Unless you're low on RAM and swapping a lot, SSD isn't going to make a gigantic difference. The main differences would be on startup, and then when zoning. From the way you're describing what you want to do, you might as well just come out and say you plan on running bots though.
Furthing Lax's assumption... Whats the point of having many wow's all minimized. Kinda defeats the purpose of playing, no?Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=140827#post1408 27
Similar to what the link above talked about. Gathering data but for my own personal and guilds use. All I want is a single pc which I can load the most clients on at once. I wont be zonning, moving them much if any at all so that is a non issue.
And again, if this isn't a post talking about the most clients you can actively play then why ask at this forum? Not even Sam would find joy in simply loading up clients without playing. The only thing you can do with this would be something shady like sticking 8 clients at a graveyard and farming honor with your guildmates off of them. Or botting, but it doesn't sound like you plan on moving them. :thumbdown:
Actually its nothing like that, it has more to do with staging photos and other stupid things like that. I am sorry I cant explain more but I think I got the answers I wanted.And again, if this isn't a post talking about the most clients you can actively play then why ask at this forum? Not even Sam would find joy in simply loading up clients without playing. The only thing you can do with this would be something shady like sticking 8 clients at a graveyard and farming honor with your guildmates off of them. Or botting, but it doesn't sound like you plan on moving them. :thumbdown:
Vista supports dual xeons - in fact that's what I run.
Actually its nothing like that, it has more to do with staging photos and other stupid things like that. I am sorry I cant explain more but I think I got the answers I wanted.
And again, if this isn't a post talking about the most clients you can actively play then why ask at this forum? Not even Sam would find joy in simply loading up clients without playing. The only thing you can do with this would be something shady like sticking 8 clients at a graveyard and farming honor with your guildmates off of them. Or botting, but it doesn't sound like you plan on moving them. :thumbdown:
"I am sorry I cant explain more" - I can smell a journalist looking for an easy story. Please tell us which publication/website you are working for. It may help things along. You could also be a data miner logging characters on each realm.
If you are a journalist and you are using this info for a story, then it's unethical to not state your intentions. Please re-read the SPJ Code of Ethics.
Better yet, here is the appropriate section - "Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story"
An SSD does NOT eliminate the bottleneck... it makes the bottleneck less drastic. Assuming you put the swap file on the SSD, you'll have one order of magnitude of bandwidth slowdown when you start swapping. This is versus two or more magnitudes of slowdown when you swap to the hard drive.
Well I wasn't thinking of putting the windows swap file on the SSD, the write is so slow that you only want to put WoW on the SSD so you get only reads and no writes.
In fact it would crazy to put the windows swap file on an SSD. Unless you are only doing reads from the swap file. But seems when you "swap" you also write. Actually you would want to limit the swap file, or even eliminate it (I think you can if you have 4 plus gig in your machine, not sure though) to be really low with a SSD drive so you don't swap but you just read what you need from the SSD when you need it.
An order of magnatude means that if you can run 10 wow's off a raptor, you can run 100 wow's from an SSD .....
Lax knows a ton more about these things then I do but Lets say each instance of wow needs say 1/2G of ram, and say you want to run 20 instances but you don't have 10G of ram. Well SSD is basically ram, with a 10X access time (which is a ton faster then HHD), and same thoughput time (I think). If wow only reads (which a Blue post said is the case), then if wow is on the SSD each client just goes to the SSD when it needs some data, instead of the system ram, its not losing much time. The processor gets its data from the cash, the cash can get it from the memory buss which can get it from the SSD or system ram. If the SSD can dump data onto the memory buss as fast as ram, then its just like ram. Of course the SSD has to be IDE or SATA and is limited by those busses. Humm ... And I don't know how wow is coded, if it needs infromation not in system ram does it go to the HDD and move data from there to the system ram ... well I don't know, I guess I have to read up on all that.
Is WoW writen in C or what? If it is then its just a matter of figureing out how C decides to get data to the processor thats not in system ram.
I guess buss saturation is going to be your limit actually, as it is in most high end applications.
Gah for the love of god... if you get an SSD drive, you want to put the swap file on it.
Modern flash will have 100,000+ erase/cycles per cell. Wear leveling will mean that the drive can take a 24/7 full churn for more than a year (in fact, the bus bandwidth limits this).
As I've said before... there is a difference between brands of SSDs. Maybe you're basing your opinions on stuff you've been playing with.
Where the heck do you assume that the writes to an SSD are so slow?
Read this - http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39204/135/
"Well I wasn't thinking of putting the windows swap file on the SSD, the write is so slow that you only want to put WoW on the SSD so you get only reads and no writes.
In fact it would crazy to put the windows swap file on an SSD. Unless you are only doing reads from the swap file. But seems when you "swap" you also write. Actually you would want to limit the swap file, or even eliminate it (I think you can if you have 4 plus gig in your machine, not sure though) to be really low with a SSD drive so you don't swap but you just read what you need from the SSD when you need it."
Do you have empirical data to back this up? Your whole assumption is based on SSD writes are "so slow" which actually isn't true.
Posting Rules
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us