Win7 & Arma2 on SSD

[rscarrab 10]

Got a new PC arriving on wed/thurs but im at an odds whether i should install Win7 & Arma 2 onto the 60GB SSD.

I mean, id really like to have Win7 on the SSD but im afraid that it might either increase in size or that with Arma2+OA+BAF+Mods* (*not too many, just essentials excluding maps/guns/character skins etc.) it will be full up as id like to leave a bit of free space to work with. ;)

I came upon these handy tips (spoiler) which i intend to use... if i go ahead and install Win7 on the SSD that is.

1) Disable Superfetch, its usless with SSD's

---> under MSCONFIG

2) Disable your pagefile, its also usless with SSD's

---> under System Properties, Advanced System Settings, Preformance, Advanced, Virtual Memory

3) Disable Hibernation, your boot time is much faster with SSD's, so its also mostly useless and can takeover 4gig's of space

---> Type “powercfg.exe -h off†[make sure you are an Administrator]

4) Clear out your installation files.

Program Files would be installed on a seperate 500GB HDD as would My Documents.

So this is not so much a question, more a request; can anyone with an SSD that has both Win7 and Arma2 (on it) check and inform me as to how much both of them take up (excluding mods). Id really appreciate it. :)

Cheers

Robbie

[=wfl= sgt bilko 10]

Pagefile useless with SSD ??? I don't see what these two have with each other to do at all.

And why would you disable pagefile - I keep seeing that advice, but I've yet to see a valid explanation, especially with win7 (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx).

Should you have the PF on the SSD or HDD, well thats really up to you since you have both.

For ArmA2, I ended up installing on on my HDD but I later copied the original addons folders to the SSD (plus addons as in mods). Used the "mklink /d" command in win7 to create dynamic links from the original installation folder.

Edited November 9, 2010 by =WFL= Sgt Bilko

[rexehuk 16]

Tip... the DEFAULT arma install is small... Junction your addons off to another hard drive, that way you can save space and keep the performance increase of loading the ARMA resources at speed.

:)

[rscarrab 10]

I keep seeing that advice too, Sgt Bilko. I convinced myself that it was a feature that is mainly used for caching of files on the HDD, saving loading times and stuff. I really have no idea wtf im talking about when it comes to understanding/explaining the pagefile... BUT i should have pointed out that those "handy tips" were in reference to cutting down on the amount of HDD space (or more specifically, SSD space) that win7 requires.

I might try and link and do what you mentioned in regards to mklink /d... sounds like a good idea. :)

EDIT:

That link is pretty interesting as it addresses my concerns regarding degradation, or the lack there-of. Nice one.

Edited November 9, 2010 by rscarrab
Read Link

[=wfl= sgt bilko 10]

Yes, that is a problem. Many of these guides mix SSD performance tips with footprint of OS on disk and other stuff. It's hard to sort out the things that are of importance.

And in all fairness, the way win7 is supposed to automtically sense the presence of SSD doesn't always work. E.g. after installing win7-64, defrag was still enabled on the SSD drive and superfetch enabled.

Edited November 9, 2010 by =WFL= Sgt Bilko

[dmarkwick 261]

I keep reading elsewhere on this forum that the pagefile on the SSD is a bad idea, but according to that link above:

Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?

Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well.

In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that

* Pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1,

* Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB.

* Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size.

In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD.

So is there any hard & fast evidence that pagefiles on SSDs are a poor idea?

[Mr. Charles 22]

He is just concerned that the space on the SSD will be filled up with Win7 and ArmA, DMarwick. Setting the pagefile to another HDD will save a few GB on the SSD.

[dmarkwick 261]

He is just concerned that the space on the SSD will be filled up with Win7 and ArmA, DMarwick. Setting the pagefile to another HDD will save a few GB on the SSD.

I was more concerned with the notion that setting the pagefile on the SSD will reduce the SSD's performance over time, quite drastically according to some.

[bangtail 0]

OP

Disabling the PF is not a good idea.

There is absolutely no disadvantage in having the PF on your SSD (apart from the fact that it will take up space). You can always put it on the 500GB to save space, it's not going to affect performance (providing you have a decent amount of RAM, 4GB or more).

With mods I am well over 20GB (ArmA 2) but with your 60GB drive, you should have no trouble fitting the OS, A2 and the PF. Obviously, if you end up with a lot of mods, 60GB might not be enough.

Edited November 9, 2010 by BangTail

[jackass888 0]

It is said that SSDs wear out faster when PF is on them. Eg MS says that. Havent heard of any real cases, but its a rather new tech and it would probably require 5+ years to noticable damage.

[dmarkwick 261]

It is said that SSDs wear out faster when PF is on them. Eg MS says that. Havent heard of any real cases, but its a rather new tech and it would probably require 5+ years to noticable damage.

Is there any reference to wear & tear on SSDs vs wear & tear of HDs? I'd expect that if a SSD can be subject to wear & tear thanks to PF spamming, then it must be worse on a mechanical system like a HD.

[Leon86 13]

It's because memory chips have a limited number of rewrites until they fail. This used to be about 10.000 but it's going up rapidly and the ssd's also spread the wear over all the chips, so I wouln't worry about it with a recent ssd.

[bangtail 0]

Unless you are keeping the SSD for a very long time, this is not going to be an issue.

[dmarkwick 261]

OK. Thanks for the info guys.

[rscarrab 10]

Nice one lads, appreciate all the replies. This is quite interesting, though im prob more confused than i was to begin with. :p

I believe what ill do is place the pagefile on the other HDD, just to be safe; a la the SSD/HDD spamming it could possibly create. Im in work atm but when i get home ill have a look how to place the pagefile onto a different drive. Hopefully its a straight forward process.

I will have 6GB (3x2GB) of RAM, so in this regard i hope it helps somewhat. Also i hope that my Arma2 folder doesnt amount to any higher than 20GB... then again i expect i wont be using too many mods. Just the essentials which coincidentally enough consist a few good 'uns including JTD Fire and Smoke... which btw i must thank you for while i have the chance now, DMarkwick. :)

[dmarkwick 261]

Hey no worries, and thanks for the thanks :) my own ArmA2 folder is approaching 30gb, although I expect that a lot of stuff is there that I don't use.

[=wfl= sgt bilko 10]

I was more concerned with the notion that setting the pagefile on the SSD will reduce the SSD's performance over time, quite drastically according to some.

This used to be an argument before they introduced TRIM and a layered write patterns for SSDs. Now you pre-emtpy deleted blocks and writes are spread out over the whole memory set instead of to the same cells over and over.

---------- Post added at 10:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 PM ----------

Oh I see someone already replied on this above.

---------- Post added at 11:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 PM ----------

All AddOns folders (NOT the mods but the different folders with vanilla pbo files) for A2:CO that I copied was about 15.5GB.

Usage of my C:\ drive (SSD) is about 35GB - running Win7-64 Ultimate

- including the 15.5 GB above.

- Not including PF file.

- Not including any hibernation file, since hibernation is disabled.

Edited November 9, 2010 by =WFL= Sgt Bilko

[rscarrab 10]

All AddOns folders (NOT the mods but the different folders with vanilla pbo files) for A2:CO that I copied was about 15.5GB.

Usage of my C:\ drive (SSD) is about 35GB - running Win7-64 Ultimate

- including the 15.5 GB above.

- Not including PF file.

- Not including any hibernation file, since hibernation is disabled.

Spot on mate, appreciate that.

Should leave enough space for another game or two. :)

Hmmm... Just had a look at how to move the paging file.

If my paging file is recommended to be 1.5-3 times the size of my RAM (reference spoiler) than with 6GB it should be at least that or larger? If thats correct then its definitely going on a 2 HDD (which i wont be partitioning anyway). Didnt realise it took up that much!

Before you start messing with your computer’s paging file there are things you need to understand so you don’t break your computer.

* Your computer must have a paging file. Windows Vista and most software rely on the paging file even though your computer has plenty or memory.

* The recommended size of the paging file is 1.5 to 3 times the amount of RAM you have.

* If you move the paging file, it should always be moved to a different physical hard drive. Never use a separate partition on the same hard drive as the C: drive. This will slow your computer down.

* You can have 2 paging files. Each paging file must be on different physical hard drives though. An example would be a paging file on your C: and E: drives.

[=wfl= sgt bilko 10]

I tend to put a minimum PF on C drive and main PF on a different physical drive.

My current win7

- 400MB fixed size on C:

- "System Managed" on E: a separat 16GB partition on a different drive.

Which is currently automatically sized at about 6GB (same as RAM).

I have no real argument for this other than that I used to do it on older OS's to avoid PF fragmentation and performance issues read/write program files and PF on same drive.

When it comes to SSD I also tend to only partition about 75% to make sure the SSD have enough leeway for the physical level of "write anywhere". This might not be necessary anymore since I think there's already a fair amount of oversize on newer disks from start. You might want to google that a bit and also check the recommendations from the SSD manufacturer.

Edited November 10, 2010 by =WFL= Sgt Bilko

[rscarrab 10]

Having two pagefiles you say? I wonder; would windows prioritise the one that resides on the same HDD or is that user defined?

Ill have to do a bit more reading regarding this then. The SSD, btw, is an OCZ which i hear are pretty decent.

I also tend to only partition about 75% to make sure the SSD have enough leeway for the physical level of "write anywhere". This might not be necessary anymore since I think there's already a fair amount of oversize on newer disks from start.

Im at a loss here, i cant seem to grasp what you mean. Well, what i take from that is you decided to partition your SSD (75% reserved for win7) to leave enough room for the pagefile and/or other processes that can become bloated. Is that right? So would i be reserving 45GB of my 60GB SSD (if i was to partition 75%)?

That would leave me with 15GB to work with... hmmm... assuming im still on the right track here; is Arma part of the partition in question?

[MrBump 10]

When it comes to SSD I also tend to only partition about 75% to make sure the SSD have enough leeway for the physical level of "write anywhere". This might not be necessary anymore since I think there's already a fair amount of oversize on newer disks from start. You might want to google that a bit and also check the recommendations from the SSD manufacturer.

Yeah all Sandforce drives have the spare write area, they also have Durawrite compression technology which speeds up writes and lessens the amount of data written.

[bangtail 0]

Im at a loss here, i cant seem to grasp what you mean. Well, what i take from that is you decided to partition your SSD (75% reserved for win7) to leave enough room for the pagefile and/or other processes that can become bloated. Is that right? So would i be reserving 45GB of my 60GB SSD (if i was to partition 75%)?

That would leave me with 15GB to work with... hmmm... assuming im still on the right track here; is Arma part of the partition in question?

You don't need to bother with that and OCZ make excellent drives.