Z68 SSD Cache - The Only Way to Fly (lazy man SSD)

S

SingleCellOrganism

n00b
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
42
I recently upgraded to Z68 with SSD cache, and the performance is incredible compared to my previous mirrored 500GB Caviars.

I was initially going to go straight SSD, but was worried about the micro management of the OS drive / install directories.

In my mind caching mirrored 1TB 7200 + drives is the smart way to go for minimal hassle and maximum performance. Write speed isn't amazing, like cached reads, but they certainly aren't as slow as straight HDs in maximum cache mode. (write cache basically)

Using a Crucial M4 64GB as the cache drive. Very pleased. Games and applications start almost instantly, once cached.
 
Is an M4 going to hold up used as a Z68 cashe drive? I thought that required more of a enterprise type SSD? You may want to consider looking into an SSD specifically built for this utility or just using it as a boot/OS drive. Just saying you may want to look into this a bit. Keep us posted.
 
The poster just built his system and is happily expressing his fondness, so leave him alone, who cares if you can't see the point, damn.

As for the cache part, yeah, supposedly it was meant for SLC type drives, but I can't see an MLC drive being a problem. Since the drive is essentially raided with your spinning disk, if the MLC drive wears out in like five or so years, you won't lose any data from the spinning disk I'm assuming.
 
The poster just built his system and is happily expressing his fondness, so leave him alone, who cares if you can't see the point, damn.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree with ya and it's just informational but without any stats/graphs that relate to the situation, it's just some young/goofy kid that likes to see his name in print on the internet. :D

If not, he sure acts like it. LOL!
 
The only reason I'm posting this is for 'first hand' experience with Z68 caching, is that childish and goofy?

The MLC may die earlier than SLC, but the payoff in size (64GB vs the 20GB intel 311) is appropriate for my use [gaming primarily].

Anandtech did a Z68 cache review with an F40 vs the 311, and go over the cost/benefit.

If you want the best read/write then this isn't the best option..
 
What games are you playing that 64GB of SSD cache would benefit them?

I would think 20GB SLC would be better in the long run since it is not only faster, but far more robust.

I'm not saying you're wrong on your choice, just wondering which games you play will benefit from such a large amount of cache that couldn't benefit from 20GB.
 
Well I thought the post was helpful, thanks SingleCellOrganism. I'm tired of bullshit graphs and reviews. I've been looking for an honest appraisal of how well SSD caching performs day to day from a user's perspective.
 
I can second this, and will be running the same exact setup and found this thread. Debating over whether to scrap my current windows installation and RAID up with my M4 as the cache, or to use the M4 as the OS and load my oodles of games from the HDD.. the latter, while seeming the obvious choice, may be counter productive as I also tend to play a lot of games and skip around between them weeks at a time. Could be counter productive to leave the main thing I'm loading on a larger slower mechanical drive.

Still debating. May try both for a month or so without making a huge committment and post what I find here. It's really hard to tell real world performance with these, as any random and sequential tests aren't designed to test caching.. the first run will be balls, and the second run will be fast as hell on JUST the cached stuff, and normal speed on the other. An overall score that isn't completely subjective isn't possible on a system that's designed to be subjective to each user :/
 
I wonder if you can disable superfetch/prefetch and then start testing. That'd make it slightly easier to show how much better performance you're actually receiving from SSD caching.

hmm.. wonder if that made sense. Ah, I need sleep.
 
There's an old game I've been playing for a while now and it's known to be extremely slow when it comes to loading a save file. On my previous 5x1TB RAID0 config, it could take 3-5 minutes just to load a savegame, even on an I7-2600 + 8GB + Win7 x64 system. With my current 1x1TB + 60GB SSD + RST, that load time has shorten to less than 30 seconds. RST is definitely what I called the "poor man's SSD".

Using SSD is like the transition from DVD to HD, once you're upgraded, there's no going back! I'm using an ADATA S511 60GB SATA3 TRIM SSD (550 MB/s Read, 500 MB/s Write) - $130.
 
You don't get to choose where to save the files to. It's always "C:\My Document\ANNO 1404" and it's between 2 to 7 MB each. I seriously doubt anyone would want to risk putting "My Document" to RAMDisk.

Anyways, I don't see what is there to debate when it comes to choosing SSD or RST. Most real world users could only afford to buy a Corvette and pretend to be a Lamborghini. Those with the wealth who can afford a big server farm of SSD should go all the way even if you only use 20 GB.

I also wanted to SSD cache my 5x1TB RAID0 but the Intel ICH chipset wouldn't allow me (or Windows wouldn't allow me). The ICH can only allow up to two arrays and RST already occupies one. If you create a 2.5TB or more array, Windows can only use 2TB and the rest is truncated or wasted (you can't use it). Keep in mind you cannot GPT the boot HDD. So, that's why I have to use 1TB for the RST array and then create a second 4x1TB RAID0 array for DATA storage is GPT'd for big media files so you can allocate all of the 4TB. This Data array is not SSD cache and you really don't want to because SSD caching could degrade SEQ Write performances.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top