I am interested in the Windows 7 feature "ReadyBoost," which uses a
USB/flash memory card as a cache for ordinary disk drives.

What I have in mind is using a fast solid state disk (SSD) as a BIG
cache for my mechanical disk drives.

ReadyBoost seems oriented towards small (one GByte or so) caches on
removable media. What I am interested in is a big cache on an SSD that
will reliably stay attached, so that the caching algorithm can be very
aggressive.

Does such a software package exist?
--
David Arnstein (00)
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com {{ }}
^^

 

"David Arnstein" <arnstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hr7sse$pll$1@reader1.panix.com...
> I am interested in the Windows 7 feature "ReadyBoost," which uses a
> USB/flash memory card as a cache for ordinary disk drives.
>
> What I have in mind is using a fast solid state disk (SSD) as a BIG
> cache for my mechanical disk drives.
>
> ReadyBoost seems oriented towards small (one GByte or so) caches on
> removable media. What I am interested in is a big cache on an SSD that
> will reliably stay attached, so that the caching algorithm can be very
> aggressive.
>
> Does such a software package exist?
> --
> David Arnstein (00)
> arnstein+usenet@pobox.com {{ }}
>

No, but such a hardware solution exists..
http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=51379&vpn=OCZSSDPCIE-ZDE84256G&manufacture=OCZ Technology

 

"Augustus" <gehenna@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:iVKBn.2670$z%6.871@edtnps83...
>
>
> "David Arnstein" <arnstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:hr7sse$pll$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> I am interested in the Windows 7 feature "ReadyBoost," which uses a
>> USB/flash memory card as a cache for ordinary disk drives.
>>
>> What I have in mind is using a fast solid state disk (SSD) as a BIG
>> cache for my mechanical disk drives.
>>
>> ReadyBoost seems oriented towards small (one GByte or so) caches on
>> removable media. What I am interested in is a big cache on an SSD that
>> will reliably stay attached, so that the caching algorithm can be very
>> aggressive.
>>
>> Does such a software package exist?
>> --
>> David Arnstein (00)
>> arnstein+usenet@pobox.com {{ }}
>>
>
> No, but such a hardware solution exists..
> http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=51379&vpn=OCZSSDPCIE-ZDE84256G&manufacture=OCZ Technology

Thats a pci-e mounted SSD. Whats the difference between that, and a drive
connected via a sata interface to the same pci-e bus for this application?


@ the OP. Why on earth would you use software? Just add the SSD and change
the windows (and any other) caches to point to it. Forget readyboost. The
interface speed of any flash connector is far below that of a sata based
SSD.

It would make more sense to instal you whole OS, caches and all, on the SSD
and keep a backup on one of the mechanicals.

 

On 4/27/2010 7:44 PM, David Arnstein wrote:
> I am interested in the Windows 7 feature "ReadyBoost," which uses a
> USB/flash memory card as a cache for ordinary disk drives.
>
> What I have in mind is using a fast solid state disk (SSD) as a BIG
> cache for my mechanical disk drives.
>
> ReadyBoost seems oriented towards small (one GByte or so) caches on
> removable media. What I am interested in is a big cache on an SSD that
> will reliably stay attached, so that the caching algorithm can be very
> aggressive.
>
> Does such a software package exist?

That sounds to be self-defeating. If you simply put the files on the SSD in
the first place no caching will ever be required.

 

In article <%yZBn.45093$uf6.1018@newsfe28.ams2>,
Mad Ad <~~@...madmail(at)ntlworld(dot)com...@~~> wrote:
>@ the OP. Why on earth would you use software? Just add the SSD and change
>the windows (and any other) caches to point to it. Forget readyboost. The
>interface speed of any flash connector is far below that of a sata based
>SSD.
>
>It would make more sense to instal you whole OS, caches and all, on the SSD
>and keep a backup on one of the mechanicals.

