SSD Anyone?

Steve Mann wrote on 11/3/2010, 7:13 AM
I am sure some here are using an SSD in their editing workstation. Have you seen any improvement in rendering times? Do you have your 'temp' directories on the SSD? Have you put your media files on the SSD?

I ask because NewEgg has a sale on an internal PCIe SSD drive and this may be the time to make the move.

Ref: OCZ RevoDrive OCZSSDPX-1RVD0120 PCI-E x4 120GB PCI Express MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)


Bill Ravens wrote on 11/3/2010, 9:28 AM
I've got SSD OS drives on both my laptops and on my desktop workstation. The performance is outstanding, however, use of an SSD requires a different operational philosophy. First of all, because the lifetime of an SSD is limited by write operations, it's important to protect lifetime by minimizing writes. This requires deactivating disk defragmenting and needless writing to the SSD, such as TEMP and SCRATCH files.

Because memory is accessed without a hardware seek and read head, you can now put your pagefile on the SSD, not a separate drive.

I have not seen an appreciable improvement in render times, however. The time improvements come at bootup and program execution. My computers seem "snappier".
Chienworks wrote on 11/3/2010, 12:46 PM
The pagefile sustains some pretty heavy writing most of the time. If you're trying to conserve the life of the SSD drive then it's not a good place for the pagefile.

Note that even on conventional drives defragmenting is pretty much a useless task and creates an enormous amount of extra wear and tear that can shorten the life of the drive too. Your mechanical/magnetic drives will last longer without defragmenting and suffer almost no performance degradation without it.
John_Cline wrote on 11/3/2010, 1:18 PM
If your rendering involves material which is being "smart rendered" (copied) and the source material and the render is on the same disk, then you would see a decrease in "render" times because SSD has much faster access times and faster transfer rates. If your material is actually being rendered with color correction, titles and other filters, then you won't see any noticeable decrease in render times. Practically speaking, the most cost effective render scenario is to have your source material on one drive and render to a separate physical drive. If you're smart rendering you will achieve about 1/3 the speed of an SSD at less than 1/10 of the cost. If you're actually rendering, then you will achieve the same speed for 10 times the cost. Right now, having an SSD for your system drive makes some sense, using an SSD for video media does not.
Bill Ravens wrote on 11/3/2010, 1:55 PM
I agree, John. It makes zero sense to use an SSD for a render and media drive. By the way, it is a very risky practice to defragment media drives, despite the fact that some people recommend it, regardless of whether it's an SSD or mechanical media.

As for the point that Kelly makes, AFAIK, it is my standard practice to have source and target drives separate. Since there is no mechanical read head to go flying about, I find it improves performance to have my pagefile on the SSD, so, I choose to take that hit on lifetime.

One other procedure I've been playing with that seems to be working well for smaller renders is to use RAMDRIVE to reserve 4GB of my 12GB RAM memory as a virtual drive for use as a Scratch Disk. It also serves as the location of my TEMP files. The beauty of this is both speed(with I/O speeds of about 220mbps) and that the TEMP file flushes itself when I power down. Clearly, this can't be done without some headroom in RAM, which I can now implement because of a 64 bit OS.

As an aside, there are several utilities online that are designed to optimize win7 for SSD's. They are rather a curiousity to look at exactly what system optimizations they perform to increase system performance with an SSD.
xberk wrote on 11/3/2010, 3:46 PM
I just helped a friend install an Intel X25V ( 40 gigs) ..on his i5-750/Win7 system for use as a boot drive. Boot times are way better. Programs open faster. The whole feel is smoother. We set AHCI in the bios prior to installing Win7 .. This is recommended. Win7 automatically sets TRIM function which should lengthen the life the drive at optimum performance. Cost was $100 delivered to his door. Very worthwhile if you want to cure slow boot times and slow program opening times. Also, of course, runs dead quiet. He doesn't run Vegas but I agree with comments above. Makes sense as boot drive not for video files. Cost of large SSD just not worth it yet.

Paul B .. PCI Express Video Card: EVGA VCX 10G-P5-3885-KL GeForce RTX 3080 XC3 ULTRA ,,  Intel Core i9-11900K Desktop Processor ,,  MSI Z590-A PRO Desktop Motherboard LGA-1200 ,, 64GB (2X32GB) XPG GAMMIX D45 DDR4 3200MHz 288-Pin SDRAM PC4-25600 Memory .. Seasonic Power Supply SSR-1000FX Focus Plus 1000W ,, Arctic Liquid Freezer II – 360MM .. Fractal Design case ,, Samsung Solid State Drive MZ-V8P1T0B/AM 980 PRO 1TB PCI Express 4 NVMe M.2 ,, Wundiws 10 .. Vegas Pro 19 Edit

LReavis wrote on 11/3/2010, 6:40 PM
my Intel X25 was the best upgrade I've ever done; I use it for boot.

"use RAMDRIVE to reserve 4GB of my 12GB RAM memory as a virtual drive"

can you put your pagefile on it? Did you use a utility to create the RAMDRIVE?
Tattoo wrote on 11/3/2010, 9:18 PM
If putting the pagefile on the SSD significantly reduces the life of that SSD, I wonder if it makes sense to buy a 2nd SSD that is small & pretty cheap dedicated to the pagefile? It'd sure be a lot cheaper to replace when it dies & you don't risk losing any data you care about or have to go through the pain of reinstalling Windows. Newegg has a 8GB SDD for $90, which still isn't cheap, but may be better than killing your $400 drive & data prematurely!
Chienworks wrote on 11/4/2010, 4:18 AM
The whole point of a pagefile is to cache some of what would normally fill RAM somewhere else to free up space in RAM. It's sort of like running out of desk space because you've got too many papers spread on your desk, so you temporarily carefully move some of them into a drawer until you need them again.

