XP install/usage requirements

[Twayne]

In news:[email protected],

Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:48:01 -0700:

How do you figure Bill? I figured that you have to rewrite the whole
SSD 24 times a day and it would only last 11 years. I am not
including wear leveling which I guess could make it ½ as bad (but
doesn't matter with whole SSD writes anyway). But with me on the
computer all day browsing, email, and newgrouping I only average
about 100MB writes a day. I know this because I buffer all writes to
RAM with MS EWF before commiting. That would take like 22,000 years
to wear out one of my 8GB SSD @ 100,000 complete writes. Or the worst
case with wear leveling acting with every write (which is very
unlikely), 11,000 years.
One manufacture figured out that that the average SSD will last 228
years. Obviously they plan on more writing than I am doing. I do turn
off the pagefile as this greatly decreases my writes and improves
performance. Although I must have enough RAM to make this possible.

There are times that I do write a lot like converting video files
which can be GB worth. Here I throw on an USB hard drive (or network
to one) for these big writes. But I don't do this a lot and it isn't
a big deal to do so.

So while you believe you can wear out a SSD in 3 years, I seriously
doubt that unless you used all of your time to actually try too. Then
and only then, maybe. But most users I don't believe they can wear one
out in 100 years using it normally.

Actually, considering the case of running an OS on one, the lifetime
would be seriously cut short of the numbers normally tossed about. And
remember, things like MTBF and write cycles are all statistical
calculations complete with a bell curve and all. Get a component that's
too far to the side of the bell, and it's not going to last long, even
though it carries the same life expectancy numbers.
Anyway: That's because of the constant read/write accesses to the
registry among other system files. Since those writes are going to go
to a consistantly identifiable address set, those locations would get a
lot of writing to them over the course of a day, even if the machine
weren't used. Consider just the clock, for instance, and

I don't know about the 3 years but I do suspect that number isn't too
far off. The "wear" of writing is not an overall number. When you get
it pinned down, EACH address location can be written to so many times.
After that, the location is going to become unreliable and eventually
deteriorate to non-useful, even though overall, the rest of the
locations are going to be just fine, as in, for example, where your own
writings land in the addressing scheme. Those vary and the timing
formulae work.
There are always gotchas to these things.

OTOH, I do think that with some of the technologic advances we're
seeing, that it won't be too long before we see something akin to SSD
being turned into a disk drive with no moving parts. At that point,
alpha migration and all that obscure stuff becomes the life-span
determinants. There are already some types of SSD-like drives available
but it will be quite awhile yet before they see prime time. THAT is
where they become really interesting!

Regards,

Twayne

 

[Twayne]

BillW said:
....

what John fails to understand that I am also a retired electronic
engineer. Now if he wants to claim I don't know how the process
address space works. I beg to differ. As I am sure I know far better
than he does about this subject just by his reply. And if he actually
knew what he was talking about, he wouldn't have made that claim in
the first place.

No offense, but I don't see that as meaning a single thing w/r to
credence or abilities. I'd also question the "electronic" part of that
comment - I doubt that's what's on your sheep skin unless it was a
diploma from a 3rd worlder.

 

[BillW50]

In Twayne typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:14:19 -0500:

BillW said:


No offense, but I don't see that as meaning a single thing w/r to
credence or abilities. I'd also question the "electronic" part of
that comment - I doubt that's what's on your sheep skin unless it was
a diploma from a 3rd worlder.

Oh geez! Do I have to go into ones and zeros and how logic circuits
work? Most computer users don't have a clue and it isn't necessary to
know how a computer works to actually use them. And to do it correctly,
it would take about 2 years anyway to go into all of the details. That
being said, I *do* know how addresses and data lines actually works,
thank you very much. And to question a hardware engineer how the
hardware works is a bit like telling a rocket scientist how a rocket
works. Yes I have engineered computers to control missles too, so I
think I know a little of what I am talking about here.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[BillW50]

In Twayne typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:00:02 -0500:

Actually, considering the case of running an OS on one, the lifetime
would be seriously cut short of the numbers normally tossed about. And
remember, things like MTBF and write cycles are all statistical
calculations complete with a bell curve and all. Get a component
that's too far to the side of the bell, and it's not going to last
long, even though it carries the same life expectancy numbers.

