Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?

[BillW50]

In db typed on Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:58:23 -0500:

there is a third party
maker that makes
a ready boost version
for xp.

it's about 50 bucks.

-------------

they really act like
the hibernation feature

and you require usb
flash drives that are
twice the size of your
ram to provide the
full benefit.

also, flash drives come
in two flavors:

those that are ready
boost ready

and those that are
not.

-------------

one day microsoft
will hire the smart guy
who develops a rom
level hibernation.

but it will be a long
time til then.

It already exists and has for years! It is called HORM and is available
under MS EWF's hibernation.

 

[BillW50]

In Twayne typed on Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:05:55 -0500:

An SSD drive would be about the same speed as RAM and would easily
run rings around a mechanical hard drive. It's pretty much a given.

Actually it may not be. The controller used for one limits the
bandwidth.

However if the reason for the slowdown isn't known, an expensive SSD
drive might simply cover up a problem if an inexperienced user tries
it because he has nothing to reference the performance to. It might
still be a slow, half borked system, but the user won't know that
because of the speed increase. A new install would be much better
than an image containing all the collected problems and speed killers
of the last xx months.

Writing under SSD changes a lot. They have wear leveling and all. So
there maybe lots of house keeping that needs to be done. And so some
designs has to do a lot just to write one byte. Worse case I have heard
so far was 20 seconds before it could write one byte. Although it is
almost never that bad. And to get around this problem, load Windows in
RAM and run it there like with MS EWF. Although SLC type of SSD usually
writes far faster than the cheaper MLC types and lasts much longer.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

In Ken Blake, MVP typed on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:11:50 -0700:

Nor all SSD are equal for one. For example:

1) SLC type lasts 100,000 or more complete writes

2) MLC type lasts 5,000 to 10,000 complete writes

Secondly if you want to limit the number of writes, this is easy to do.
Just turning off System Restore and a swapfile is a very big help right
there.

Thirdly, you can totally stop all writes if you want to by merging MS
EWF files into your Windows XP.

Thanks for the info. Do you know whether my OCZSSD2-1VTX120G Vertex
Series 120GB SATA II SSD is SLC or MLC?

I have seen heavy use of MLC SSD die in a year or two. They usually have
a warrantee of one year. SLC SSD should last 10 years plus without
problems. Although if you limit writing, you will be long dead before
you ever wear one of them out.

Assuming that mine is SLC, and noting that I'm 72 years old, I *may*
be long dead before I wear it out.

 

[BillW50]

In Ken Blake, MVP typed on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:55:10 -0700:

Thanks for the info. Do you know whether my OCZSSD2-1VTX120G Vertex
Series 120GB SATA II SSD is SLC or MLC?

A Google search seems to suggest it is a MLC type. But I don't know for
sure. At first, SLC type was used for SSDs, but they were really
expensive. Since then MLC type has been improving in technology and half
the price to manufacture. Plus SLC types are disappearing from the
marketplace recently.

Assuming that mine is SLC, and noting that I'm 72 years old, I *may*
be long dead before I wear it out.

Yes and I am about 20 years behind you. And I think the computer with
SSD will most likely be so outdated that you wouldn't use it anyway
before it fails. Unless it is a really cheap MLC type. Although yours
seems to be one of the better ones. ;-)

 

[Twayne]

In

There may eventually be such an issue, but I haven't experienced it so
far. Perhaps I'm taking my chances with it, but I've been very happy
with the performance.

From what I've read it'll happen over a relatively short period of time
compared to mechanicals but you also get some extra time out of it because
it quits using the bad "sectors" and moves over to other good ones. That
goes on until there's no space left unless you're watching it. I know of
some SSD drives in a CT business (UTC) where my son works, where they're
being used but not on the system drives; so far not a problem anywhere.
They're surprisingly cheap bought in quantity which tells us, I think, prime
time isn't too far off. They're using 64 Gig drives right now; really tiny
in size!

Twayne`

 

[BillW50]

In Twayne typed on Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:31:23 -0500:

In

From what I've read it'll happen over a relatively short period of
time compared to mechanicals but you also get some extra time out of
it because it quits using the bad "sectors" and moves over to other
good ones. That goes on until there's no space left unless you're
watching it. I know of some SSD drives in a CT business (UTC) where
my son works, where they're being used but not on the system drives;
so far not a problem anywhere. They're surprisingly cheap bought in
quantity which tells us, I think, prime time isn't too far off.
They're using 64 Gig drives right now; really tiny in size!

Twayne`

Actually if you can believe the specs of SSDs, a manufacture claims the
MTBF is 227 years. And HDD are only less than 37 years.

