Show us your SSD performance 2


  1. Posts : 6,075
    Windows 7 Professional 64 bit
       #1451

    OK the results are in, it started off real strong with 12GB allocated but dropped off a fair bit in the end.

    So the actual times for transferring the 24.1GB file are as follows -

    Without the cache tool running - 2m 38s
    With 4GB of ram allocated - 2m dead
    With 12GB of ram allocated - 2m dead

    So the extra ram actually serves no purpose in relation to transferring large files. But at any rate with the cache enabled it saved nearly 40 seconds which is quite impressive for the total time we are talking about.

    Paul.
      My Computer


  2. Posts : 278
    Windows 7 Home Premium (64 bit)
       #1452

    Hmmmmm............it seems as if I may have uncovered a little gem, eh?
    Most daily activities don't seem to be affected, but it still works. We are gonna have to follow the development of this proggie.......no?

    It seems to be along the same lines as Samsungs "rapid mode" from their "evo" line.
      My Computer


  3. Posts : 24,479
    Windows 7 Ultimate X64 SP1
       #1453

    Would it be more meaningful to copy a single large file such as a HD video file? I run tests to compare USB 2 vs. USB 3 and it was suggested I do the same.

    I'm unsure how Rapid mode works, with it enabled I show all RAM (16GB) available and resource monitor shows no large amount in reserve for it.
      My Computer


  4. mjf
    Posts : 5,969
    Windows 7x64 Home Premium SP1
       #1454

    I clearly need a rethink on caching. The SSD is essentially a solid state memory device which is slower than your high speed RAM and even SATA 3 speeds can't be met. Can multiple threading be assisting here? (probably a dumb question).
    Also, can PrimoCache assist with HDDs? - yes I know try it out yourself!

    I also need to try out Samsung's Rapid mode since I've got a couple of them.

    I find this useful interaction :)
      My Computer


  5. Posts : 278
    Windows 7 Home Premium (64 bit)
       #1455

    mjf said:
    I clearly need a rethink on caching. The SSD is essentially a solid state memory device which is slower than your high speed RAM and even SATA 3 speeds can't be met. Can multiple threading be assisting here? (probably a dumb question).
    Also, can PrimoCache assist with HDDs? - yes I know try it out yourself!

    I also need to try out Samsung's Rapid mode since I've got a couple of them.

    I find this useful interaction :)
    According to the devs, It can....as l2 cache. (level 2)
    Visit the page and read the FAQs....I believe it says so there.
    I have not used that feature.
      My Computer


  6. Posts : 24,479
    Windows 7 Ultimate X64 SP1
       #1456

    Yes Michael Primo does work with HDDs as well. Not SSD speeds but much faster as they show in some snips.
      My Computer


  7. Posts : 89
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #1457

    paulpicks21 said:
    OK the results are in.... So the actual times for transferring the 24.1GB file are as follows -

    Without the cache tool running - 2m 38s
    With 4GB of ram allocated - 2m dead
    With 12GB of ram allocated - 2m dead

    So the extra ram actually serves no purpose in relation to transferring large files. But at any rate with the cache enabled it saved nearly 40 seconds which is quite impressive for the total time we are talking about.
    Ordinarily, I try not to get caught up in the SSD-speed fervor, since in the end I agree with “whs” — it’s real world performance that truly matters, not ideal-situation benches. But when the bench numbers exceed 10K on READ or WRITE, I can’t help but become curious as to how they do it — since over 10K exceeds the speed of current RamDrive technology using the fastest memory available. But I’m having difficulty finding any real specifics on how Primo does it, other than their webpage block diagram.

    Paul, your first example comparing Primo/no-Primo file xfers was 158secs Xfer. Your 2nd w/Primo was 120secs at 4G RAM. Then again #3 was 120secs at 12G RAM setting. You concluded that RAM size doesn't matter. I’m not so sure I agree with that in the long run over time.

    Based on my vague understanding of Primo’s block diagram, and drawing somewhat on my limited RamDisk knowledge — I’m guessing that the reason xfer #2 and #3 were the same length of time, is because Primo likely uses RAM allocated cache to store and retain certain data from previous transactions (and their webpage description seems to suggest this). Therefore perhaps the #2 and #3 were both the same time (120secs) because the #2 xfer was still stored in the RAM cache or the “Fancy Cache” as they call it — so naturally one would expect all subsequent xfers containing the same data or file would be the same time period; because it’s using the same data from the same cached memory.

    That’s just my guess. I’m going to try to get more detail on how Primo does it, to see if it’s different from RamDisk techniques. I speculate it’s just a variation of RamDrive technology. And likely the huge bench numbers are the product of simply reading RAM speeds, not from using SSD real estate activity. I’ll post if I come up with anything concrete on how it works.