I agree with everything you write. My issue is that I have too much
data on disk to fit on an SSD. More precisely, I am not willing to pay
up for the SSDs I would need to hold all my data. I also find that
partitioning my data between SSD and mechanical D would be difficult.
I know that I want \WINDOWS to be on SSD, but there is a lot of data
there that I access very ralrely. Similarly for my applications data.

It would be so much easier if I could just let some (intelligent)
device driver decide what disk blocks to cache on 80 GBytes of SSD.
--
David Arnstein (00)
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com {{ }}
^^

 

"David Arnstein" <arnstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hra52j$hk5$2@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <%yZBn.45093$uf6.1018@newsfe28.ams2>,
> Mad Ad <~~@...madmail(at)ntlworld(dot)com...@~~> wrote:
>>@ the OP. Why on earth would you use software? Just add the SSD and
>>change
>>the windows (and any other) caches to point to it. Forget readyboost. The
>>interface speed of any flash connector is far below that of a sata based
>>SSD.
>>
>>It would make more sense to instal you whole OS, caches and all, on the
>>SSD
>>and keep a backup on one of the mechanicals.
>
> I agree with everything you write. My issue is that I have too much
> data on disk to fit on an SSD. More precisely, I am not willing to pay
> up for the SSDs I would need to hold all my data. I also find that
> partitioning my data between SSD and mechanical D would be difficult.
> I know that I want \WINDOWS to be on SSD, but there is a lot of data
> there that I access very ralrely. Similarly for my applications data.
>
> It would be so much easier if I could just let some (intelligent)
> device driver decide what disk blocks to cache on 80 GBytes of SSD.
> --
> David Arnstein (00)
> arnstein+usenet@pobox.com {{ }}
> ^^


80Gig? I was expecting you to say you have one of these new tiny ssds, I
have an 80gig too, a G2 split 25 gig per particion C: D: E: Atm my windows
is on C and has 10 gig spare, leaving 25gig for a games drive and 25 gig for
an application drive. I dont instal anything to C program files, C becomes
unweildy growing all the time so D and E take the instalations which i can
monitor and adjust more easily, this keeps C reasonably static in size (as
well as protecting my installed prog saves, setups and inis on DE if C goes
totally tits up).

In your case i would move D or E to a mech drive and use the whole 25gig for
whatever caches you needed. If you really want to get tight with C size then
use windows environment variables to move things like your desktop, swap,
common files etc to DE too.

 

"Mad Ad" <~~@...madmail(at)ntlworld(dot)com...@~~> wrote in message
news:WDjCn.988475$Dy7.57846@newsfe26.ams2...
>

> an application drive. I dont instal anything to C program files, C
> becomes unweildy growing all the time so D and E take the instalations
> which i can monitor and adjust more easily, this keeps C reasonably static
> in size (as well as protecting my installed prog saves, setups and inis on
> DE if C goes totally tits up).

And if C goes tits up you will STILL have to at least do a repair
installation of all your programs because they put entries in the Registry,
which, surprise surprise, is located on the C drive.
So installing programs to another partition other than C is completely
irrelevant and unnecessary...

 

Not to flame but:
What on earth would possess anyone to use a solid state hard drive as cache
over a USB bus for a mechanical hard drive?
I am interested in the thinking process here because I cannot imagine why
anyone would think that was a rational idea.
All current SSDs read at least twice as fast as mechanical hard drives but
writes may not be all that much faster, slower still over a USB bus, which
makes this even a more bizarre idea.

 

In article <hrcsgd$hqi$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
c_atiel <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What on earth would possess anyone to use a solid state hard drive as cache
>over a USB bus for a mechanical hard drive?

If you are addressing me, I would like to connect both SSD and
mechanical D directly to my motherboard using SATA. I don't want to
use USB at all.

>I am interested in the thinking process here because I cannot imagine why
>anyone would think that was a rational idea.
>All current SSDs read at least twice as fast as mechanical hard drives but
>writes may not be all that much faster, slower still over a USB bus, which
>makes this even a more bizarre idea.

