speed up a disk drive using a ssd

[WINTERLORD]

I was wondering how this can be done and what free programs if any would I need or do I need any special type of hardware other then a ssd and a hard drive? not sure what id be looking for but any good articles or info on this would be great

 

[USAFRet]

There are various ways of using an SSD as a cache drive, but.....much more info needed.

What drive is it? Size, make, etc.
What are the other drives?

 

[rhysiam]

Is this for a Windows build?

Intel Rapid Storage Technology (RST) does exactly what you're asking and by all accounts it's pretty effective.

A full review is here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/intel-z68-chipset-smart-response-technology-ssd-caching-review

You need an Intel Sandy Bridge CPU or later (2xxx , 3xxx or 4xxx series CPU).

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Your talking about Intel Smart response Technology ..... was written about as if it was going to drastically change everything bit frankly it fizzled.

http://www.ukgamingcomputers.co.uk/difference-between-h67-p67-z68-and-h61-chipsets-a-22.html

Finally, another feature of a Z68 chipset is known as SSD caching which is where it allows the use of a small (say 10 or 20 GB) Solid state hard drive to act as a cache for a larger ‘traditional’ hard disk. If you are already planning the use of a Solid State drive this feature is redundant.

If you can’t afford a decent size SSD (40GB+) then there are more cost effective ways around using a small SSD and SSD cashing like spending less on a motherboard, (H67 chipset or even a P67 chipset) and putting the saved money into a decent size SSD.

 

[WINTERLORD]

I only have a i7 950 bloomfield cpu, x58 platform as for use im hoping I couldf partition the ssd 120gb Kingston hyperx and use one part for windows install and the second part as a cache for a Seagate 2tb drive for games and such mainly to speed up loading on games

 

[USAFRet]

I only have a i7 950 bloomfield cpu, x58 platform as for use im hoping I couldf partition the ssd 120gb Kingston hyperx and use one part for windows install and the second part as a cache for a Seagate 2tb drive for games and such mainly to speed up loading on games

Oh good grief do not do that.
The 120GB Kingston is far better just used as OS and applications drive.

Split it in 'half'....1 for the OS and applications, 1 for the 'cache'...and your OS/application partition will be too small to use effectively.

 

[rhysiam]

Your talking about Intel Smart response Technology ..... was written about as if it was going to drastically change everything bit frankly it fizzled.

http://www.ukgamingcomputers.co.uk/difference-between-h67-p67-z68-and-h61-chipsets-a-22.html

Finally, another feature of a Z68 chipset is known as SSD caching which is where it allows the use of a small (say 10 or 20 GB) Solid state hard drive to act as a cache for a larger ‘traditional’ hard disk. If you are already planning the use of a Solid State drive this feature is redundant.

If you can’t afford a decent size SSD (40GB+) then there are more cost effective ways around using a small SSD and SSD cashing like spending less on a motherboard, (H67 chipset or even a P67 chipset) and putting the saved money into a decent size SSD.

That's pretty harsh! I was NOT suggest that Intel RST was going to 'drastically change everything'... my precise words were:
'it does exactly what you're asking' (which it does)
and
'by all accounts it's pretty effective' - which is far from suggesting it's world changing!

Furthermore I've referenced a detailed review by a reputable tech site with several thousand words, numerous benchmarks, etc. You've referenced an opinion piece of several hundred words that only addresses the tech in a few passing comments. They only dismiss it because it's not cost effective (buy a cheaper motherboard). If OP already has an RST capable CPU + mobo... that argument is irrelevant.

I agree wholeheartedly that Intel RST never really gained much traction, but in my view that's because as SSD prices continued to drop, manufacturers moved away from the tiny cache-sized drives because their costs were too close to that of larger drives. Most users tech-savvy enough to utilise RST knew that a dedicated OS SSD is better (as it is, of course!) and were prepared to spend the extra to go that route.

The technology does actually work, even if it never gained much traction.

Anyway, this is a moot point because OP's platform is pre RST, so that's not an option anyways.

Just as an FYI to @USAFRet and anyone who stumbled across this thread from a Google search, the following forum thread shows a really cute tweak to utilise Intel RST to allow a single SSD to function both as a dedicated SSD only OS drive, AND, then allocate a small portion of the single SSD as an RST cache for a mechanical HDD.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2172381

Given the tweak/workaround required it seems that Intel never really intended RST to be used this way, but it actually gives you the best of both worlds, with a native SSD (non-cached) system drive AND SSD cached mechanical HDD with a single SSD. As long as you're prepared to jump through the hoops to set it up and can live with the smaller SSD capacity (because you've dedicated some of it to the HDD cache), it's a good solution.

Doesn't help OP I realise, but worth posting as it may help others.

Good luck OP, I'd be surprised if there were NOT any free tools out there, but I don't have experience with them so can't help you there.

 

[USAFRet]

Your talking about Intel Smart response Technology ..... was written about as if it was going to drastically change everything bit frankly it fizzled.

http://www.ukgamingcomputers.co.uk/difference-between-h67-p67-z68-and-h61-chipsets-a-22.html

Finally, another feature of a Z68 chipset is known as SSD caching which is where it allows the use of a small (say 10 or 20 GB) Solid state hard drive to act as a cache for a larger ‘traditional’ hard disk. If you are already planning the use of a Solid State drive this feature is redundant.

