's the case, then I'm mistaken, and I guess we won't have much
> to worry about.
>
> I'll probably have to wait until the 32 GB SSDs are more affordable. I
> haven't looked at the prices yet, so I wonder how much one of those costs,
> and if it really could be used to replace the internal system HD with no
> drawbacks or problems. Well, I'd still need the other one for larger
> storage, but at least that one could be used to store all programs and
> system files and most of my data (except for the audio and video files).
>
>

32/64 gig SSD's are affordable. And some newer ones are extremely fast
(check out Samsung drives). But those aren't affordable. ;-)

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Terry R. wrote:
> The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 8:13:48 PM, and on a
> whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>> In news:uJgorFrcJHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
>>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:24:25 -0700:
>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>> In news:O$Uj0PqcJHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
>>>>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:48:01 -0700:
>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>> In news:u0ZtvkocJHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:37:28 -0400:
>>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In news:udaUlOncJHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:03:17 -0400:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ardent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days with
>>>>>>>>>>> no deterioration in performance - editing video and audio
>>>>>>>>>>> files.
>>>>>>>>>> Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits of
>>>>>>>>>> running without a pagefile?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi John! Some machines I use a pagefile and some I don't. I
>>>>>>>>> started not to since using SSD instead of hard drives. As too
>>>>>>>>> much writing to a SSD slows them down and shortens their
>>>>>>>>> lifespan.
>>>>>>>> A few days ago you told us that your SSD drives had a very long
>>>>>>>> life expectancy. Do you intend on living longer than 228 years?
>>>>>>> Yes true and since I limit my writing to the SSD to about 100MB per
>>>>>>> day, my 8GB SSD should last over 22,000 years. But writing a lot
>>>>>>> unnecessary can reduce one to a short 11 years.
>>>>>> But the point I made before (given a typical SSD 100,000 maximum
>>>>>> disk writing cycles, and with most of those going on continously
>>>>>> behind the scenes by the operating system) comes out to about 3
>>>>>> years, not 11 years.
>>>>> How do you figure Bill? I figured that you have to rewrite the whole
>>>>> SSD 24 times a day and it would only last 11 years. I am not
>>>>> including wear leveling which I guess could make it ½ as bad (but
>>>>> doesn't matter with whole SSD writes anyway). But with me on the
>>>>> computer all day browsing, email, and newgrouping I only average
>>>>> about 100MB writes a day. I know this because I buffer all writes to
>>>>> RAM with MS EWF before commiting. That would take like 22,000 years
>>>>> to wear out one of my 8GB SSD @ 100,000 complete writes. Or the
>>>>> worst case with wear leveling acting with every write (which is very
>>>>> unlikely), 11,000 years.
>>>> It's not the actual number of MB (megabytes) written a day to the HD
>>>> that's spec'd. It's the number of actual disk writes to the HD that
>>>> counts (not the file sizes in MB, (IIRC). And I don't think it has
>>>> to be rewriting the whole SSD for that figure of 100,000 maximum
>>>> writes, but I don't recall all the details.
>>>>
>>>> So, if we assume there are nominally say 100 writing cycles to the HD
>>>> each day, with many going on behind the scenes (this may be a low
>>>> number), then given the 100,000 maximum write spec of a SSD, we get:
>>>> 100,000 / 100 per day = 1000 days, or 3 years, more or less.
>>> No it doesn't work that way. As one small area can be written 100,000
>>> times. Then the next small area can be written 100,000 times and so on.
>>> So the SSD itself can be written zillions of times. Every area has to be
>>> written 100,000 times. The worst case is writing everything in one pass.
>>> This would take 11 years writing 24 times a day. Which is normally
>>> impossible unless you are trying to do so.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>>>> One manufacture figured out that that the average SSD will last 228
>>>>> years.
>>>> But as I mentioned in a previous post, that may be just sitting
>>>> there, not taking into account the actual number of disk writes going
>>>> on in RL.
>>> No the number of writes only effect a very small part of the SSD. Only
>>> if you write to the whole SSD every time it would be only 100,000
>>> writes. But who overwrites the whole SSD 24 times a day? Writing smaller
>>> blocks, writing becomes many times more than 100,000 times. We are
>>> talking about billions or more writes.
>>>
>>>>> Obviously they plan on more writing than I am doing.
>>>> I just don't know that for a fact. Who knows. But if you look at
>>>> my calculations above, obviously something is wrong somewhere in some
>>>> assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>> Not really! The 100,000 writes means every small segment has to be
>>> written that many times. If you are only writing 100MB per day with a
>>> 8GB SSD, that won't happen for like 22,000 years.
>>>
>>> I didn't mention wear leveling. As this makes sure that one area isn't
>>> written too much more than the other areas. Kind of like defrag except
>>> to equal out all of the writes evenly. And the worst case is it has to
>>> move everything during every write (which is like impossible, but let's
>>> just say it has too). Then my 22,000 year example would only last 11,000
>>> years. The truth is that it would last somewhere between 11,000 to
>>> 22,000 years.
>>
>> Well, if that's the case, then I'm mistaken, and I guess we won't have
>> much
>> to worry about.
>>
>> I'll probably have to wait until the 32 GB SSDs are more affordable. I
>> haven't looked at the prices yet, so I wonder how much one of those
>> costs,
>> and if it really could be used to replace the internal system HD with no
>> drawbacks or problems. Well, I'd still need the other one for larger
>> storage, but at least that one could be used to store all programs and
>> system files and most of my data (except for the audio and video files).
>
> 32/64 gig SSD's are affordable. And some newer ones are extremely fast
> (check out Samsung drives). But those aren't affordable. ;-)

I'm just wondering if a 32 GB SSD drive were priced at around, say, $50,
what would be the real disadvantage of replacing the internal system drive
with it?
(Assuming a second internal HD of much larger capacity could be used to
store everything else, like large video and audio files). And how are
they actually connected inside? I guess I'll have to look it up.

