Add Desktop Caching SSD to my system

[jamawass]

I'm wondering whether to add an ssd cache http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B008U3038 ... X110_SY165 to my htpc to accelerate wmc guides, navigation etc. Has anyone tried this here?

[richard1980]

Just use a regular SSD for your OS and a HDD for media.

[lithium630]

My SSD boot drive made such a difference that I put them in all my computers. 32GB is too small though. My first one was 40GB and it was very tight.

[jamawass]

I have many DVR recordings on the hard drive and don't want to lose them to DRM if I swap HDs. My desktop has an SSD boot drive, I'm quite familiar with the speed gains.

[richard1980]

Changing the OS drive alone will not cause a playback failure if you create an image of the HDD and restore it to the SSD. Now if you've changed a lot of other stuff since you made a specific recording, changing the OS drive could potentially break playback for that recording.

[jamawass]

The present drive is 750 gb, I wouldn't be willing to buy anything larger than a 256 gb ssd. I'd read somewhere that WMC will only record shows to the OS drive. Secondly I've used Paragon SSD migrate software which appears to be 99% reliable on my desktop. The 1% is that task manager no longer works so I'm not sure I want to use the disk imaging route again.

[STC]

You can record to anywhere on your system that has enough space.
Many of us here use SSD for the OS. Mines a 64GB with 28GB free.
It's a highly recommended addition to Media Center.

[richard1980]

If you go to Tasks > Settings > TV > Recorder > Recorder Storage, you can change the drive used for recording. I currently run a 40 GB SSD for my OS and use a 2TB HDD for recordings.

[STC]

^ To clarify, as I think my reply above was somewhat vague.

Don't use the SSD for recordings and the live buffer, only have the OS installed onto it. As Richard says, use a beefy spinner (mine is 3TB) for recordings.

[Haba]

I have installed the very cache drive you are asking about in the first post a few of weeks ago. The drive works very well for speeding up the boot up process (from 2.5 min to less then 40 sec) and for software that has a ton of small cache files such as Media Browser/Windows Media Player. I started my HTPC out as a single unit with a 7200rpm HD for the OS, 4 gigs of ram, 2 tuner cablecard unit to replace the cable box and then expanded it's use to using Extenders and as a media server. I have since added gigabit Ethernet, dedicated gigabit switch, xbox 360s, Media Browser, and now 7 cablecard tuners. Three items I wanted to improved responsiveness was with Media Browser, boot times on the HTPC and general responsiveness on the extenders. All three have been accomplished with the cache drive along with upgrading the CPU from a dual core to a quad core and upped the ram to 8GB. The extender interface responsiveness is slighty improved with Media Browser loading up super fast (HTPC and Extenders) and boot times greatly improved. Using the cache drive along with a standard HD for the OS instead of replacing the HD with an SSD allows you to install as large a OS drive as you want. For those already using a standard HD for the OS on an HTPC, it's really sweet that you do not have to do a whole new install. Overall, I have been very happy with this purchase.

[Haba]

Since I cannot edit the above post, I will add a correction here. I re-checked boot up time from power off 52 secs with cache drive, 2.5 min without.

[richard1980]

Using the cache drive along with a standard HD for the OS instead of replacing the HD with an SSD

There is no need to replace the HDD. You can transfer the OS from the HDD to the SSD and then retain both drives.

allows you to install as large a OS drive as you want.

That is irrelevant. Even with a large HDD, the OS should be stored on a partition that is small enough to fit on any SSD available.

For those already using a standard HD for the OS on an HTPC, it's really sweet that you do not have to do a whole new install.

You don't have to reinstall Windows. All you have to do is create an image of the HDD OS partition and then restore the image to the SSD.

I re-checked boot up time from power off 52 secs with cache drive

For comparison, my boot time (using an SSD for the OS) is 23 seconds from power off and 11 seconds from power on. And I have a slow SSD. I can only imagine what my boot times would be if I switched to a more modern SSD.

Quite frankly, SSD cache drives are a complete waste. They offer absolutely no benefit over traditional SSDs, they perform worse, and they cost more (in terms of cost-to-benefit ratio).

[Haba]

Using the cache drive along with a standard HD for the OS instead of replacing the HD with an SSD

There is no need to replace the HDD. You can transfer the OS from the HDD to the SSD and then retain both drives.

Yes a person could keep both drives if want or you can just use an SSD and install programs on another drive you may have in the HTPC

allows you to install as large a OS drive as you want.

That is irrelevant. Even with a large HDD, the OS should be stored on a partition that is small enough to fit on any SSD available.

Why on Earth would you assume that everyone would install the OS on a separate small partition? I and I suspect a great many others are using a single partition that includes both OS and program installations.

For those already using a standard HD for the OS on an HTPC, it's really sweet that you do not have to do a whole new install.

You don't have to reinstall Windows. All you have to do is create an image of the HDD OS partition and then restore the image to the SSD.

Again, your assumptions you have are validating your comments

I re-checked boot up time from power off 52 secs with cache drive

For comparison, my boot time (using an SSD for the OS) is 23 seconds from power off and 11 seconds from power on. And I have a slow SSD. I can only imagine what my boot times would be if I switched to a more modern SSD.

Quite frankly, SSD cache drives are a complete waste. They offer absolutely no benefit over traditional SSDs, they perform worse, and they cost more (in terms of cost-to-benefit ratio).

The boot up speed comparison mentioned above is completely useless since we don't have identical OS installs and other hardware. Your conclusions are also based upon your assumptions. So to summarize as the value and usefulness of the cache SSD drive, a lot will depend upon how your original OS and additional software is installed. Richard makes a lot of valid points about cost and benefit if you have little additional software installed or the OS install is on a separate small partition. As to my personal situation of using a single large partition for the entire OS drive with a large amount of additional software installed on the OS drive, I stand by all my previous comments. The cache SSD installed in my HTPC has given me the increased speed and responsiveness I was looking for without either buying an expensive large SSD or the hassle of an OS reinstall.

[richard1980]

Why on Earth would you assume that everyone would install the OS on a separate small partition?

I didn't make any assumption. I said "should be". I understand that not everyone does things the correct way. But that doesn't change the correct way.

I and I suspect a great many others are using a single partition that includes both OS and program installations.

Maybe throughout the general population, but not in this community.

You don't have to reinstall Windows. All you have to do is create an image of the HDD OS partition and then restore the image to the SSD.

Again, your assumptions you have are validating your comments

The only assumption that I made there was the assumption that the SSD is large enough to contain the image of the HDD OS partition. That is a valid assumption considering the size of available SSDs. There is no assumption about it not being necessary to reinstall the OS. That is a fact. That said, a clean install is certainly easier, since Windows will recognize that you are installing to an SSD and will make the necessary adjustments for you. But a clean install is not a requirement, since you can make those adjustments yourself after you restore the image.

The boot up speed comparison mentioned above is completely useless since we don't have identical OS installs and other hardware.

I wasn't trying to compare the times directly. I was merely trying to make the point that your boot time is longer than mine, due in part to the fact that you are only caching part of your OS rather than permanently storing the entire OS on an SSD.

As to my personal situation of using a single large partition for the entire OS drive with a large amount of additional software installed on the OS drive, I stand by all my previous comments.

So in other words, you're doing it wrong, in more than one way:

1. Your OS isn't segregated from the rest of the data on your PC.
2. You have "a large amount of additional software" on your HTPC.

The cache SSD installed in my HTPC has given me the increased speed and responsiveness I was looking for without either buying an expensive large SSD or the hassle of an OS reinstall.

I don't dispute the fact that the cache drive has increased your system performance. I'm just saying there's a better option. And no, you don't have to buy "an expensive large SSD". You can just as easily buy a cheap small SSD.

[Haba]

The ramblings of the above post I see as an attempt to lure me into yet another useless debate about what is right and wrong while being critical of the choices I have made. He does not know my own personal situation and why I have made the choices I have made. He doesn't own a Cache SSD and cannot comment on how well it works or not. I resent the comments and think it is pointless to continue responding.

Should anyone have questions regarding the cached SSD, I will gladly share what I know about it's use.

[STC]

For a 'Best Performance Scenario', installing the OS on a dedicated SDD is the generally accepted method. A hybrid SSD cache drive with a mechanical drive do not perform as fast as a solid state SSD.

It can include all installed apps as most HTPCs are dedicated to that task and don't require a mass of installed apps that take up a lot of space.

[richard1980]

The ramblings of the above post I see as an attempt to lure me into yet another useless debate about what is right and wrong while being critical of the choices I have made. He does not know my own personal situation and why I have made the choices I have made. He doesn't own a Cache SSD and cannot comment on how well it works or not. I resent the comments and think it is pointless to continue responding.

Should anyone have questions regarding the cached SSD, I will gladly share what I know about it's use.

You're right...I'm just a guy that doesn't know what he's talking about. Facts, common knowledge, experience, logic, specifications, reviews, an understanding of how things work...none of that stuff matters. The only thing that matters is your opinion.

Resent all you want. At the end of the day, you are the one that suffers, not me.

[Haba]

There is a review of the SanDisk ReadyCache drive at the link below.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/10/ ... oEcIPlwquI

Mentioned in the forums about possible issues that can come up when you clone a HD to an SSD:

#19
10-18-2012, 12:28 AM

Hugh_Briggs [H] SSD Guru, 1.4 Years

Also, there are configuration errors that can crop up when ghosting. When you install WIn7 if it detects an SSD the OS configures itself to operate somewhat better with that type of storage solution. If you just clone over the HDD to the SSD, the OS inst configured correctly. You can run winsatdisk from an elevated cmd prompt to force the OS to detect the SSD and recognize it, BUT there is no guarantee that it will reconfigure the OS. I have heard that it will reconfigure the OS at that time, but have yet to see proof of that. Also, SSDs are very sensitive to alignment issues when installing, so you will have to use a '4k aware' cloning solution when transferring an OS from HDD to SSD. For average users all of this is a serious PITA, hence the easy to use caching solutions. Be prepared to see more come forward, this segment is only going to grow. All of the dollar a GB in the world isn't going to do a thing for the guys/gals that need 2TB of storage or do not have the time or desire to learn all of these tidbits...

The very last post in the forums mentions software issues with the latest update. I installed the 1.21 version on my initial install since that was all that was available. I have zero issues with the software. There are new updates listed now but I am having no issues so I have not attempted an upgrade at this time.

I should also fully clarify the boot up time of 52 sec includes fully loading up WMC with plug-ins and lot of associated media caches. The Win7 desktop pops up very quickly.

[STC]

^ Kudos to you for setting things up the way you wanted and I'm glad you have seen a marked improvement in your config

For the fastEST method you need to be using a solid state SSD drive for the OS and apps. The hybrid solution still relies on mechanical platters and heads for many reads/writes. This inherently makes it slower than a SSD drive alone. I think that's all Richard was trying to point out.

Not counting POST as all motherboards have different POST speeds, from OS mount (Starting Windows) my HTPC boots into a usable WMC in 24 seconds. The OS and apps were originally cloned from a mechanical drive to a OCZ 60GB SSD, then cloned again to a faster Crucial 64GB SSD (both 4k clusters). All precautions and procedures were adhered to to make the solution work.- Windows did not force a DRM key change at either cloning stage.

[Haba]

^ Kudos to you for setting things up the way you wanted and I'm glad you have seen a marked improvement in your config

For the fastEST method you need to be using a solid state SSD drive for the OS and apps. The hybrid solution still relies on mechanical platters and heads for many reads/writes. This inherently makes it slower than a SSD drive alone. I think that's all Richard was trying to point out.

Not counting POST as all motherboards have different POST speeds, from OS mount (Starting Windows) my HTPC boots into a usable WMC in 24 seconds. The OS and apps were originally cloned from a mechanical drive to a OCZ 60GB SSD, then cloned again to a faster Crucial 64GB SSD (both 4k clusters). All precautions and procedures were adhered to to make the solution work.- Windows did not force a DRM key change at either cloning stage.

Thanks. My HTPC is not dedicated, occasionally the pc also runs typical desktop software along with simulations and games. When I built the HTPC, I simply could not afford a larger SSD that could handle the software so I went with a fast HD. Unfortunately, I am on a very limited budget.

I have never stated that a dedicated SSD is slower than a cache SSD/HD solution. My boot time starts at the power on button which includes the post time. I have no experience with SSDs and have only read about some of the precautions, possible issues when cloning a mechanical drive. I felt that if I went with an SSD down the road, I would do a new install (time consuming) and not clone a mechanical drive to avoid the possible issues. I found out about the cache SSD, read the reviews and decided to go this route. The 15 minute no hassle install of the cache ssd provides a nice improvement for my system. I do not consider this right or wrong or the best solution but a different solution to speeding up the HTPC that is quick and works.