Search Results

Search found 1298 results on 52 pages for 'ssd'.

Page 11/52 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • Is TRIM supported on RAID 0 configurations for SSD drives in windows 7?

    - by John Sonmez
    I know this question has probably been asked at some point in the past, but I am trying to figure out if Windows 7 supports passing TRIM commands through RAID controllers yet. I am trying to decide between buying a single SSD drive and utilizing TRIM or Buying two SSD drives and putting them in RAID 0 configuration What is the fastest current configuration I can set up? I want my development machine to be BLAZING fast.

    Read the article

  • How to run 2 SSD drives in RAID-0?

    - by jasondavis
    I am wanting to replace my Operating sytem hard drive with 2 SSD drives. Well possibly just 1 but I am curious about doing 2 in a RAID-0 setup for even more improved speed. What exactly would I need to run 2 SSD drives in a raid0 setup?

    Read the article

  • Dual boot on Hp Envy Ultrabook

    - by phodu_insaan
    I just bought a HP Envy ultrabook 1002TX. It comes with a Win7 Home basic and a 32GB SSD + 500GB HDD. I started to install ubuntu and in doing so went and deleted all the partitions on my HDD and recreated them the way I wanted. Then when I tried to install ubuntu it didn't recognize my HDD. To solve this i typed dmraid -E -r /dev/sdX where the 'X' was my SSD drive. After this ubuntu can install but windows for some reason does not install. Also the Intel Caching feature is lost and SSD is just sitting and doing nothing. I want to know how to solve this problem. Ideeally I would like to use the SSD for caching, either in windows or ubuntu. How do I get the SSD back to working as an Intel rapid cache? How do I get windows to install properly? It tell me that windows is unable to configure itself to my hardware, and my PC came with windows pre-installed so this is not possible. Sorry for the long question and thanks for your answers! PS: At one time when I booted I pressed Ctrl+i and went to the intel rapid cache menu. I think i screwed up something in here, because only after this the rapid cache stopped working, and each time I booted the PC thought the BIOS was my primary disk.

    Read the article

  • Installing Ubuntu via Wubi - about SSDs and HDDs

    - by A Person
    I read the question in regards to installing Ubuntu with Wubi on an SSD ( How do I enable Trim on an SSD in a Wubi install under Windows 7? ). My Windows installation is on an SSD (C: drive). My question is, if I choose to let Wubi install Ubuntu on my D: drive (HDD), thus creating the root.disk-file on D:, would I need to worry about TRIM in any way? I would assume not, but I just want to be sure.

    Read the article

  • How do I restore GRUB 2?

    - by uahug
    I upgraded my laptop with an SSD, moving my old HDD to where the DVD-drive was, so that I could have speed and storage. Now, I have reinstalled Ubuntu on the SSD, deleting all the partitions on the old HDD to make space for a data partition. But now the laptop doesn't even get to GRUB 2 if the HDD is plugged in! If I take it out, everything works, but as soon as I plug it in and retry to boot, I won't find GRUB. At first, I thought it was because of the boot order, but the order was OK: first the notebook hard drive (SSD) and then the CD/DVD drive (which in reality is the HDD). How can I fix it? Doing a simple grub-install /dev/sda doesn't work.. The SSD is sda, and the HDD is sdb.

    Read the article

  • Can compressing Program Files save space *and* give a significant boost to SSD performance?

    - by Christopher Galpin
    Considering solid-state disk space is still an expensive resource, compressing large folders has appeal. Thanks to VirtualStore, could Program Files be a case where it might even improve performance? Discovery In particular I have been reading: SSD and NTFS Compression Speed Increase? Does NTFS compression slow SSD/flash performance? Will somebody benchmark whole disk compression (HD,SSD) please? (may have to scroll up) The first link is particularly dreamy, but maybe head a little too far in the clouds. The third link has this sexy semi-log graph (logarithmic scale!). Quote (with notes): Using highly compressable data (IOmeter), you get at most a 30x performance increase [for reads], and at least a 49x performance DECREASE [for writes]. Assuming I interpreted and clarified that sentence correctly, this single user's benchmark has me incredibly interested. Although write performance tanks wretchedly, read performance still soars. It gave me an idea. Idea: VirtualStore It so happens that thanks to sanity saving security features introduced in Windows Vista, write access to certain folders such as Program Files is virtualized for non-administrator processes. Which means, in normal (non-elevated) usage, a program or game's attempt to write data to its install location in Program Files (which is perhaps a poor location) is redirected to %UserProfile%\AppData\Local\VirtualStore, somewhere entirely different. Thus, to my understanding, writes to Program Files should primarily only occur when installing an application. This makes compressing it not only a huge source of space gain, but also a potential candidate for performance gain. Testing The beginning of this post has me a bit timid, it suggests benchmarking NTFS compression on a whole drive is difficult because turning it off "doesn't decompress the objects". However it seems to me the compact command is perfectly capable of doing so for both drives and individual folders. Could it be only marking them for decompression the next time the OS reads from them? I need to find the answer before I begin my own testing.