The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 11:34:10 PM, and on a
whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:

> Terry R. wrote:
>> The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 8:13:48 PM, and on a
>> whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>> In news:uJgorFrcJHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
>>>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:24:25 -0700:
>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>> In news:O$Uj0PqcJHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
>>>>>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:48:01 -0700:
>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In news:u0ZtvkocJHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:37:28 -0400:
>>>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In news:udaUlOncJHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:03:17 -0400:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ardent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days with
>>>>>>>>>>>> no deterioration in performance - editing video and audio
>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits of
>>>>>>>>>>> running without a pagefile?
>>>>>>>>>> Hi John! Some machines I use a pagefile and some I don't. I
>>>>>>>>>> started not to since using SSD instead of hard drives. As too
>>>>>>>>>> much writing to a SSD slows them down and shortens their
>>>>>>>>>> lifespan.
>>>>>>>>> A few days ago you told us that your SSD drives had a very long
>>>>>>>>> life expectancy. Do you intend on living longer than 228 years?
>>>>>>>> Yes true and since I limit my writing to the SSD to about 100MB per
>>>>>>>> day, my 8GB SSD should last over 22,000 years. But writing a lot
>>>>>>>> unnecessary can reduce one to a short 11 years.
>>>>>>> But the point I made before (given a typical SSD 100,000 maximum
>>>>>>> disk writing cycles, and with most of those going on continously
>>>>>>> behind the scenes by the operating system) comes out to about 3
>>>>>>> years, not 11 years.
>>>>>> How do you figure Bill? I figured that you have to rewrite the whole
>>>>>> SSD 24 times a day and it would only last 11 years. I am not
>>>>>> including wear leveling which I guess could make it ½ as bad (but
>>>>>> doesn't matter with whole SSD writes anyway). But with me on the
>>>>>> computer all day browsing, email, and newgrouping I only average
>>>>>> about 100MB writes a day. I know this because I buffer all writes to
>>>>>> RAM with MS EWF before commiting. That would take like 22,000 years
>>>>>> to wear out one of my 8GB SSD @ 100,000 complete writes. Or the
>>>>>> worst case with wear leveling acting with every write (which is very
>>>>>> unlikely), 11,000 years.
>>>>> It's not the actual number of MB (megabytes) written a day to the HD
>>>>> that's spec'd. It's the number of actual disk writes to the HD that
>>>>> counts (not the file sizes in MB, (IIRC). And I don't think it has
>>>>> to be rewriting the whole SSD for that figure of 100,000 maximum
>>>>> writes, but I don't recall all the details.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if we assume there are nominally say 100 writing cycles to the HD
>>>>> each day, with many going on behind the scenes (this may be a low
>>>>> number), then given the 100,000 maximum write spec of a SSD, we get:
>>>>> 100,000 / 100 per day = 1000 days, or 3 years, more or less.
>>>> No it doesn't work that way. As one small area can be written 100,000
>>>> times. Then the next small area can be written 100,000 times and so on.
>>>> So the SSD itself can be written zillions of times. Every area has to be
>>>> written 100,000 times. The worst case is writing everything in one pass.
>>>> This would take 11 years writing 24 times a day. Which is normally
>>>> impossible unless you are trying to do so.
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>>>> One manufacture figured out that that the average SSD will last 228
>>>>>> years.
>>>>> But as I mentioned in a previous post, that may be just sitting
>>>>> there, not taking into account the actual number of disk writes going
>>>>> on in RL.
>>>> No the number of writes only effect a very small part of the SSD. Only
>>>> if you write to the whole SSD every time it would be only 100,000
>>>> writes. But who overwrites the whole SSD 24 times a day? Writing smaller
>>>> blocks, writing becomes many times more than 100,000 times. We are
>>>> talking about billions or more writes.
>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously they plan on more writing than I am doing.
>>>>> I just don't know that for a fact. Who knows. But if you look at
>>>>> my calculations above, obviously something is wrong somewhere in some
>>>>> assumptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>>> Not really! The 100,000 writes means every small segment has to be
>>>> written that many times. If you are only writing 100MB per day with a
>>>> 8GB SSD, that won't happen for like 22,000 years.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't mention wear leveling. As this makes sure that one area isn't
>>>> written too much more than the other areas. Kind of like defrag except
>>>> to equal out all of the writes evenly. And the worst case is it has to
>>>> move everything during every write (which is like impossible, but let's
>>>> just say it has too). Then my 22,000 year example would only last 11,000
>>>> years. The truth is that it would last somewhere between 11,000 to
>>>> 22,000 years.
>>> Well, if that's the case, then I'm mistaken, and I guess we won't have
>>> much
>>> to worry about.
>>>
>>> I'll probably have to wait until the 32 GB SSDs are more affordable. I
>>> haven't looked at the prices yet, so I wonder how much one of those
>>> costs,
>>> and if it really could be used to replace the internal system HD with no
>>> drawbacks or problems. Well, I'd still need the other one for larger
>>> storage, but at least that one could be used to store all programs and
>>> system files and most of my data (except for the audio and video files).
>> 32/64 gig SSD's are affordable. And some newer ones are extremely fast
>> (check out Samsung drives). But those aren't affordable. ;-)
>
> I'm just wondering if a 32 GB SSD drive were priced at around, say, $50,
> what would be the real disadvantage of replacing the internal system drive
> with it?
> (Assuming a second internal HD of much larger capacity could be used to
> store everything else, like large video and audio files). And how are
> they actually connected inside? I guess I'll have to look it up.
>
>