Yes and I gave the worst possible case that I know of. That was taking a
8GB SSD and totally writing it over for 24 times a day, it would take
over 11 years to write over every location 100,000 times. First of all,
I seriously doubt anybody could write over a 8GB SSD completely 24 times
a day. But let's say they could, that is tons of work and couldn't be
done if most people tried.

Anyway: That's because of the constant read/write accesses to the
registry among other system files. Since those writes are going to go
to a consistantly identifiable address set, those locations would get
a lot of writing to them over the course of a day, even if the machine
weren't used. Consider just the clock, for instance, and

I use MS EWF which keeps a running tab on writes. In fact it buffers all
writes until I tell it to write. I too thought that Windows with all of
the registry hits and updating all of the last accessed timestamps would
push this to a very high amount. But I use a SSD all day and the average
is 100MB per day (like in 8 hours, although today it is more like 100MB
in 18 hours).

I don't know about the 3 years but I do suspect that number isn't too
far off. The "wear" of writing is not an overall number. When you
get it pinned down, EACH address location can be written to so many
times. After that, the location is going to become unreliable and
eventually deteriorate to non-useful, even though overall, the rest
of the locations are going to be just fine, as in, for example, where
your own writings land in the addressing scheme. Those vary and the
timing formulae work.
There are always gotchas to these things.

OTOH, I do think that with some of the technologic advances we're
seeing, that it won't be too long before we see something akin to SSD
being turned into a disk drive with no moving parts. At that point,
alpha migration and all that obscure stuff becomes the life-span
determinants. There are already some types of SSD-like drives
available but it will be quite awhile yet before they see prime time.
THAT is where they become really interesting!

No, no, Twayne! Modern day SSD uses wear leveling. I asked and thought
the very same thing you did and I asked what happens when one spot hits
over 100,000 times? The answer was the SSD is smart enough to mark it as
unusable and nothing bad happens except the amount of usable bytes goes
down. And unlike a hard drive which becomes worthless if some locations
becomes dead (like the boot sector), SSD can ignore any area and replace
it.

That seems pretty acceptable to me. As overtime, the capacity starts to
drop off and I could adjust and probably get a new SSD. But wait, it is
much better than this. SSD also includes wear leveling. What does this
mean? That means it is impossible to write one area 100,000 times
without writing the rest like 100,000 times. Thus if you save 4kb over
and over again, it isn't saving to the same place over and over again,
but different locations over and over again.

Thus once the SSD starts dropping in capacity, it is time to get rid of
it very quickly. As once this happens, every location is very close to
be written 100,000 times and you don't have much time left. I have never
seen this yet in my lifetime, but I have heard for others who has. All
from cheap flash memory of course which probably doesn't have wear
leveling and maybe only good for 10,000 writes or less.

I have 5 SSD and one I hit very hard. The rest are very little. So if
they actually have a short life, I will soon know about it. But as far
as my figures, I won't be alive by the time it actually fails. Time will
tell of course, but they are good for at least 6 months so far.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[Bill in Co.]

In Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:24:25 -0700:

No it doesn't work that way. As one small area can be written 100,000
times. Then the next small area can be written 100,000 times and so on.
So the SSD itself can be written zillions of times. Every area has to be
written 100,000 times. The worst case is writing everything in one pass.
This would take 11 years writing 24 times a day. Which is normally
impossible unless you are trying to do so.
OK.


No the number of writes only effect a very small part of the SSD. Only
if you write to the whole SSD every time it would be only 100,000
writes. But who overwrites the whole SSD 24 times a day? Writing smaller
blocks, writing becomes many times more than 100,000 times. We are
talking about billions or more writes.


Not really! The 100,000 writes means every small segment has to be
written that many times. If you are only writing 100MB per day with a
8GB SSD, that won't happen for like 22,000 years.