If you can’t afford a decent size SSD (40GB+) then there are more cost effective ways around using a small SSD and SSD cashing like spending less on a motherboard, (H67 chipset or even a P67 chipset) and putting the saved money into a decent size SSD.

That's pretty harsh! I was NOT suggest that Intel RST was going to 'drastically change everything'... my precise words were:
'it does exactly what you're asking' (which it does)
and
'by all accounts it's pretty effective' - which is far from suggesting it's world changing!

Furthermore I've referenced a detailed review by a reputable tech site with several thousand words, numerous benchmarks, etc. You've referenced an opinion piece of several hundred words that only addresses the tech in a few passing comments. They only dismiss it because it's not cost effective (buy a cheaper motherboard). If OP already has an RST capable CPU + mobo... that argument is irrelevant.

I agree wholeheartedly that Intel RST never really gained much traction, but in my view that's because as SSD prices continued to drop, manufacturers moved away from the tiny cache-sized drives because their costs were too close to that of larger drives. Most users tech-savvy enough to utilise RST knew that a dedicated OS SSD is better (as it is, of course!) and were prepared to spend the extra to go that route.

The technology does actually work, even if it never gained much traction.

Anyway, this is a moot point because OP's platform is pre RST, so that's not an option anyways.

Just as an FYI to @USAFRet and anyone who stumbled across this thread from a Google search, the following forum thread shows a really cute tweak to utilise Intel RST to allow a single SSD to function both as a dedicated SSD only OS drive, AND, then allocate a small portion of the single SSD as an RST cache for a mechanical HDD.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2172381

Given the tweak/workaround required it seems that Intel never really intended RST to be used this way, but it actually gives you the best of both worlds, with a native SSD (non-cached) system drive AND SSD cached mechanical HDD with a single SSD. As long as you're prepared to jump through the hoops to set it up and can live with the smaller SSD capacity (because you've dedicated some of it to the HDD cache), it's a good solution.

Doesn't help OP I realise, but worth posting as it may help others.

Good luck OP, I'd be surprised if there were NOT any free tools out there, but I don't have experience with them so can't help you there.

Right. I figured it could be done. Just that with the OP's 128GB drive, you're seriously hampering the usable size, for things that don't really matter.

For a 120/128GB drive, you really need to keep it under 95-100GB or so.
And then we siphon off 10-15GB for the cache portion.
Leaving 80GB or so for the OS and applications.

All in an attempt to speed up things that end up on the HDD, which probably don't really need that extra speed boost.

 

[rhysiam]

Right. I figured it could be done. Just that with the OP's 128GB drive, you're seriously hampering the usable size, for things that don't really matter.

For a 120/128GB drive, you really need to keep it under 95-100GB or so.
And then we siphon off 10-15GB for the cache portion.
Leaving 80GB or so for the OS and applications.

All in an attempt to speed up things that end up on the HDD, which probably don't really need that extra speed boost.

I did survive for 2 years on a 64GB SSD with the OS and a full Adobe Master Collection install (that drive cost me over $300, the early SSD adopter tax)! It was actually okay, though it took maintenance pretty regularly (monthly maybe). It can be done... whether it's actually worth doing is an important question though!

I have experienced a few games with annoyingly long level load times (particularly on death/respawns!) where I think an SSD cache would be awesome. Especially with death/respawns loads where the data would likely be on the cache already. There would be cases where it would make a pretty big difference, but I agree with you as well that there would be many many other cases where it would make little to no difference at all.

If OP can find a decent software solution AND understands the sacrifices of a smaller OS drive AND understands the sorts of situations where a cache can actually help (and the many other situations where it makes no tangible difference whatsoever)... he/she can make an informed decision about whether it's the right solution or not.

I take your point though, that for most it would be far more trouble that it's worth.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

That's pretty harsh! I was NOT suggest that Intel RST was going to 'drastically change everything'... my precise words were:
'it does exactly what you're asking' (which it does)
and
'by all accounts it's pretty effective' - which is far from suggesting it's world changing!

As I didn't "reply to" your post, I don't understand why you took this as a personal affront. I expressed no thoughts on what you posted because I saw the thread, read the OP and responded to it.

Now having read your post, I would have to disagree with the "by all accounts it's pretty effective" statement because most accounts I read, as the one I quoted, pretty much poo poo'd the idea.

It is certainly true that many of the industry pundits were writing about it as if it was going to drastically change everything and, there's certainly no doubt about the fact that it fizzled having had a miniscule adoption rate. It did what the mags says it did.... sorta ..... but fell way short of the espoused expectations and it did it at a higher cost than cheaper, more effective alternatives.

120 / 128 GB is the MINIMUM practical size for the casual Windows user. Astute Windows uses can get by with less but few of those that did back when 64GB was all that many could afford, would suggest doing it today .... it's just too much work.

I base that judgement on the number of boxes I am asked to clean out the C:\ drives because users can't install anything to their 2 TB HDs because their SSD is full. Partitioning any of that space off to create a HD cache will hurt more than it will help.

Best, most cost effective way today to speed up an old HD is to buy a newer, faster one with a larger cache .... and preferably a SSHD with its own on board SSD.

I'll echo what USAFRet'd said..

120 GB SSD has 111.76 GB of actual space
Leaving the required 15% free space leaves just 95 GB ....

 

[WINTERLORD]

well actually I may get a second ssd for cache or a bigger one for the OS and apps and using this one for cache