    I hope you guys appreciate my additional research on Primo, because it’s really cutting into my “old geezer” 4-hour mid-afternoon nap time! lol
      My Computer


  8. Posts : 278
    Windows 7 Home Premium (64 bit)
       #1458

    garuda said:
    paulpicks21 said:
    OK the results are in.... So the actual times for transferring the 24.1GB file are as follows -

    Without the cache tool running - 2m 38s
    With 4GB of ram allocated - 2m dead
    With 12GB of ram allocated - 2m dead

    So the extra ram actually serves no purpose in relation to transferring large files. But at any rate with the cache enabled it saved nearly 40 seconds which is quite impressive for the total time we are talking about.
    Ordinarily, I try not to get caught up in the SSD-speed fervor, since in the end I agree with “whs” — it’s real world performance that truly matters, not ideal-situation benches. But when the bench numbers exceed 10K on READ or WRITE, I can’t help but become curious as to how they do it — since over 10K exceeds the speed of current RamDrive technology using the fastest memory available. But I’m having difficulty finding any real specifics on how Primo does it, other than their webpage block diagram.

    Paul, your first example comparing Primo/no-Primo file xfers was 158secs Xfer. Your 2nd w/Primo was 120secs at 4G RAM. Then again #3 was 120secs at 12G RAM setting. You concluded that RAM size doesn't matter. I’m not so sure I agree with that in the long run over time.

    Based on my vague understanding of Primo’s block diagram, and drawing somewhat on my limited RamDisk knowledge — I’m guessing that the reason xfer #2 and #3 were the same length of time, is because Primo likely uses RAM allocated cache to store and retain certain data from previous transactions (and their webpage description seems to suggest this). Therefore perhaps the #2 and #3 were both the same time (120secs) because the #2 xfer was still stored in the RAM cache or the “Fancy Cache” as they call it — so naturally one would expect all subsequent xfers containing the same data or file would be the same time period; because it’s using the same data from the same cached memory.

    That’s just my guess. I’m going to try to get more detail on how Primo does it, to see if it’s different from RamDisk techniques. I speculate it’s just a variation of RamDrive technology. And likely the huge bench numbers are the product of simply reading RAM speeds, not from using SSD real estate activity. I’ll post if I come up with anything concrete on how it works.

    I hope you guys appreciate my additional research on Primo, because it’s really cutting into my “old geezer” 4-hour mid-afternoon nap time! lol
    Seems like a good idea to me. I would like to know more myself on this.
    Please post back with your results/findings. Thanks
      My Computer


  9. Posts : 6,075
    Windows 7 Professional 64 bit
       #1459

    garuda said:
    paulpicks21 said:
    OK the results are in.... So the actual times for transferring the 24.1GB file are as follows -

    Without the cache tool running - 2m 38s
    With 4GB of ram allocated - 2m dead
    With 12GB of ram allocated - 2m dead

    So the extra ram actually serves no purpose in relation to transferring large files. But at any rate with the cache enabled it saved nearly 40 seconds which is quite impressive for the total time we are talking about.
    Ordinarily, I try not to get caught up in the SSD-speed fervor, since in the end I agree with “whs” — it’s real world performance that truly matters, not ideal-situation benches. But when the bench numbers exceed 10K on READ or WRITE, I can’t help but become curious as to how they do it — since over 10K exceeds the speed of current RamDrive technology using the fastest memory available. But I’m having difficulty finding any real specifics on how Primo does it, other than their webpage block diagram.

    Paul, your first example comparing Primo/no-Primo file xfers was 158secs Xfer. Your 2nd w/Primo was 120secs at 4G RAM. Then again #3 was 120secs at 12G RAM setting. You concluded that RAM size doesn't matter. I’m not so sure I agree with that in the long run over time.

    Based on my vague understanding of Primo’s block diagram, and drawing somewhat on my limited RamDisk knowledge — I’m guessing that the reason xfer #2 and #3 were the same length of time, is because Primo likely uses RAM allocated cache to store and retain certain data from previous transactions (and their webpage description seems to suggest this). Therefore perhaps the #2 and #3 were both the same time (120secs) because the #2 xfer was still stored in the RAM cache or the “Fancy Cache” as they call it — so naturally one would expect all subsequent xfers containing the same data or file would be the same time period; because it’s using the same data from the same cached memory.

    That’s just my guess. I’m going to try to get more detail on how Primo does it, to see if it’s different from RamDisk techniques. I speculate it’s just a variation of RamDrive technology. And likely the huge bench numbers are the product of simply reading RAM speeds, not from using SSD real estate activity. I’ll post if I come up with anything concrete on how it works.

    I hope you guys appreciate my additional research on Primo, because it’s really cutting into my “old geezer” 4-hour mid-afternoon nap time! lol
    Hello garuda,

    It is certainly interesting testing things out like this, and I will also be interested to hear your findings.

    Now regarding what I have highlighted in red, If this is indeed true then I should be able to test it by simply ending the current Cache process, restarting the PC and then creating a new Cache process with 12GB of ram used. Am I correct in thinking that will delete any previously stored data?

    I am going to test this out now anyway to see if it makes any difference.

    Paul.
      My Computer


  10. Posts : 6,075
    Windows 7 Professional 64 bit
       #1460

    The time was 1m 59.3s so essentially the same time as the 2 previous runs.
      My Computer


 

  Related Discussions
Our Sites
Site Links
About Us
Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:29.
Find Us