I don't know if they'll get that low. ;-) With this new technology,
there won't be any disadvantages IMO. They'll only get faster and can
take a lot more abuse. Especially good for laptop owners with slippery
fingers.

The newest ones are hard drive replacements. They are 2½" and have SATA
connectors.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Terry R. wrote:
> The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 11:34:10 PM, and on a
> whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 8:13:48 PM, and on a
>>> whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>
>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>> In news:uJgorFrcJHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
>>>>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:24:25 -0700:
>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>> In news:O$Uj0PqcJHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:48:01 -0700:
>>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In news:u0ZtvkocJHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:37:28 -0400:
>>>>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In news:udaUlOncJHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:03:17 -0400:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ardent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no deterioration in performance - editing video and audio
>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits of
>>>>>>>>>>>> running without a pagefile?
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi John! Some machines I use a pagefile and some I don't. I
>>>>>>>>>>> started not to since using SSD instead of hard drives. As too
>>>>>>>>>>> much writing to a SSD slows them down and shortens their
>>>>>>>>>>> lifespan.
>>>>>>>>>> A few days ago you told us that your SSD drives had a very long
>>>>>>>>>> life expectancy. Do you intend on living longer than 228 years?
>>>>>>>>> Yes true and since I limit my writing to the SSD to about 100MB
>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>> day, my 8GB SSD should last over 22,000 years. But writing a lot
>>>>>>>>> unnecessary can reduce one to a short 11 years.
>>>>>>>> But the point I made before (given a typical SSD 100,000 maximum
>>>>>>>> disk writing cycles, and with most of those going on continously
>>>>>>>> behind the scenes by the operating system) comes out to about 3
>>>>>>>> years, not 11 years.
>>>>>>> How do you figure Bill? I figured that you have to rewrite the whole
>>>>>>> SSD 24 times a day and it would only last 11 years. I am not
>>>>>>> including wear leveling which I guess could make it ½ as bad (but
>>>>>>> doesn't matter with whole SSD writes anyway). But with me on the
>>>>>>> computer all day browsing, email, and newgrouping I only average
>>>>>>> about 100MB writes a day. I know this because I buffer all writes to
>>>>>>> RAM with MS EWF before commiting. That would take like 22,000 years
>>>>>>> to wear out one of my 8GB SSD @ 100,000 complete writes. Or the
>>>>>>> worst case with wear leveling acting with every write (which is very
>>>>>>> unlikely), 11,000 years.
>>>>>> It's not the actual number of MB (megabytes) written a day to the HD
>>>>>> that's spec'd. It's the number of actual disk writes to the HD that
>>>>>> counts (not the file sizes in MB, (IIRC). And I don't think it has
>>>>>> to be rewriting the whole SSD for that figure of 100,000 maximum
>>>>>> writes, but I don't recall all the details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if we assume there are nominally say 100 writing cycles to the HD
>>>>>> each day, with many going on behind the scenes (this may be a low
>>>>>> number), then given the 100,000 maximum write spec of a SSD, we get:
>>>>>> 100,000 / 100 per day = 1000 days, or 3 years, more or less.
>>>>> No it doesn't work that way. As one small area can be written 100,000
>>>>> times. Then the next small area can be written 100,000 times and so
>>>>> on.
>>>>> So the SSD itself can be written zillions of times. Every area has to
>>>>> be
>>>>> written 100,000 times. The worst case is writing everything in one
>>>>> pass.
>>>>> This would take 11 years writing 24 times a day. Which is normally
>>>>> impossible unless you are trying to do so.
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>>>>> One manufacture figured out that that the average SSD will last 228
>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>> But as I mentioned in a previous post, that may be just sitting
>>>>>> there, not taking into account the actual number of disk writes going
>>>>>> on in RL.
>>>>> No the number of writes only effect a very small part of the SSD. Only
>>>>> if you write to the whole SSD every time it would be only 100,000
>>>>> writes. But who overwrites the whole SSD 24 times a day? Writing
>>>>> smaller
>>>>> blocks, writing becomes many times more than 100,000 times. We are
>>>>> talking about billions or more writes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously they plan on more writing than I am doing.
>>>>>> I just don't know that for a fact. Who knows. But if you look at
>>>>>> my calculations above, obviously something is wrong somewhere in some
>>>>>> assumptions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>>>> Not really! The 100,000 writes means every small segment has to be
>>>>> written that many times. If you are only writing 100MB per day with a
>>>>> 8GB SSD, that won't happen for like 22,000 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't mention wear leveling. As this makes sure that one area isn't
>>>>> written too much more than the other areas. Kind of like defrag except
>>>>> to equal out all of the writes evenly. And the worst case is it has to
>>>>> move everything during every write (which is like impossible, but
>>>>> let's
>>>>> just say it has too). Then my 22,000 year example would only last
>>>>> 11,000
>>>>> years. The truth is that it would last somewhere between 11,000 to
>>>>> 22,000 years.
>>>> Well, if that's the case, then I'm mistaken, and I guess we won't have
>>>> much
>>>> to worry about.
>>>>
>>>> I'll probably have to wait until the 32 GB SSDs are more affordable.
>>>> I
>>>> haven't looked at the prices yet, so I wonder how much one of those
>>>> costs,
>>>> and if it really could be used to replace the internal system HD with
>>>> no
>>>> drawbacks or problems. Well, I'd still need the other one for larger
>>>> storage, but at least that one could be used to store all programs and
>>>> system files and most of my data (except for the audio and video
>>>> files).
>>> 32/64 gig SSD's are affordable. And some newer ones are extremely fast
>>> (check out Samsung drives). But those aren't affordable. ;-)
>>
>> I'm just wondering if a 32 GB SSD drive were priced at around, say, $50,
>> what would be the real disadvantage of replacing the internal system
>> drive
>> with it?
>> (Assuming a second internal HD of much larger capacity could be used to
>> store everything else, like large video and audio files). And how are
>> they actually connected inside? I guess I'll have to look it up.
>>
>>
>
> I don't know if they'll get that low. ;-) With this new technology,
> there won't be any disadvantages IMO. They'll only get faster and can
> take a lot more abuse. Especially good for laptop owners with slippery
> fingers.
>
> The newest ones are hard drive replacements. They are 2½" and have SATA
> connectors.