    Read the article

  • Increasing SQL Server / Sage performance with SSD? (Dell PE T410)

    - by Anthony
    I have a client wanting better performance of their Sage (Accpac & CRM) server (v5.5, soon to be v7). It's running on 1 of 2 Hyper-V VMs (Svr2008) on a Dell PE T410 server with 24GB of RAM (1333MHz) & dual quad-core, and both VMs (only their C: drives) are on a single RAID5 array. All clients connect via 1Gb ethernet. The 2nd VM is SBS2008 with 9GB RAM (& all SBS dbs & company data are on a separate RAID5 array), & 3GB RAM for the Svr2008 hypervisor. I've given the Sage/SQL Server VM all the RAM I can (12GB) & SQL Server RAM caching (~8GB, never exceeds ~7.5GB, eg. entire db can now be cached in RAM) and that's helped significantly. Upgrading the Hypervisor to Svr2012 is an obvious step, but probably not a dramatic improvement? What about an SSD for this Sage/SQL Server VM (VM = 100GB, <10GB for the actual live DB) ? Can SSDs be put into the SAS hot-swap bays? Or will I have to use the mobo SATA(3Gbps?) ports, or PCI-E SSD card? Should SSDs be RAIDed for this situation? Or is SSD's higher reliability offsetting the need for RAID1/5/10? (I have nightly full disk backups) New territory for me, would appreciate some feedback. Thanks, Anthony.

    Read the article

  • Increasing MSSQL/Sage performance with SSD? (Dell PE T410)

    - by Anthony
    I have a client wanting better performance of their Sage (Accpac & CRM) server (v5.5, soon to be v7). It's running on 1 of 2 Hyper-V VMs (Svr2008) on a Dell PE T410 server with 24GB of RAM (1333MHz) & dual quad-core, and both VMs (only their C: drives) are on a single RAID5 array. All clients connect via 1Gb ethernet. The 2nd VM is SBS2008 with 9GB RAM (& all SBS dbs & company data are on a separate RAID5 array), & 3GB RAM for the Svr2008 hypervisor. I've given the Sage/MSSQL VM all the RAM I can (12GB) & SQL RAM caching (~8GB, never exceeds ~7.5GB, eg. entire db can now be cached in RAM) and that's helped significantly. Upgrading the Hypervisor to Svr2012 is an obvious step, but probably not a dramatic improvement? What about an SSD for this Sage/SQL VM (VM = 100GB, <10GB for the actual live DB) ? Can SSDs be put into the SAS hot-swap bays? Or will I have to use the mobo SATA(3Gbps?) ports, or PCI-E SSD card? Should SSDs be RAIDed for this situation? Or is SSD's higher reliability offsetting the need for RAID1/5/10? (I have nightly full disk backups) New territory for me, would appreciate some feedback. Thanks, Anthony.

    Read the article

  • Will these instructions work when turning of journaling on a n ext4 SSD?

    - by snowlord
    I have an Acer Aspire One with an SSD for storage. I recently installed Ubuntu on it and chose ext4 for my filesystem. Then I read that journaling on an SSD isn't the best idea, so I will try to disable journaling and I have found these intstructions (from http://fenidik.blogspot.com/2010/03/ext4-disable-journal.html): # Create ext4 fs on /dev/sda10 disk mkfs.ext4 /dev/sda10 # Enable writeback mode. This mode will typically provide the best ext4 performance. tune2fs -o journal_data_writeback /dev/sda10 # Delete has_journal option tune2fs -O ^has_journal /dev/sda10 # Required fsck e2fsck -f /dev/sda10 # Check fs options dumpe2fs /dev/sda10 |more For more performance add fstab opions: data=writeback,noatime,nodiratime i.e: /dev/sda10 /opt ext4 defaults,data=writeback,noatime,nodiratime 0 0 I will use them on my boot partition. Are there any particularly bad parts here, or are there any missing steps? Will my boot partition be fit for being on an SSD after this? Or should I consider switching to ext2, or even reinstall it all and choose ext2 at partitioning time (I'd rather not though, since I've configured quite some stuff already)?