Again, I want nothing to do with USB. I want direct connections using
SATA only. You seem to be saying that writes to SSDs are not very much
faster than writes to mechanical Ds. That is something for me to
consider.
--
David Arnstein (00)
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com {{ }}
^^

 

"c_atiel" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hrcsgd$hqi$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Not to flame but:
> What on earth would possess anyone to use a solid state hard drive as
> cache over a USB bus for a mechanical hard drive?
> I am interested in the thinking process here because I cannot imagine why
> anyone would think that was a rational idea.
> All current SSDs read at least twice as fast as mechanical hard drives but
> writes may not be all that much faster, slower still over a USB bus, which
> makes this even a more bizarre idea.


I was wondering the same thing...

 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:23:29 +0000 (UTC), arnstein@panix.com (David
Arnstein) wrote:

>In article <hrcsgd$hqi$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
>c_atiel <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>What on earth would possess anyone to use a solid state hard drive as cache
>>over a USB bus for a mechanical hard drive?
>
>If you are addressing me, I would like to connect both SSD and
>mechanical D directly to my motherboard using SATA. I don't want to
>use USB at all.
>
>>I am interested in the thinking process here because I cannot imagine why
>>anyone would think that was a rational idea.
>>All current SSDs read at least twice as fast as mechanical hard drives but
>>writes may not be all that much faster, slower still over a USB bus, which
>>makes this even a more bizarre idea.
>
>Again, I want nothing to do with USB. I want direct connections using
>SATA only. You seem to be saying that writes to SSDs are not very much
>faster than writes to mechanical Ds. That is something for me to
>consider.


You seem to be resurrecting the old computer scheme of having two
storage systems, originally referred to as "fast memory" and "slow
memory", in those days, usually drum or disk storage for the "fast
memory" and tape for "slow memory". I.O. data was written to fast
memory for temporary storage and subsequently to slow memory for
permanent storage.

For what ever reason they don't seem to do it this way any more,
perhaps because memory systems have progressed to the point where it
is no longer necessary?

For what it is worth, don't most hard disks come with a built in
cache?

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

In article <25akt5pr69amjboucbq6gs1nkr60pokvnk@4ax.com>,
John B. Slocomb <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:23:29 +0000 (UTC), arnstein@panix.com (David
>Arnstein) wrote:
>You seem to be resurrecting the old computer scheme of having two
>storage systems, originally referred to as "fast memory" and "slow
>memory", in those days, usually drum or disk storage for the "fast
>memory" and tape for "slow memory". I.O. data was written to fast
>memory for temporary storage and subsequently to slow memory for
>permanent storage.

Yes, exactly.

>For what it is worth, don't most hard disks come with a built in
>cache?

I see an opportunity for real progress in I/O speed. This opportunity
will vanish when SSDs become so cheap that ordinary folks like me can
afford to put ALL of our data on SSDs.

An SSD connected directly to the motherboard via SATA presents a
unique opportunity. The operating system could assume that it is a
secure, permanent backing store. This is in contrast to a USB storage
device, which could disappear at any time.

A device driver (or operating system) could take advantage of this
fast, yet permanent storage by allowing the cache to remain valid even
when the computer is power-cycled. In this scheme, I/O with the
backing store of mechanical disk(s) would become rare. Most I/O would
occur between DRAM and the caching SSD disk drive.

I suspect that some big server farms (Google?) are already using such
schemes.
--
David Arnstein (00)
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com {{ }}
^^

 

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 01:24:41 +0000 (UTC), arnstein@panix.com (David
Arnstein) wrote:

>In article <25akt5pr69amjboucbq6gs1nkr60pokvnk@4ax.com>,
>John B. Slocomb <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:23:29 +0000 (UTC), arnstein@panix.com (David
>>Arnstein) wrote:
>>You seem to be resurrecting the old computer scheme of having two
>>storage systems, originally referred to as "fast memory" and "slow
>>memory", in those days, usually drum or disk storage for the "fast
>>memory" and tape for "slow memory". I.O. data was written to fast
>>memory for temporary storage and subsequently to slow memory for
>>permanent storage.
>
>Yes, exactly.
>
>>For what it is worth, don't most hard disks come with a built in
>>cache?
>
>I see an opportunity for real progress in I/O speed. This opportunity
>will vanish when SSDs become so cheap that ordinary folks like me can
>afford to put ALL of our data on SSDs.
>
>An SSD connected directly to the motherboard via SATA presents a
>unique opportunity. The operating system could assume that it is a
>secure, permanent backing store. This is in contrast to a USB storage
>device, which could disappear at any time.
>
>A device driver (or operating system) could take advantage of this
>fast, yet permanent storage by allowing the cache to remain valid even
>when the computer is power-cycled. In this scheme, I/O with the
>backing store of mechanical disk(s) would become rare. Most I/O would
>occur between DRAM and the caching SSD disk drive.
>
>I suspect that some big server farms (Google?) are already using such
>schemes.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. You say a SSD connected via
SATA which, as far as I know, is how a SSD IS connected, or are you
talking about something connected directly to the memory bus - like
the current DIMM - with the CPU writing directly to it? In which case
it wouldn't be SATA.

I can see some problems with that. Do present SSD's accept reads and
writes at bus speeds? I doubt it.

A cursory look at Google says that SSD's seem to have transfer speeds
of between 200 - 400 MB/s while SATA-3 specs say 600 MB/s transfer
speed, which seems to say that the SATA system is not going to be the
bottle neck, that it is the storage device.

As always, there are two types of memory - fast memory, which today is
largely managed in the core memory (the DIMMs) and long term storage
memory (data base files).

Given the addressing ability of a 64 bit address register it would
seem likely that the solution is to expand the core memory to the
maximum and simply write anything needing long term storage out to
memory at the end of the session.

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

David .
I think your missing a couple things.
Check out ESATA ...a Live Plug in out external version of SATA.

READYBOOST spec say USB Flash Drive or USB HD etc etc.
Its usefulness is a lot about very fast ACCESS times. Even though the
overall
transfer speed may be average . FLASH drive is best choice all things
considered.

WINDOWS 7 can & will suggest to use almost as many GB's as the USB device
has.
BUT confusion has grown up that it goes only to 4GB because most USB Flash
drives
are formatted with FAT32 which has a 4GB file size limit ...just use NTFS
for larger.

The usual 'Professional' setup is to put the O/S Windows 7 on an SSD or some
physically separate drive of its own & everything else on other Drives...
WIN 7 can be installed in 22 GB's .. Without the Standby feature
Hyberfile.sys
& a small Pagefile setting will run in 10 Gigs.

I keep on intending to do this but to make it work comfortability all the
Win 7
Folder paths ..Programs...Documents...Pictures...etc. but NOT USERS folder
or the pagefile.sys (because its on the fastest drive) have to be set to the
'other' drive. Not easy.

SSD's vary enoumousely in speed. If any Bunny knows of one around 30 Gigs
that really offers higher performance than standard 7200rpm 3,5" HD
then please do tell.
IMO its still all for LapTops really. Readyboost included.
(\__/)
(='.' This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

 

"Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hrci9b$75o$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Mad Ad" <~~@...madmail(at)ntlworld(dot)com...@~~> wrote in message
> news:WDjCn.988475$Dy7.57846@newsfe26.ams2...
>>
>
>> an application drive. I dont instal anything to C program files, C
>> becomes unweildy growing all the time so D and E take the instalations
>> which i can monitor and adjust more easily, this keeps C reasonably
>> static in size (as well as protecting my installed prog saves, setups and
>> inis on DE if C goes totally tits up).
>
> And if C goes tits up you will STILL have to at least do a repair
> installation of all your programs because they put entries in the
> Registry, which, surprise surprise, is located on the C drive.
> So installing programs to another partition other than C is completely
> irrelevant and unnecessary...