Thanks. I just read a bit about them, and it seems they are still a bit
pricey.
And I also noted the 2.5 inch SATA thing, geared mainly toward laptops.

Well, maybe they'll come out with some 3.5 inch ones for desktop computers
when the prices finally drop. Either that, or an adapter, so it can be
slipped directly in to replace the standard 3.5 SATA desktop drive.

The date and time was Sat Jan 10 2009 13:54:07 GMT-0800 (Pacific
Standard Time), and on a whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:

> Terry R. wrote:
>> The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 11:34:10 PM, and on a
>> whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>> The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 8:13:48 PM, and on a
>>>> whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>>
>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>> In news:uJgorFrcJHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
>>>>>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:24:25 -0700:
>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In news:O$Uj0PqcJHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:48:01 -0700:
>>>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In news:u0ZtvkocJHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:37:28 -0400:
>>>>>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In news:udaUlOncJHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:03:17 -0400:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ardent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no deterioration in performance - editing video and audio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> running without a pagefile?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi John! Some machines I use a pagefile and some I don't. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> started not to since using SSD instead of hard drives. As too
>>>>>>>>>>>> much writing to a SSD slows them down and shortens their
>>>>>>>>>>>> lifespan.
>>>>>>>>>>> A few days ago you told us that your SSD drives had a very long
>>>>>>>>>>> life expectancy. Do you intend on living longer than 228 years?
>>>>>>>>>> Yes true and since I limit my writing to the SSD to about 100MB
>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>> day, my 8GB SSD should last over 22,000 years. But writing a lot
>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary can reduce one to a short 11 years.
>>>>>>>>> But the point I made before (given a typical SSD 100,000 maximum
>>>>>>>>> disk writing cycles, and with most of those going on continously
>>>>>>>>> behind the scenes by the operating system) comes out to about 3
>>>>>>>>> years, not 11 years.
>>>>>>>> How do you figure Bill? I figured that you have to rewrite the whole
>>>>>>>> SSD 24 times a day and it would only last 11 years. I am not
>>>>>>>> including wear leveling which I guess could make it ½ as bad (but
>>>>>>>> doesn't matter with whole SSD writes anyway). But with me on the
>>>>>>>> computer all day browsing, email, and newgrouping I only average
>>>>>>>> about 100MB writes a day. I know this because I buffer all writes to
>>>>>>>> RAM with MS EWF before commiting. That would take like 22,000 years
>>>>>>>> to wear out one of my 8GB SSD @ 100,000 complete writes. Or the
>>>>>>>> worst case with wear leveling acting with every write (which is very
>>>>>>>> unlikely), 11,000 years.
>>>>>>> It's not the actual number of MB (megabytes) written a day to the HD
>>>>>>> that's spec'd. It's the number of actual disk writes to the HD that
>>>>>>> counts (not the file sizes in MB, (IIRC). And I don't think it has
>>>>>>> to be rewriting the whole SSD for that figure of 100,000 maximum
>>>>>>> writes, but I don't recall all the details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, if we assume there are nominally say 100 writing cycles to the HD
>>>>>>> each day, with many going on behind the scenes (this may be a low
>>>>>>> number), then given the 100,000 maximum write spec of a SSD, we get:
>>>>>>> 100,000 / 100 per day = 1000 days, or 3 years, more or less.
>>>>>> No it doesn't work that way. As one small area can be written 100,000
>>>>>> times. Then the next small area can be written 100,000 times and so
>>>>>> on.
>>>>>> So the SSD itself can be written zillions of times. Every area has to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> written 100,000 times. The worst case is writing everything in one
>>>>>> pass.
>>>>>> This would take 11 years writing 24 times a day. Which is normally
>>>>>> impossible unless you are trying to do so.
>>>>> OK.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One manufacture figured out that that the average SSD will last 228
>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>> But as I mentioned in a previous post, that may be just sitting
>>>>>>> there, not taking into account the actual number of disk writes going
>>>>>>> on in RL.
