Right but isn't the seek time the whole point of using a SSD instead of a 10000 rpm drive in raid 0?
I mean, I wouldn't expect using a USB flash drive to be as fast as a SSD, but maybe faster than loading the data file from a HDD? Would be awesome if someone would test it or something.
Correct, Vista will preload commonly used programs into RAM for quicker access. If the memory is needed then the precache is dumped to make room for programs.Originally Posted by 'BobGnarly',index.php?page=Thread&postID=112954#po st112954
My hypothesis was based on a particular functionality present in Vista. Vista attempts to "cache" parts of your drive into unused RAM. This is why Vista will usually appear to be using all the RAM you have, even if your applications really aren't. So my thought was, as you were running around in the game and reading textures, it should be caching all the textures into RAM. Then, when you zone to shat, org, w/e, those textures are in cache and you'd be retrieving them at RAM access speeds.
Again, this is all on paper, just thinking out loud.
I'm with you silencer on the wait for i7, but man, shat (and to a lesser degree, all the outlands) are soooo painful right now.
Norgannon
Paladin x 1 - Level 70
Paladin x 4 - Level 26
Shaman x 4 - Level 70
Warlock x 1 - Level 62
Warlock x 4 - Level 10
Hunter x 1 Level 15
Hunter x 4 Level 10
No, the USB bus is polled and not bi-directional. The bus itself is silly inefficient and is slower than a IDE or SATA connection.
Norgannon
Paladin x 1 - Level 70
Paladin x 4 - Level 26
Shaman x 4 - Level 70
Warlock x 1 - Level 62
Warlock x 4 - Level 10
Hunter x 1 Level 15
Hunter x 4 Level 10
Right but it's access times still destroy the HDD right? Each time you answer me it seems you're only talking about transfer speed, and not addressing access times.No, the USB bus is polled and not bi-directional. The bus itself is silly inefficient and is slower than a IDE or SATA connection.
I know Vista made that Ready Boost technology just exactly for this purpose, to read small bits of data off flash drives for faster performance due to access times so I'm having a hard time seeing how this would be different.
thats the problem
were not talking about small bits of date (for which it would be an improvement indeed)
we are talking about a 8.5gig /data/ folder....
seek time will indeed be better, but it is offset by the loading time it takes to get the 500mb texture file trough the usb bus into the ram....
Update on 32GB Price Slo-mo version. It is on sale + Mail In rebate:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227343
Original Price: $219.00
After $45 Sale: Price $174.00
After $60 Mail In Rebate: $114.00
Hurry
[Edit] Looks like all models have some kind of sale/rebate going on: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...TabStoreType=0[/Edit]
Just a quick update.. I haven't had much of a block of WoW time this last week - work & political research the last couple weeks is only eating more of my time lately.
I'm glad to see the price of SSDs (especially the Core series) decrease - it's a perfect solution for our use. The main thing I wanted to point out that I've noticed the past few times I've logged in, I haven't *ever* lost /follow since installing the SSD. I used to have to stop walking every 3-5 seconds while moving around in Shatt or the start of AV or I'd lose /follow, but now I can ride around with crusader aura or fly all around Shatt and never worry about having lost a /follower. Infamous Platforms is smart in offering SSDs to the multibox community - I'm sure they've done the testing to understand that the reduction in city lag from using a symlinked SSD over RAID0 Raptors is *far* greater than the benefit of going from a single typical 7200rpm drive to RAID0 Raptors.
Ex-WoW 5-boxer.
Currently playing:
Akama [Empire of Orlando]
Zandantilus - 85 Shaman, Teebow - 85 Paladin, Kodex - 85 Rogue.
Definitely going to 4-box Diablo 3 after testing the beta for how well this would work.
See, I'm not sure if you really understand what's going on, because if the files loaded were 500mb big then a 10,000 rpm drive would smoke a SSD. The reason the OP has such a huge performance gain from a SSD is because the files in the data folder are small enough that the gains in access times make up for the losses in sequential read or throughput. So it seems to me these same type of gains, maybe on a smaller level could be made with USB flash instead.thats the problem
were not talking about small bits of date (for which it would be an improvement indeed)
we are talking about a 8.5gig /data/ folder....
seek time will indeed be better, but it is offset by the loading time it takes to get the 500mb texture file trough the usb bus into the ram....
I'm not completely sure I know what I'm talking about either, but I want to make sure you're following my logic here!
actually the thru put of the ssd is about 60 megs per second with no seek time seek time where as the thru put of a decent hard drive is around 60 megs per second with seek time.
These ssd are basically flash drives that are raided together to get better thruput yer basic flash drive gets about anywhere from 5-15 megs a second thru put.
So using a flash drive aint gonna cut it if yeh hit a major city and have to load 100 megs of textures times that by 5 and yer looking at a slide show.
Posting Rules
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us