I didn't mention wear leveling. As this makes sure that one area isn't
written too much more than the other areas. Kind of like defrag except
to equal out all of the writes evenly. And the worst case is it has to
move everything during every write (which is like impossible, but let's
just say it has too). Then my 22,000 year example would only last 11,000
years. The truth is that it would last somewhere between 11,000 to
22,000 years.

Well, if that's the case, then I'm mistaken, and I guess we won't have much
to worry about.

I'll probably have to wait until the 32 GB SSDs are more affordable. I
haven't looked at the prices yet, so I wonder how much one of those costs,
and if it really could be used to replace the internal system HD with no
drawbacks or problems. Well, I'd still need the other one for larger
storage, but at least that one could be used to store all programs and
system files and most of my data (except for the audio and video files).

 

[Bill in Co.]

In Twayne typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:14:19 -0500:

Oh geez! Do I have to go into ones and zeros and how logic circuits
work? Most computer users don't have a clue and it isn't necessary to
know how a computer works to actually use them. And to do it correctly,
it would take about 2 years anyway to go into all of the details. That
being said, I *do* know how addresses and data lines actually works,
thank you very much. And to question a hardware engineer how the
hardware works is a bit like telling a rocket scientist how a rocket
works. Yes I have engineered computers to control missles too, so I
think I know a little of what I am talking about here.

Sometimes the ones that don't actually have the degree make those snide
remarks.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 8:13:48 PM, and on a
whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:

Well, if that's the case, then I'm mistaken, and I guess we won't have much
to worry about.

I'll probably have to wait until the 32 GB SSDs are more affordable. I
haven't looked at the prices yet, so I wonder how much one of those costs,
and if it really could be used to replace the internal system HD with no
drawbacks or problems. Well, I'd still need the other one for larger
storage, but at least that one could be used to store all programs and
system files and most of my data (except for the audio and video files).

32/64 gig SSD's are affordable. And some newer ones are extremely fast
(check out Samsung drives). But those aren't affordable. ;-)

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Bill in Co.]

The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 8:13:48 PM, and on a
whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:


32/64 gig SSD's are affordable. And some newer ones are extremely fast
(check out Samsung drives). But those aren't affordable. ;-)

I'm just wondering if a 32 GB SSD drive were priced at around, say, $50,
what would be the real disadvantage of replacing the internal system drive
with it?
(Assuming a second internal HD of much larger capacity could be used to
store everything else, like large video and audio files). And how are
they actually connected inside? I guess I'll have to look it up.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 11:34:10 PM, and on a
whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:

I'm just wondering if a 32 GB SSD drive were priced at around, say, $50,
what would be the real disadvantage of replacing the internal system drive
with it?
(Assuming a second internal HD of much larger capacity could be used to
store everything else, like large video and audio files). And how are
they actually connected inside? I guess I'll have to look it up.

I don't know if they'll get that low. ;-) With this new technology,
there won't be any disadvantages IMO. They'll only get faster and can
take a lot more abuse. Especially good for laptop owners with slippery
fingers.

The newest ones are hard drive replacements. They are 2½" and have SATA
connectors.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Bill in Co.]

The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 11:34:10 PM, and on a
whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:


I don't know if they'll get that low. ;-) With this new technology,
there won't be any disadvantages IMO. They'll only get faster and can
take a lot more abuse. Especially good for laptop owners with slippery
fingers.

The newest ones are hard drive replacements. They are 2½" and have SATA
connectors.

Thanks. I just read a bit about them, and it seems they are still a bit
pricey.
And I also noted the 2.5 inch SATA thing, geared mainly toward laptops.

Well, maybe they'll come out with some 3.5 inch ones for desktop computers
when the prices finally drop. Either that, or an adapter, so it can be
slipped directly in to replace the standard 3.5 SATA desktop drive.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Sat Jan 10 2009 13:54:07 GMT-0800 (Pacific
Standard Time), and on a whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:

Thanks. I just read a bit about them, and it seems they are still a bit
pricey.
And I also noted the 2.5 inch SATA thing, geared mainly toward laptops.