    Read the article

  • Will these instructions work when turning of journaling on an ext4 SSD?

    - by snowlord
    I have an Acer Aspire One with an SSD for storage. I recently installed Ubuntu on it and chose ext4 for my filesystem. Then I read that journaling on an SSD isn't the best idea, so I will try to disable journaling and I have found these intstructions (from http://fenidik.blogspot.com/2010/03/ext4-disable-journal.html): # Create ext4 fs on /dev/sda10 disk mkfs.ext4 /dev/sda10 # Enable writeback mode. This mode will typically provide the best ext4 performance. tune2fs -o journal_data_writeback /dev/sda10 # Delete has_journal option tune2fs -O ^has_journal /dev/sda10 # Required fsck e2fsck -f /dev/sda10 # Check fs options dumpe2fs /dev/sda10 |more For more performance add fstab opions: data=writeback,noatime,nodiratime i.e: /dev/sda10 /opt ext4 defaults,data=writeback,noatime,nodiratime 0 0 I will use them on my boot partition. Are there any particularly bad parts here, or are there any missing steps? Will my boot partition be fit for being on an SSD after this? Or should I consider switching to ext2, or even reinstall it all and choose ext2 at partitioning time (I'd rather not though, since I've configured quite some stuff already)?

    Read the article

  • How long will a "safely stored" Solid-State-Drive (SSD) keep its data? (e.g. bank safety-deposit box)

    - by user31575
    Here's my usecase: once-and-only-once copy off photos/videos to an internal SATA Solid State Drive (SSD) put this drive in a well-ventilated, air-conditioned bank "safety deposit box" for safe keeping The question: How long can I safely store a solid-state-drive in such an environment? i.e. 0% bitrot, 100% success when "plugged in" Are some SSD drives more reliable than other for this usecase? (e.g. smaller size vs larger size, SLC vs MLC, different brands, etc) More fodder: I have read that solid state memory cards (e..g compactflash, or sd cards) have much longer durability than other media (DVD's, CD's, hard drives) for this usecase (guaranteed against bitrot/other dysfunction on the order of ~ a decades vs a year ). I don't know if this applies to "SSD hard drives". Copying to one 500Gb ssd vs 8 64gb flash drives is easier SSD SATA hard drives have no moving parts, but they have more "visible electronics" than a compact flash card. I don't know if this "visible electronics" can fail, i.e. in contr I know many will point to carbonite, other cloud backup stuff, but I like the simplicity of having physical copies and wanted to understand the risks/implications thanks,

    Read the article

  • Any limitations for putting an SSD in a Mini? How fast would an external HDD be via Firewire? Is Ser

    - by Cyrcle
    I'm considering getting a Mini for web programming. I do a lot of text searches so I want to put a SSD in it. Does the Mini have any limitations that might effect the performance of a SSD? I'm trying to decide if I should get a Mini Server. I'd like to be able to have two internal drives so one can be SSD for OS and the code I'm working on, and the other can be my storage drive. However, I'm not sure if I'll be using the extra functionality of the server edition OSX or not, so I'm reluctant to pay the $200 premium. In a "regular" Mini I could put the SSD internal and use an external big drive, but would the external drive be fast enough via Firewire? Thanks in advance for any info.

    Read the article

  • How do I use an internal SSD as a scratch disk for FCP X?

    - by andrewb
    I'm contemplating setting up my MacBook Air as a video editing machine. If I do this, I'll upgrade to a 256 GB SSD, and I should be able to keep around 100 GB or more free for video editing. The video files would of course be stored externally, but save purchasing some expensive Thunderbolt RAID device (which I suppose is gradually becoming more of an option), it will be slow for read/writes. How can I have a set up where I take advantage of my SSD's speed for a scratch disk/cache for FCP X, but still have the TB(s) of storage of externals? I don't want to have to be moving files constantly back and forth, this is about saving time not wasting it.