>>>>>> No the number of writes only effect a very small part of the SSD. Only
>>>>>> if you write to the whole SSD every time it would be only 100,000
>>>>>> writes. But who overwrites the whole SSD 24 times a day? Writing
>>>>>> smaller
>>>>>> blocks, writing becomes many times more than 100,000 times. We are
>>>>>> talking about billions or more writes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously they plan on more writing than I am doing.
>>>>>>> I just don't know that for a fact. Who knows. But if you look at
>>>>>>> my calculations above, obviously something is wrong somewhere in some
>>>>>>> assumptions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>>>>> Not really! The 100,000 writes means every small segment has to be
>>>>>> written that many times. If you are only writing 100MB per day with a
>>>>>> 8GB SSD, that won't happen for like 22,000 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't mention wear leveling. As this makes sure that one area isn't
>>>>>> written too much more than the other areas. Kind of like defrag except
>>>>>> to equal out all of the writes evenly. And the worst case is it has to
>>>>>> move everything during every write (which is like impossible, but
>>>>>> let's
>>>>>> just say it has too). Then my 22,000 year example would only last
>>>>>> 11,000
>>>>>> years. The truth is that it would last somewhere between 11,000 to
>>>>>> 22,000 years.
>>>>> Well, if that's the case, then I'm mistaken, and I guess we won't have
>>>>> much
>>>>> to worry about.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll probably have to wait until the 32 GB SSDs are more affordable.
>>>>> I
>>>>> haven't looked at the prices yet, so I wonder how much one of those
>>>>> costs,
>>>>> and if it really could be used to replace the internal system HD with
>>>>> no
>>>>> drawbacks or problems. Well, I'd still need the other one for larger
>>>>> storage, but at least that one could be used to store all programs and
>>>>> system files and most of my data (except for the audio and video
>>>>> files).
>>>> 32/64 gig SSD's are affordable. And some newer ones are extremely fast
>>>> (check out Samsung drives). But those aren't affordable. ;-)
>>> I'm just wondering if a 32 GB SSD drive were priced at around, say, $50,
>>> what would be the real disadvantage of replacing the internal system
>>> drive
>>> with it?
>>> (Assuming a second internal HD of much larger capacity could be used to
>>> store everything else, like large video and audio files). And how are
>>> they actually connected inside? I guess I'll have to look it up.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know if they'll get that low. ;-) With this new technology,
>> there won't be any disadvantages IMO. They'll only get faster and can
>> take a lot more abuse. Especially good for laptop owners with slippery
>> fingers.
>>
>> The newest ones are hard drive replacements. They are 2½" and have SATA
>> connectors.
>
> Thanks. I just read a bit about them, and it seems they are still a bit
> pricey.
> And I also noted the 2.5 inch SATA thing, geared mainly toward laptops.
>
> Well, maybe they'll come out with some 3.5 inch ones for desktop computers
> when the prices finally drop. Either that, or an adapter, so it can be
> slipped directly in to replace the standard 3.5 SATA desktop drive.
>
>

You don't need a 3½. The WD 10,000 RPM Raptors are 2½" drives that have
a heat sink that fits a 3½. There are adapters for 2½" drives that are
readily available.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

BillW50 wrote:
> In news:er41EDscJHA.556@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
> Twayne typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:14:19 -0500:
>> BillW said:
>>
>>> what John fails to understand that I am also a retired electronic
>>> engineer. Now if he wants to claim I don't know how the process
>>> address space works. I beg to differ. As I am sure I know far better
>>> than he does about this subject just by his reply. And if he actually
>>> knew what he was talking about, he wouldn't have made that claim in
>>> the first place.
>>
>> No offense, but I don't see that as meaning a single thing w/r to
>> credence or abilities. I'd also question the "electronic" part of
>> that comment - I doubt that's what's on your sheep skin unless it was
>> a diploma from a 3rd worlder.
>
> Oh geez! Do I have to go into ones and zeros and how logic circuits
> work? Most computer users don't have a clue and it isn't necessary to
> know how a computer works to actually use them. And to do it correctly,
> it would take about 2 years anyway to go into all of the details. That
> being said, I *do* know how addresses and data lines actually works,
> thank you very much. And to question a hardware engineer how the
> hardware works is a bit like telling a rocket scientist how a rocket
> works. Yes I have engineered computers to control missles too, so I
> think I know a little of what I am talking about here.