Endurance:

SSD: MTBF > 2 Million Hours
HDD: MTBF < 300,000 Hours

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11408-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=39451&messageID=725468&start=0

I figured that I would have to overwrite a whole SSD, 24 times a day
(which would be hard to do without trying too). And it would take 11
years to wear one out.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

In Ken Blake, MVP typed on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:55:10 -0700:

A Google search seems to suggest it is a MLC type. But I don't know for
sure. At first, SLC type was used for SSDs, but they were really
expensive. Since then MLC type has been improving in technology and half
the price to manufacture. Plus SLC types are disappearing from the
marketplace recently.


Yes and I am about 20 years behind you. And I think the computer with
SSD will most likely be so outdated that you wouldn't use it anyway
before it fails.

I typically get 4-5 years usage out of a computer before I replace it.
This one is brand new, so I'll probably be 76-77 when I want to
replace it.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Actually if you can believe the specs of SSDs, a manufacture claims the
MTBF is 227 years. And HDD are only less than 37 years.

I'm always reluctant to believe MTBF claims. They may be correct, but
with numbers as high as 227 years, I have no confidence in them.

 

[BillW50]

In Ken Blake, MVP typed on Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:28:51 -0700:

I'm always reluctant to believe MTBF claims. They may be correct, but
with numbers as high as 227 years, I have no confidence in them.

Same here, but I have done the math. If every cell of a SSD can be
written to 100,000 times, it would take a person overwriting the whole
SSD 24 times a day for 11 years before you would wear one out. That is a
lot of writing. So I can see the average user might get 227 years out of
one.

 

[Bill in Co.]

In Ken Blake, MVP typed on Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:28:51 -0700:

Same here, but I have done the math. If every cell of a SSD can be
written to 100,000 times, it would take a person overwriting the whole
SSD 24 times a day for 11 years before you would wear one out. That is a
lot of writing. So I can see the average user might get 227 years out of
one.

So I guess the bottom line is it sounds like there's really no issue with
using the SSDs to replace conventional HDs except for the price (no matter
which type, but skipping the DRAM ones, which don't seem useful for the
general consumer).

IOW, they will outlast any conventional HD (no matter what type of SSD), and
are certainly a lot faster. I'm still not sure about the permanence of of
the data stored in flash memory in terms of its shelf life (or maybe that
was expressed in its MTBF stats), but I'm guessing that's not an real issue,
either, in comparison to the mechanical drives.

 

[BillW50]

In Bill in Co. typed on Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:23:07 -0700:

So I guess the bottom line is it sounds like there's really no issue
with using the SSDs to replace conventional HDs except for the price
(no matter which type, but skipping the DRAM ones, which don't seem
useful for the general consumer).

IOW, they will outlast any conventional HD (no matter what type of
SSD), and are certainly a lot faster. I'm still not sure about the
permanence of of the data stored in flash memory in terms of its
shelf life (or maybe that was expressed in its MTBF stats), but I'm
guessing that's not an real issue, either, in comparison to the
mechanical drives.

Yes that is about it. Except I wouldn't call the real cheap MLC SSD (vs.
more expensive MLC SSD and better yet SLC SSD), as fast. As they do make
some really slow MLC types. For example Super Talent has one called
FPM16GHAE PATA PCIe SSD with a read speed of 45M and a write of 15MB.

My personal experience is that HDD has an early failure rate of 3 out of
21. And they lasted a month or less. SSDs are hitting the same ratio, 1
out of 7. And they usually fail in a few months. And this one will work
if you let it sit with power for 90 minutes. So remember this trick if
you ever have one fail. And there might have been a recall on that lot.
And I believe it was a failed controller on the SSD board and not any of
the SSD chips themselves.

 

[Twayne]

In

I'm always reluctant to believe MTBF claims. They may be correct, but
with numbers as high as 227 years, I have no confidence in them.

MTBFs are a little like statistics; you can make them say different things
at different times. Folks should remember the calcs for MTBFs are usually
for laboratory conditions of a controlled environment, etc. etc.. I
wouldn't expect to see an SSD drive last 200 years in use any more than I
would a HDD last 37 years in use. Whether it's alpha migration or physical
parts wear, neither comes out very "real" in MTBF calcs. Grease dries,
irradiation degrades and all that good stuff. I've never seen a single
instance of a product making its MTBF numbers, have you? MTBF is really
only useful (sometimes) as a comparison factor, not real numbers.
Like in the G's tests, you have no idea how the products were dropped if
they don't say so and there are many different ways of speccing how to
calculate (not measure) them.
I used to have to do a lot of MTBF on my designs and I hated it; it felt
like lying to the customers because marketing always hyped it as how long
the product would last, which it definitely is not. You CAN do actual-use
calcs for MTBFs, but it's expensive and time consuming so all most engineers
do is use the means of the various parts within a product. It has its uses,
but not in advertising, marketing or anything for the public, in reality.