    Read the article

  • Possible to get SSD TRIM (discard) working on ext4 + LVM + software RAID in Linux?

    - by Don MacAskill
    We use RAID1+0 with md on Linux (currently 2.6.37) to create an md device, then use LVM to provide volume management on top of the device, and then use ext4 as our filesystem on the LVM volume groups. With SSDs as the drives, we'd like to see the TRIM commands propagate through the layers (ext4 - LVM - md - SSD) to the devices. It looks like recent 2.6.3x kernels have had a lot of new SSD-related TRIM support added, including lots more coverage of Device Mapper scenarios, but we still can't seem to get it to cascade down properly. Is this possible yet? If so, how? If not, is any progress being made?

    Read the article

  • Possible to get SSD TRIM (discard) working on ext4 + LVM + software RAID in Linux?

    - by Don MacAskill
    We use RAID1+0 with md on Linux (currently 2.6.37) to create an md device, then use LVM to provide volume management on top of the device, and then use ext4 as our filesystem on the LVM volume groups. With SSDs as the drives, we'd like to see the TRIM commands propagate through the layers (ext4 - LVM - md - SSD) to the devices. It looks like recent 2.6.3x kernels have had a lot of new SSD-related TRIM support added, including lots more coverage of Device Mapper scenarios, but we still can't seem to get it to cascade down properly. Is this possible yet? If so, how? If not, is any progress being made?

    Read the article

  • How do I know if my SSD Drive supports TRIM?

    - by Omar Shahine
    Windows 7 has support for the TRIM command which should help ensure that the performance of an SSD drive remains good through it's life. How can you tell if a given SSD drive supports TRIM? See here for a description of TRIM. Also the following from a Microsoft presentation: Microsoft implementation of “Trim” feature is supported in Windows 7 NTFS will send down delete notification to the device supporting “trim” File system operations: Format, Delete, Truncate, Compression OS internal processes: e.g., Snapshot, Volume Manager Three optimization opportunities for the device Enhancing device wear leveling by eliminating merge operation for all deleted data blocks Making early garbage collection possible for fast write Keeping device’s unused storage area as much as possible; more room for device wear leveling.

    Read the article

  • How can I verify that my SSD is performing as it should?

    - by Jon Skeet
    EDIT: Okay, so I've no idea what caused the change, but after trying loads of different things to work out what was wrong, I've rerun the WEI (about the 4th time in total) and the score has jumped to a far more respectable 7.3. I'm going to leave well alone now :) I've got a brand new 256GB SSD (Crucial CT256M225) which should have stellar performance. However, on my (also brand new) Dell Studio 1557 with Windows 7 Professional 64 bit, it's only giving a performance index of 5.9. I realise the performance index should be taken with a bit of a pinch of salt, but I wonder whether something's wrong. Given this paragraph from this MSDN article on Windows 7, I'd expect to see a high 6.X or possible a 7.X figure: In Windows 7, there are new random read, random write and flush assessments. Better SSDs can score above 6.5 all the way to 7.9. To be included in that range, an SSD has to have outstanding random read rates and be resilient to flush and random write workloads. In the Beta timeframe of Windows 7, there was a capping of scores at 1.9, 2.9 or the like if a disk (SSD or HDD) didn’t perform adequately when confronted with our random write and flush assessments. Feedback on this was pretty consistent, with most feeling the level of capping to be excessive. As a result, we now simply restrict SSDs with performance issues from joining the newly added 6.0+ and 7.0+ ranges. SSDs that are not solid performers across all assessments effectively get scored in a manner similar to what they would have been in Windows Vista, gaining no Win7 boost for great random read performance. How can I diagnose any performance issues with either the disk or how Windows 7 is handling it? Are there any particularly good tools you'd recommend? One note of curiosity: I couldn't install the firmware update (to 1916) until I changed my BIOS handling of the drive to ATA mode; after installing the firmware I tried to boot the Windows installation DVD - but that only worked after turning it back to AHCI mode (which I've left it in). Installing Windows 7 took longer than I expected - it sat at the "Windows is loading files" prompt for a very long time. Likewise it was on "Expanding files (0%)" for a long time. Since installation it's been fine though - but I don't know whether it's really providing quite as beefy performance as it should. EDIT: My netbook with the 64GB equivalent drive has a performance index of 6.6...