Sometimes the ones that don't actually have the degree make those snide
remarks (like: "doubt that's what's on your sheep skin unless it was
a diploma from a 3rd worlder"), Bill. (Just keep that in mind. :-)

Terry R. wrote:
> The date and time was Sat Jan 10 2009 13:54:07 GMT-0800 (Pacific
> Standard Time), and on a whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 11:34:10 PM, and on a
>>> whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>
>>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>>> The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 8:13:48 PM, and on a
>>>>> whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>> In news:uJgorFrcJHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:24:25 -0700:
>>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In news:O$Uj0PqcJHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:48:01 -0700:
>>>>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In news:u0ZtvkocJHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:37:28 -0400:
>>>>>>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In news:udaUlOncJHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:03:17 -0400:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ardent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no deterioration in performance - editing video and audio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running without a pagefile?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi John! Some machines I use a pagefile and some I don't. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> started not to since using SSD instead of hard drives. As too
>>>>>>>>>>>>> much writing to a SSD slows them down and shortens their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lifespan.
>>>>>>>>>>>> A few days ago you told us that your SSD drives had a very long
>>>>>>>>>>>> life expectancy. Do you intend on living longer than 228
>>>>>>>>>>>> years?
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes true and since I limit my writing to the SSD to about 100MB
>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>> day, my 8GB SSD should last over 22,000 years. But writing a lot
>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary can reduce one to a short 11 years.
>>>>>>>>>> But the point I made before (given a typical SSD 100,000 maximum
>>>>>>>>>> disk writing cycles, and with most of those going on continously
>>>>>>>>>> behind the scenes by the operating system) comes out to about 3
>>>>>>>>>> years, not 11 years.
>>>>>>>>> How do you figure Bill? I figured that you have to rewrite the
>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>> SSD 24 times a day and it would only last 11 years. I am not
>>>>>>>>> including wear leveling which I guess could make it ½ as bad (but
>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter with whole SSD writes anyway). But with me on the
>>>>>>>>> computer all day browsing, email, and newgrouping I only average
>>>>>>>>> about 100MB writes a day. I know this because I buffer all writes
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> RAM with MS EWF before commiting. That would take like 22,000
>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>> to wear out one of my 8GB SSD @ 100,000 complete writes. Or the
>>>>>>>>> worst case with wear leveling acting with every write (which is
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> unlikely), 11,000 years.
>>>>>>>> It's not the actual number of MB (megabytes) written a day to the
>>>>>>>> HD
>>>>>>>> that's spec'd. It's the number of actual disk writes to the HD
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> counts (not the file sizes in MB, (IIRC). And I don't think it
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> to be rewriting the whole SSD for that figure of 100,000 maximum
>>>>>>>> writes, but I don't recall all the details.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, if we assume there are nominally say 100 writing cycles to the
>>>>>>>> HD
>>>>>>>> each day, with many going on behind the scenes (this may be a low
>>>>>>>> number), then given the 100,000 maximum write spec of a SSD, we
>>>>>>>> get:
>>>>>>>> 100,000 / 100 per day = 1000 days, or 3 years, more or less.
>>>>>>> No it doesn't work that way. As one small area can be written
>>>>>>> 100,000
>>>>>>> times. Then the next small area can be written 100,000 times and so
>>>>>>> on.
>>>>>>> So the SSD itself can be written zillions of times. Every area has
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> written 100,000 times. The worst case is writing everything in one
>>>>>>> pass.
>>>>>>> This would take 11 years writing 24 times a day. Which is normally
>>>>>>> impossible unless you are trying to do so.
>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One manufacture figured out that that the average SSD will last
>>>>>>>>> 228
>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>> But as I mentioned in a previous post, that may be just sitting
>>>>>>>> there, not taking into account the actual number of disk writes
>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>> on in RL.
>>>>>>> No the number of writes only effect a very small part of the SSD.
>>>>>>> Only
>>>>>>> if you write to the whole SSD every time it would be only 100,000
>>>>>>> writes. But who overwrites the whole SSD 24 times a day? Writing
>>>>>>> smaller
>>>>>>> blocks, writing becomes many times more than 100,000 times. We are
>>>>>>> talking about billions or more writes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obviously they plan on more writing than I am doing.
>>>>>>>> I just don't know that for a fact. Who knows. But if you look
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> my calculations above, obviously something is wrong somewhere in
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> assumptions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>>>>>> Not really! The 100,000 writes means every small segment has to be
>>>>>>> written that many times. If you are only writing 100MB per day with
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> 8GB SSD, that won't happen for like 22,000 years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't mention wear leveling. As this makes sure that one area
>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>> written too much more than the other areas. Kind of like defrag
>>>>>>> except
>>>>>>> to equal out all of the writes evenly. And the worst case is it has
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> move everything during every write (which is like impossible, but
>>>>>>> let's
>>>>>>> just say it has too). Then my 22,000 year example would only last
>>>>>>> 11,000
>>>>>>> years. The truth is that it would last somewhere between 11,000 to
>>>>>>> 22,000 years.
>>>>>> Well, if that's the case, then I'm mistaken, and I guess we won't
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> to worry about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll probably have to wait until the 32 GB SSDs are more affordable.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> haven't looked at the prices yet, so I wonder how much one of those
>>>>>> costs,
>>>>>> and if it really could be used to replace the internal system HD with
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> drawbacks or problems. Well, I'd still need the other one for
>>>>>> larger
>>>>>> storage, but at least that one could be used to store all programs
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> system files and most of my data (except for the audio and video
>>>>>> files).
>>>>> 32/64 gig SSD's are affordable. And some newer ones are extremely fast
>>>>> (check out Samsung drives). But those aren't affordable. ;-)
>>>> I'm just wondering if a 32 GB SSD drive were priced at around, say,
>>>> $50,
>>>> what would be the real disadvantage of replacing the internal system
>>>> drive
>>>> with it?
>>>> (Assuming a second internal HD of much larger capacity could be used to
>>>> store everything else, like large video and audio files). And how
>>>> are
>>>> they actually connected inside? I guess I'll have to look it up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't know if they'll get that low. ;-) With this new technology,
>>> there won't be any disadvantages IMO. They'll only get faster and can
>>> take a lot more abuse. Especially good for laptop owners with slippery
>>> fingers.
>>>
>>> The newest ones are hard drive replacements. They are 2½" and have SATA
>>> connectors.
>>
>> Thanks. I just read a bit about them, and it seems they are still a bit
>> pricey.
>> And I also noted the 2.5 inch SATA thing, geared mainly toward laptops.
>>
>> Well, maybe they'll come out with some 3.5 inch ones for desktop
>> computers
>> when the prices finally drop. Either that, or an adapter, so it can be
>> slipped directly in to replace the standard 3.5 SATA desktop drive.
>>
>>
>
> You don't need a 3½. The WD 10,000 RPM Raptors are 2½" drives that have
> a heat sink that fits a 3½. There are adapters for 2½" drives that are
> readily available.