Cheers,

Twayne`

 

[Bob I]

Actually, HD MTBF numbers are PURE statistics!

In


MTBFs are a little like statistics; you can make them say different things
at different times. Folks should remember the calcs for MTBFs are usually
for laboratory conditions of a controlled environment, etc. etc.. I
wouldn't expect to see an SSD drive last 200 years in use any more than I
would a HDD last 37 years in use. Whether it's alpha migration or physical
parts wear, neither comes out very "real" in MTBF calcs. Grease dries,
irradiation degrades and all that good stuff. I've never seen a single
instance of a product making its MTBF numbers, have you? MTBF is really
only useful (sometimes) as a comparison factor, not real numbers.
Like in the G's tests, you have no idea how the products were dropped if
they don't say so and there are many different ways of speccing how to
calculate (not measure) them.
I used to have to do a lot of MTBF on my designs and I hated it; it felt
like lying to the customers because marketing always hyped it as how long
the product would last, which it definitely is not. You CAN do actual-use
calcs for MTBFs, but it's expensive and time consuming so all most engineers
do is use the means of the various parts within a product. It has its uses,
but not in advertising, marketing or anything for the public, in reality.

Cheers,

Twayne`

 

[BillW50]

Bob I wrote on Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:45:33 -0600:

Actually, HD MTBF numbers are PURE statistics!

Actually if less than 37 years holds true, I have some HDD that still
have half of their life to go. And they are still working just fine the
last time I checked. ;-)

 

[BillW50]

Twayne wrote on Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:31:23 -0500:

From what I've read it'll happen over a relatively short period of time
compared to mechanicals but you also get some extra time out of it because
it quits using the bad "sectors" and moves over to other good ones. That
goes on until there's no space left unless you're watching it. I know of
some SSD drives in a CT business (UTC) where my son works, where they're
being used but not on the system drives; so far not a problem anywhere.
They're surprisingly cheap bought in quantity which tells us, I think, prime
time isn't too far off. They're using 64 Gig drives right now; really tiny
in size!

Twayne`

Actually all SSD that I know of uses wear leveling. This increases the
number of writes, but the whole mass storage is written to evenly. Thus
at the end of its life, the whole thing just dies. Too bad they don't
add a counter or something to let you know how far you are in its life
cycle. ;-)

 

[Twayne]

In

Actually, HD MTBF numbers are PURE statistics!

I was trying to remember that very name! lol, thanks!
Twayne`

 

[jamessens]

Hi friends on the site there.
This is James.
My Windows XP SP3 is not getting as faster as I want and sometimes i
loses the USB or not recognize the USB device. Other if it finds an
when I try to remove by remove safely the drive then it denies fo
that. How does it happen? Give me reply.
Thanks

 

[BillW50]

In J. P. Gilliver (John) typed on Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:27:08 +0000:

Do they not have the equivalent of SMART?

Actually they do use SMART. Although SMART doesn't have SSD useful
information as a standard yet. Programs like Hard Disk Sentinel does
help in this regard though. As it keeps a running tally on how much is
written to the SSD.

 

[shawn]

I'd be very interested in going SSD as my main drive, but the lifespan is
always what scares me. I want my data to be relatively safe. Being that the
technology is newer than a hard drive is what worries me since I have no
experience with it.

SMART attributes aren't always a good measure of a drive I'm told. Different
programs read differently. I'm monitoring my drives at work and they list
33% health left. I still had a Windows 98 machine running here up until a
few months ago with the original hard drive.

 

[BillW50]

In shawn typed on Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:34:14 -0500:

I'd be very interested in going SSD as my main drive, but the
lifespan is always what scares me. I want my data to be relatively
safe. Being that the technology is newer than a hard drive is what
worries me since I have no experience with it.

Hi Shawn! MTBF for SSD is 227 years. While hard drives MTBF is 37 years.

SMART attributes aren't always a good measure of a drive I'm told.
Different programs read differently. I'm monitoring my drives at work
and they list 33% health left. I still had a Windows 98 machine
running here up until a few months ago with the original hard drive.

Google research showed that SMART is unreliable. I take it as a small
gauge. But not something you should depend on 100%. As 40% of failures
are not detected by SMART.