You dont get it do you, why waste time, theres nothing on C I need. Nuke it,
Start again.

If you want repair instals then you are welcome to them.

 

"Mad Ad" <~~@...madmail(at)ntlworld(dot)com...@~~> wrote in message
news:9sSCn.8276$fO7.4742@newsfe22.ams2...
>
> You dont get it do you, why waste time, theres nothing on C I need. Nuke
> it, Start again.

So what's the point of installing programs on a different drive? Seems YOU
don't get it, not me. You'll still have to re-install them if you "nuke" the
C drive....

>
> If you want repair instals then you are welcome to them.

Nuked the C drive recently have we? Do all your programs still work?
Moron.

 

On 4/29/2010 12:48 PM, Mad Ad wrote:
> "David Arnstein" <arnstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:hra52j$hk5$2@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <%yZBn.45093$uf6.1018@newsfe28.ams2>,
>> Mad Ad <~~@...madmail(at)ntlworld(dot)com...@~~> wrote:
>>> @ the OP. Why on earth would you use software? Just add the SSD and
>>> change
>>> the windows (and any other) caches to point to it. Forget readyboost. The
>>> interface speed of any flash connector is far below that of a sata based
>>> SSD.
>>>
>>> It would make more sense to instal you whole OS, caches and all, on the
>>> SSD
>>> and keep a backup on one of the mechanicals.
>>
>> I agree with everything you write. My issue is that I have too much
>> data on disk to fit on an SSD. More precisely, I am not willing to pay
>> up for the SSDs I would need to hold all my data. I also find that
>> partitioning my data between SSD and mechanical D would be difficult.
>> I know that I want \WINDOWS to be on SSD, but there is a lot of data
>> there that I access very ralrely. Similarly for my applications data.
>>
>> It would be so much easier if I could just let some (intelligent)
>> device driver decide what disk blocks to cache on 80 GBytes of SSD.
>> --
>> David Arnstein (00)
>> arnstein+usenet@pobox.com {{ }}
>> ^^
>
>
> 80Gig? I was expecting you to say you have one of these new tiny ssds, I
> have an 80gig too, a G2 split 25 gig per particion C: D: E: Atm my windows
> is on C and has 10 gig spare, leaving 25gig for a games drive and 25 gig for
> an application drive. I dont instal anything to C program files, C becomes
> unweildy growing all the time so D and E take the instalations which i can
> monitor and adjust more easily, this keeps C reasonably static in size (as
> well as protecting my installed prog saves, setups and inis on DE if C goes
> totally tits up).
>
> In your case i would move D or E to a mech drive and use the whole 25gig for
> whatever caches you needed. If you really want to get tight with C size then
> use windows environment variables to move things like your desktop, swap,
> common files etc to DE too.

Having programs installed on another drive or partition is pointless
because if you should have to reinstall Windows, you also have to
reinstall the programs you had before. When you reinstall Windows you
start off with a virgin registry which knows nothing about the programs
that were previously installed. So you would wind up reinstalling the
programs in order to recreate the various registry entries that they
need to work properly.

The only advantage to having more than one partition on a drive would be
to store things like mp3's, video files, pictures, word processing
documents and things of that nature.

--

Roy Smith
Windows 7 Professional

Timestamp: Saturday, May 01, 2010 12:47:57 PM

 

I have a VERY large collection of ancient & modern Games
& assorted Apps.
Nearly all of them will run (by clicking on there main exe)
without 'Installation' into Win registry ..of a fresh install.
@@@

 