I was talking about (someday) replacing the existing 3.5" SATA internal hard
drive inside my desktop computer with a SSD. (i.e., just slipping it in the
same spot on the Dell and screwing it down with the same screws).

The date and time was Sat Jan 10 2009 15:09:21 GMT-0800 (Pacific
Standard Time), and on a whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:

> Terry R. wrote:
>> The date and time was Sat Jan 10 2009 13:54:07 GMT-0800 (Pacific
>> Standard Time), and on a whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>> The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 11:34:10 PM, and on a
>>>> whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>>
>>>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>> The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 8:13:48 PM, and on a
>>>>>> whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In news:uJgorFrcJHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:24:25 -0700:
>>>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In news:O$Uj0PqcJHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:48:01 -0700:
>>>>>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In news:u0ZtvkocJHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:37:28 -0400:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In news:udaUlOncJHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:03:17 -0400:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ardent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no deterioration in performance - editing video and audio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running without a pagefile?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi John! Some machines I use a pagefile and some I don't. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started not to since using SSD instead of hard drives. As too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much writing to a SSD slows them down and shortens their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lifespan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few days ago you told us that your SSD drives had a very long
>>>>>>>>>>>>> life expectancy. Do you intend on living longer than 228
>>>>>>>>>>>>> years?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes true and since I limit my writing to the SSD to about 100MB
>>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>>> day, my 8GB SSD should last over 22,000 years. But writing a lot
>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary can reduce one to a short 11 years.
>>>>>>>>>>> But the point I made before (given a typical SSD 100,000 maximum
>>>>>>>>>>> disk writing cycles, and with most of those going on continously
>>>>>>>>>>> behind the scenes by the operating system) comes out to about 3
>>>>>>>>>>> years, not 11 years.
>>>>>>>>>> How do you figure Bill? I figured that you have to rewrite the
>>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>>> SSD 24 times a day and it would only last 11 years. I am not
>>>>>>>>>> including wear leveling which I guess could make it ½ as bad (but
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter with whole SSD writes anyway). But with me on the
>>>>>>>>>> computer all day browsing, email, and newgrouping I only average
>>>>>>>>>> about 100MB writes a day. I know this because I buffer all writes
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> RAM with MS EWF before commiting. That would take like 22,000
>>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>>> to wear out one of my 8GB SSD @ 100,000 complete writes. Or the
>>>>>>>>>> worst case with wear leveling acting with every write (which is
>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>> unlikely), 11,000 years.
>>>>>>>>> It's not the actual number of MB (megabytes) written a day to the
>>>>>>>>> HD
>>>>>>>>> that's spec'd. It's the number of actual disk writes to the HD
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> counts (not the file sizes in MB, (IIRC). And I don't think it
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> to be rewriting the whole SSD for that figure of 100,000 maximum
>>>>>>>>> writes, but I don't recall all the details.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, if we assume there are nominally say 100 writing cycles to the
>>>>>>>>> HD
>>>>>>>>> each day, with many going on behind the scenes (this may be a low
>>>>>>>>> number), then given the 100,000 maximum write spec of a SSD, we
>>>>>>>>> get:
>>>>>>>>> 100,000 / 100 per day = 1000 days, or 3 years, more or less.
>>>>>>>> No it doesn't work that way. As one small area can be written
>>>>>>>> 100,000
>>>>>>>> times. Then the next small area can be written 100,000 times and so
>>>>>>>> on.
>>>>>>>> So the SSD itself can be written zillions of times. Every area has
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> written 100,000 times. The worst case is writing everything in one
>>>>>>>> pass.
>>>>>>>> This would take 11 years writing 24 times a day. Which is normally
>>>>>>>> impossible unless you are trying to do so.
>>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One manufacture figured out that that the average SSD will last
>>>>>>>>>> 228
>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>> But as I mentioned in a previous post, that may be just sitting
>>>>>>>>> there, not taking into account the actual number of disk writes
>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>> on in RL.
>>>>>>>> No the number of writes only effect a very small part of the SSD.
>>>>>>>> Only
>>>>>>>> if you write to the whole SSD every time it would be only 100,000
>>>>>>>> writes. But who overwrites the whole SSD 24 times a day? Writing
>>>>>>>> smaller
>>>>>>>> blocks, writing becomes many times more than 100,000 times. We are
>>>>>>>> talking about billions or more writes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously they plan on more writing than I am doing.
>>>>>>>>> I just don't know that for a fact. Who knows. But if you look
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> my calculations above, obviously something is wrong somewhere in
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> assumptions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>>>>>>> Not really! The 100,000 writes means every small segment has to be
>>>>>>>> written that many times. If you are only writing 100MB per day with
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> 8GB SSD, that won't happen for like 22,000 years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't mention wear leveling. As this makes sure that one area
>>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>>> written too much more than the other areas. Kind of like defrag
>>>>>>>> except
>>>>>>>> to equal out all of the writes evenly. And the worst case is it has
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> move everything during every write (which is like impossible, but
>>>>>>>> let's
>>>>>>>> just say it has too). Then my 22,000 year example would only last
>>>>>>>> 11,000
>>>>>>>> years. The truth is that it would last somewhere between 11,000 to
>>>>>>>> 22,000 years.
>>>>>>> Well, if that's the case, then I'm mistaken, and I guess we won't
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> to worry about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll probably have to wait until the 32 GB SSDs are more affordable.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> haven't looked at the prices yet, so I wonder how much one of those
>>>>>>> costs,
>>>>>>> and if it really could be used to replace the internal system HD with
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> drawbacks or problems. Well, I'd still need the other one for
>>>>>>> larger
>>>>>>> storage, but at least that one could be used to store all programs
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> system files and most of my data (except for the audio and video
>>>>>>> files).
>>>>>> 32/64 gig SSD's are affordable. And some newer ones are extremely fast
>>>>>> (check out Samsung drives). But those aren't affordable. ;-)
>>>>> I'm just wondering if a 32 GB SSD drive were priced at around, say,
>>>>> $50,
>>>>> what would be the real disadvantage of replacing the internal system
>>>>> drive
>>>>> with it?
>>>>> (Assuming a second internal HD of much larger capacity could be used to
>>>>> store everything else, like large video and audio files). And how
>>>>> are
>>>>> they actually connected inside? I guess I'll have to look it up.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know if they'll get that low. ;-) With this new technology,
>>>> there won't be any disadvantages IMO. They'll only get faster and can
>>>> take a lot more abuse. Especially good for laptop owners with slippery
>>>> fingers.
>>>>
>>>> The newest ones are hard drive replacements. They are 2½" and have SATA
>>>> connectors.
>>> Thanks. I just read a bit about them, and it seems they are still a bit
>>> pricey.
>>> And I also noted the 2.5 inch SATA thing, geared mainly toward laptops.
>>>
>>> Well, maybe they'll come out with some 3.5 inch ones for desktop
>>> computers
>>> when the prices finally drop. Either that, or an adapter, so it can be
>>> slipped directly in to replace the standard 3.5 SATA desktop drive.
>>>
>>>
>> You don't need a 3½. The WD 10,000 RPM Raptors are 2½" drives that have
>> a heat sink that fits a 3½. There are adapters for 2½" drives that are
>> readily available.
>
> I was talking about (someday) replacing the existing 3.5" SATA internal hard
> drive inside my desktop computer with a SSD. (i.e., just slipping it in the
> same spot on the Dell and screwing it down with the same screws).
>
>