Well, maybe they'll come out with some 3.5 inch ones for desktop computers
when the prices finally drop. Either that, or an adapter, so it can be
slipped directly in to replace the standard 3.5 SATA desktop drive.

You don't need a 3½. The WD 10,000 RPM Raptors are 2½" drives that have
a heat sink that fits a 3½. There are adapters for 2½" drives that are
readily available.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Bill in Co.]

In Twayne typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:14:19 -0500:

Oh geez! Do I have to go into ones and zeros and how logic circuits
work? Most computer users don't have a clue and it isn't necessary to
know how a computer works to actually use them. And to do it correctly,
it would take about 2 years anyway to go into all of the details. That
being said, I *do* know how addresses and data lines actually works,
thank you very much. And to question a hardware engineer how the
hardware works is a bit like telling a rocket scientist how a rocket
works. Yes I have engineered computers to control missles too, so I
think I know a little of what I am talking about here.

Sometimes the ones that don't actually have the degree make those snide
remarks (like: "doubt that's what's on your sheep skin unless it was
a diploma from a 3rd worlder"), Bill. (Just keep that in mind.

 

[Bill in Co.]

The date and time was Sat Jan 10 2009 13:54:07 GMT-0800 (Pacific
Standard Time), and on a whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:


You don't need a 3½. The WD 10,000 RPM Raptors are 2½" drives that have
a heat sink that fits a 3½. There are adapters for 2½" drives that are
readily available.

I was talking about (someday) replacing the existing 3.5" SATA internal hard
drive inside my desktop computer with a SSD. (i.e., just slipping it in the
same spot on the Dell and screwing it down with the same screws).

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Sat Jan 10 2009 15:09:21 GMT-0800 (Pacific
Standard Time), and on a whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:

I was talking about (someday) replacing the existing 3.5" SATA internal hard
drive inside my desktop computer with a SSD. (i.e., just slipping it in the
same spot on the Dell and screwing it down with the same screws).

Yes, I know. Like I said, you can get an adapter for a 2½" drive that
will allow it to fit in a 3½" opening.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Ardent]

Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits of running
without a pagefile?

It is not just space (on a 250gb HDD); Memory is faster than disk and
also a lot of disk thrashing is avoided.

And I have never met any downside so why bother?

 

[John John (MVP)]

It is not just space (on a 250gb HDD); Memory is faster than disk and
also a lot of disk thrashing is avoided.

Somehow the notion of a machine doing "a lot of disk thrashing" (by
pagefile) and the same machine being able to run without the pagefile
just don't reconcile!

Pagefile writes do not cause "a lot of disk thrashing", this kind of
trashing that you describe is only brought about by "hard page faults",
meaning that the required pages are not found in the memory so they have
to be brought in (read) from the disk, it doesn't matter how much RAM
you have if you have a lot of hard faults you will get "disk trashing",
hard page faults are not caused by the pagefile. Writing to the
pagefile is done by the Lazy Writer, this is a utility thread that runs
in the background, it doesn't have much of any impact of performance.

The Standby pages are "lazily" written to the pagefile in "anticipation"
that they might be required by another process. The Memory Manager
prepares the Standby pages so that they can be sent to the Free list and
subsequently to the Zero list to be made available to other processes.
The Standby pages are not immediately sent to the Free list or Zero
written, they remain available to the application that had them, if the
application requires the page again a "soft page fault" will be
triggered and the page will be returned from the Standby list back to
the application's Working Set, this doesn't cause any disk trashing, the
page is already in the RAM. The Windows Memory Manager is designed to
avoid as much hard page faults and disk reads as possible, as long as
there is free RAM available the Memory Manager will not send the Standby
pages to the Free list, it will keep everything it can in the RAM, as a
matter of fact much of the available RAM reported by the Task Manager is
actually made up of Standby pages.

John