"Roy Smith" <rasmith1959@live.com> wrote in message
news:sPZCn.60845$vX7.49571@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...
> On 4/29/2010 12:48 PM, Mad Ad wrote:
>> "David Arnstein" <arnstein@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:hra52j$hk5$2@reader1.panix.com...
>>> In article <%yZBn.45093$uf6.1018@newsfe28.ams2>,
>>> Mad Ad <~~@...madmail(at)ntlworld(dot)com...@~~> wrote:
>>>> @ the OP. Why on earth would you use software? Just add the SSD and
>>>> change
>>>> the windows (and any other) caches to point to it. Forget readyboost.
>>>> The
>>>> interface speed of any flash connector is far below that of a sata
>>>> based
>>>> SSD.
>>>>
>>>> It would make more sense to instal you whole OS, caches and all, on the
>>>> SSD
>>>> and keep a backup on one of the mechanicals.
>>>
>>> I agree with everything you write. My issue is that I have too much
>>> data on disk to fit on an SSD. More precisely, I am not willing to pay
>>> up for the SSDs I would need to hold all my data. I also find that
>>> partitioning my data between SSD and mechanical D would be difficult.
>>> I know that I want \WINDOWS to be on SSD, but there is a lot of data
>>> there that I access very ralrely. Similarly for my applications data.
>>>
>>> It would be so much easier if I could just let some (intelligent)
>>> device driver decide what disk blocks to cache on 80 GBytes of SSD.
>>> --
>>> David Arnstein (00)
>>> arnstein+usenet@pobox.com {{ }}
>>> ^^
>>
>>
>> 80Gig? I was expecting you to say you have one of these new tiny ssds, I
>> have an 80gig too, a G2 split 25 gig per particion C: D: E: Atm my
>> windows
>> is on C and has 10 gig spare, leaving 25gig for a games drive and 25 gig
>> for
>> an application drive. I dont instal anything to C program files, C
>> becomes
>> unweildy growing all the time so D and E take the instalations which i
>> can
>> monitor and adjust more easily, this keeps C reasonably static in size
>> (as
>> well as protecting my installed prog saves, setups and inis on DE if C
>> goes
>> totally tits up).
>>
>> In your case i would move D or E to a mech drive and use the whole 25gig
>> for
>> whatever caches you needed. If you really want to get tight with C size
>> then
>> use windows environment variables to move things like your desktop, swap,
>> common files etc to DE too.
>
> Having programs installed on another drive or partition is pointless
> because if you should have to reinstall Windows, you also have to
> reinstall the programs you had before. When you reinstall Windows you
> start off with a virgin registry which knows nothing about the programs
> that were previously installed. So you would wind up reinstalling the
> programs in order to recreate the various registry entries that they
> need to work properly.

Yes indeed, installing the program again, then swapping in or importing the
existing (old) setups, plugins whatever, even copying the folder over whole
in many cases, without going through long and arduous setup proceedures for
the app itself (uh hell im certainly not reinstalling blender plugins when I
can copy over my existing folder).

Its all waiting for me, I can refer to the old D drive and scoop it up into
a folder and use it as an instal checklist. On top of all that, its
organised, games and video in D, apps in E. I like it that way.

>
> The only advantage to having more than one partition on a drive would be
> to store things like mp3's, video files, pictures, word processing
> documents and things of that nature.
>

So why is there an advantage for mp3s video etc, and not my program inis,
saves, setups, filters etc etc?

Ad

 

"Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hrhfg3$v7l$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Mad Ad" <~~@...madmail(at)ntlworld(dot)com...@~~> wrote in message
> news:9sSCn.8276$fO7.4742@newsfe22.ams2...
>>
>> You dont get it do you, why waste time, theres nothing on C I need. Nuke
>> it, Start again.
>
> So what's the point of installing programs on a different drive? Seems YOU
> don't get it, not me. You'll still have to re-install them if you "nuke"
> the C drive....
>
>>
>> If you want repair instals then you are welcome to them.
>
> Nuked the C drive recently have we? Do all your programs still work?
> Moron.
>
>
>

If I intended to offend people (as you seem quick to there) then id have
just told you to fuck off.

Otherwise, its how I like to have it, tough, live with it. Ive got better
things to do than arse about swapping insults just because you dont like how
I set my pc up lool. Grow the hell up.


Ad