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to install Windows 8 on the SanDisk ReadyCache 32GB SSD drive?

    - by halil ibrahim
    I bought the SanDisk ReadyCache 32GB SSD drive this week. I didn't know about the caching stuff and thought that I would be able to install Windows 8 on it. Now I'm using it as a cache drive with the ExpressCache software. But I wonder if it is possible to use this SSD as a primary system drive with an operating system installed on it. I've tried to format the disk via Windows Disc Manager Tool, but the format option is disabled. Only delete and information options are allowed. Can you help me with this?

    Read the article

  • How to erase a SSD to restore factory performance in Linux?

    - by Andy B
    Due to big performance issues with an mdraid-1 array I'd like to pull down from the array one of the devices (Samsung 840 Pro), erase it to restore factory performance and re-add it to the array. The reason I want to do this to one of the SSDs is because the poor performance seems to be related to one specific SSD out of the two (although they are the same brand, model and firmware ver). But how do I erase a SSD from Linux? I mention that hdparm indicates that both drives are frozen at this time. Maybe because they are part of an md array? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • SSD install - what do I need to watch out for when reconfiguring SATA ports?

    - by tim11g
    I installed a Samsung 840 SSD in a Windows 7 machine. It seems to be working fine, but I'm not seeing the expected performance. The AS SSD benchmark gives 76 for read and 138 for write. At the upper left of the benchmark it says "pciide - BAD" and "31K - BAD". I'm assuming the "pciide BAD" means the motherboard (Gigabyte GA-P35-DS4) is configured as IDE emulation and needs to change to native SATA. I don't know what the "31K" refers to. The bios settings look like this: I saw this article that indicates that changing the SATA mode of the boot drive can cause problems (Blue Screen): Error message occurs after you change the SATA mode of the boot drive What is the correct procedure to change the SATA Mode without causing a system failure? Apply the registry change from the MSFT article above first, then reboot and change the SATA mode? Will the SATA mode change in the BIOS affect other drives?

    Read the article

  • SSD on Vmware ESXI 4 (TRIM? Good Idea?)

    - by nextgenneo
    Hi, I just posted about finding bottle necks and have narrowed it down to having way too many VMs on my machine on one 15K SAS drive. I have plenty of cores and plenty of ram. So I am planning on putting 6 VMs on one drive (so 5 drives for 30 VMs). I am thinking of using a 60GB Vertex 2 SSD. Each of my VMs will only need about 6GB of HDD space so this isn't a big deal. My questions are: does ESXI support Trim and do I really need it if I leave 25% of the drive as free space? If I need it should I get a diff drive that handles garbage collection differently? I have a RAID controller w/ write caching. I will still benefit from this? Will this effect my setup differently? Is there anything I need to consider regarding SSD's in virtualized environments. Thanks for any and all help!

    Read the article

  • Why does compressing and decompressing my SSD hard drive free up space?

    - by Paperflyer
    I bought an SSD (SandForce 2), created a tiny 25GB partition on it for Windows and installed Windows 7 64-bit. In order to free disk space, I enabled compression on the drive using the Properties entry in the context menu for the drive in Explorer. Prior to compressing I had around 5GB of free space. After compression I had 4GB, so compression was not working for me. I figured this might have happened because of the built-in data compression of the SSD. I decompressed the files again - after decompression, it left me with 7GB of free space! Better yet, after restarting, I had 10GB. What is happening here?

    Read the article

  • Tools/Tips to reduce the files/directories in C: which is SSD on Windows 7.

    - by prosseek
    I bought a SSD to install it as C: drive on Windows 7. As the SSD size is relatively small, I need to come up with an idea to reduce the files/directories in C:. What I found is as follows. Run WinDirStat to check how the C: is used. Remove the hibernate file (if you don't use it) powercfg –h off http://helpdeskgeek.com/windows-7/windows-7-delete-hibernation-file-hiberfil-sys/ Symbolic link files and directories to different drive. I'm not sure if this is safe way to go, I asked another post to ask about it. mklink /d e:\windows\installer c:\windows\installer Install software to E: directory, not C: directory. Create E:\Program Files What other tools or tips do you have?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >