Spotrep #00045 potentially dangerous for ssd drives users

[MusTanG 21]

Hey everyone,

I hope BIS sees this, if anyone has any info on a proper place to put this besides here let me know or mod move it to the appropriate place.

Thanks in advance.

After reading spotrep #00045, I noticed this statement

Consider defragmenting your HDD after downloading large updates

If you are an ssd drive owner you never ever want to Defrag it.

I suggest to save your uneducated gamers a hassle and change it.

not everyone educates themselves about their cimputer and knows that HDD and ssd are different.

Just a suggestion but IMHO a good one

[enex 11]

Yeah it's important distinction.

It says consider defragging your HDD (hard drive).That would classify in spinners not SSDs probably.

So I read this you may have to defrag your hard drive.Nowhere mentions Solid state drives ; )

[MusTanG 21]

Yeah it's important distinction.

It says consider defragging your HDD (hard drive).That would classify in spinners not SSDs probably.

So I read this you may have to defrag your hard drive.Nowhere mentions Solid state drives ; )

First, yes it's an important distinction and yes exactly it does not mention ssd.

However, I guess you didn't read and comprehend my post.

Not everyone has that information that the hdd and ssd results in two different drive types.

not everyone is educating themselves on the technology they use

[fareast 20]

windows will use trim function if u try to defrag SSD

[brightcandle 114]

In the latest Windows if you run the defrag program on an SSD it doesn't actually do it, I think it just "optimises" the drive which turns out is something to do with trim and not a lot else. Its harmless now, Windows defends you against the basic mistake nowadays and has done for quite a long period of time.

Besides its not like a defrag is going to break the SSD, its just unnecessary and wastes a reasonable amount of writes on the drive but its not going to magically break it.

[I give up 152]

Hilarious.

If you are so worried with your SSD you should not play Arma 3.

In one (1) hour of gameplay your SSD will have more usage (read/write) than with a simple defrag.

[Jackal326 1158]

...not everyone is educating themselves on the technology they use

Perhaps so, but I'd like to at least think that someone who either purchased a system with an SSD drive, or fitted one in their rig themselves would know that its there :rolleyes:

[bhaz 0]

In one (1) hour of gameplay your SSD will have more usage (read/write) than with a simple defrag.

This is complete misinformation, there is absolutely no reason for an Arma player to worry about writes per hour.

Impact from SSD reads is almost zero, that it's not even worth noting.

Newer SSD's are rated for a minimum of 75TB writes, which for the average user would take 10-15 years.

I've been running the Windows pagefile, browser cache, Photoshop scratch file and plenty of other rubbish on this one, after 8 months it's only at 2.64TB written.

 

edit: Yeah I never took the pagefile into account, so that was way off. I'll delete that line and leave the facts. Cheers.

Edited August 1, 2015 by bhaz

[I give up 152]

This is complete misinformation, there is absolutely no reason for an Arma player to worry about writes per hour.

Impact from SSD reads is almost zero, that it's not even worth noting.

Arma writes next to nothing. The average Arma session writes about 1-4MB per hour in logs, plus the size of any downloaded missions.

Newer SSD's are rated for a minimum of 75TB writes, which for the average user would take 10-15 years.

I've been running the Windows pagefile, browser cache, Photoshop scratch file and plenty of other rubbish on this one, after 8 months it's only at 2.64TB written.

No, you are completly wrong. "1-4 MB per hour" is even more hilarious than OP concerns. Get your facts straight.

All the rest you are correct.

Edit.

I saw it wrong, thought you said 750 TB.

You are also wrong with these values. Way off.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Bratwurste

[rundll.exe 12]

No, you are completly wrong. "1-4 MB per hour" is even more hilarious than OP concerns. Get your facts straight.

Please back up your claims with proof then Bratwurste. I see no reason for Arma to write loads of data to the disk. The only thing might be the pagefile, but if that happens, you should be buying more RAM

[I give up 152]

Not the only thing. Is the thing. Arma 3 needs system page file, no matter the amount of RAM that we may have. Try to load Altis (very high/ultra) with system page file disabled and you will have your facts cleared.

Also if we have more than 6GB of graphics memory the load in system page file goes easily to around 10/12GB, having 24GB of RAM installed.

And the data loaded in to Hard Drive (through system page file) is continuously being swapped with RAM, while is being flushed

These operations require a continuous read/write, so yes, 1.4MB per hour is hilarious.