Yes, I know. Like I said, you can get an adapter for a 2½" drive that
will allow it to fit in a 3½" opening.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:03:17 -0400, "John John (MVP)"
<audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>> And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days with no
>> deterioration in performance - editing video and audio files.
>
>Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits of running
>without a pagefile?

It is not just space (on a 250gb HDD); Memory is faster than disk and
also a lot of disk thrashing is avoided.

And I have never met any downside so why bother?


--
Thanks for your time and attention
Archer

Ardent wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:03:17 -0400, "John John (MVP)"
> <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>>And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days with no
>>>deterioration in performance - editing video and audio files.
>>
>>Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits of running
>>without a pagefile?
>
>
> It is not just space (on a 250gb HDD); Memory is faster than disk and
> also a lot of disk thrashing is avoided.

Somehow the notion of a machine doing "a lot of disk thrashing" (by
pagefile) and the same machine being able to run without the pagefile
just don't reconcile!

Pagefile writes do not cause "a lot of disk thrashing", this kind of
trashing that you describe is only brought about by "hard page faults",
meaning that the required pages are not found in the memory so they have
to be brought in (read) from the disk, it doesn't matter how much RAM
you have if you have a lot of hard faults you will get "disk trashing",
hard page faults are not caused by the pagefile. Writing to the
pagefile is done by the Lazy Writer, this is a utility thread that runs
in the background, it doesn't have much of any impact of performance.

The Standby pages are "lazily" written to the pagefile in "anticipation"
that they might be required by another process. The Memory Manager
prepares the Standby pages so that they can be sent to the Free list and
subsequently to the Zero list to be made available to other processes.
The Standby pages are not immediately sent to the Free list or Zero
written, they remain available to the application that had them, if the
application requires the page again a "soft page fault" will be
triggered and the page will be returned from the Standby list back to
the application's Working Set, this doesn't cause any disk trashing, the
page is already in the RAM. The Windows Memory Manager is designed to
avoid as much hard page faults and disk reads as possible, as long as
there is free RAM available the Memory Manager will not send the Standby
pages to the Free list, it will keep everything it can in the RAM, as a
matter of fact much of the available RAM reported by the Task Manager is
actually made up of Standby pages.

John