Making a RAMdrive to hold the pagefile is an absolutely futile endeavor. It's like declaring a portion of your desk is a place to hold papers that won't fit on your desk. If you have enough desk space to do that, then you don't need to move papers from your desk to your desk to make room.

If you think you have enough RAM to hold everything in RAM, then simple turn off the pagefile completely. Set it's size to 0 and don't use it at all.
Bill Ravens wrote on 11/4/2010, 6:05 AM
yeah, I think it's counter-productive to put a pagefile on RAM. I guess i also beleive that the write cycles on an SSD are quite high. With controlled use of erase/write cycles, an SSD should last 4-5 years of steady use. Technology moves so fast that long before the useful life of my SSD's expire, I'll move on to something newer and better. So, my sacrifice of the SSD doesn't look so catastrophic when viewed in this light. Nothing is forever.

By the way RAMDISK is a free utility, or you can pay for an
LReavis wrote on 11/4/2010, 11:43 AM
today newegg has (had?) a 60 gb SSD for $87:

"Making a RAMdrive to hold the pagefile is an absolutely futile endeavor."

is that really true? I would swear that I read somewhere that Windows always parked some of the OS on the Pagefile.sys, regardless of amount of RAM (I have 12 gb). Maybe my recollection is in error, or my source was outdated, or wrong?
Stringer wrote on 11/4/2010, 12:27 PM
The ideal page file is supposed to be 1.5 x the amount of RAM, so you may still be at cross purposes if creating it on a RAM drive...

I would think if there was an advantage to doing this, someone would have demonstrated it by now .. I have Googled up endless discussions regarding this, with no clear indication, based on actual use, that it is a good idea..

The best advice I can find, is to install the page file on it's own partition, on a physical drive that is different than your work disk for media and rendering output.
I don't think the speed advantage of an SSD would translate to faster work flow as far as the page file is concerned ..
CorTed wrote on 11/4/2010, 1:47 PM
I installed the X25 (40G) model in my last 'new' build about 6 months ago.
I agree with everyone else that the boot time and running was all snappier, but found out quickly that 40gig as an OS drive fills up rather quickly. Windows just keeps on adding all kinds of stuff.
So I ended up taking it and made a 'working' media drive out of it
It does nothing for me regarding render times.
I guess I am waiting for larger SSD's before I commit one to an OS drive
PixelStuff wrote on 11/4/2010, 5:08 PM
Setting up a page file in RAM made sense back in the days of MS-DOS when the OS was limited to 640K and maybe to a limited extent in the earlier days of 16/32bit windows when you were limited to 4GB. But with a 64bit OS now having no feasible RAM limit it doesn't make sense.

Plus I think Windows Vista and 7 are designed with large RAM banks in mind so it will cache parts of the OS into the extra unused RAM just in case it is requested.
Steve Mann wrote on 11/4/2010, 8:43 PM
"is that really true? I would swear that I read somewhere that Windows always parked some of the OS on the Pagefile.sys, regardless of amount of RAM (I have 12 gb). Maybe my recollection is in error, or my source was outdated, or wrong?"

No, you are correct. All Windows since XP (and Unix/Linux for that matter) always wants to have page space. Always. Programs like to and are allowed to pre-allocate as much memory as they want. Even if they are never ever going to actually use it. Sometimes those programs properly deallocate memory, sometimes they don't. Sometimes, programs leave parts of themselves in allocated memory just in case you are going to run that program again. If you have no page file and a program wants to commit some for itself, your PC will crash.
Steve Mann wrote on 11/4/2010, 8:50 PM
I think I need to focus my original question better.
My question was about Solid State Disk (SSD). I never said Flash ROM. And every reply assumed the Flash variety.

The SSD referenced in my original post uses DDR RAM. Not Flash. The drive has a battery backup, so it is non-volatile, but DDR Ram is much faster than the Flash memory in SSD's.

I am going to do some tests using a RAMdisk utility, and if I can speed up renders, I will buy one of the referenced drives.
Stringer wrote on 11/4/2010, 9:49 PM
Actually the SSD you refferenced is still seen as an HDD by the BIOS and OS.
It uses a PCIe interface instead of SATA ( although there are SATA controllers on the device ) , and is almost twice as fast as your typical SATA SSD's because it uses two controllers to access the NAND chips, effectively creating a RAID 0 configuration.
According to the link provided below, two Standard SSD's configured in RAID 0, achieved somewhat better bandwidth..
" Although not charted above, a pair of SandForce-driven SF-1200 SSDs configured with 128K-stripes in a RAID-0 set produced 579 MBps peak read speeds, and 545 MBps peak write bandwidth. "

The OS sees it as a drive, not RAM, and it cannot be used to create a RAM drive.

A lot of info here:


There are DDR RAM drives available, though not always faster than SSD's. They are still seen as drives, and not as RAM..

To be seen as RAM, the storage has to actually exist on the memory bus system.
Steve Mann wrote on 11/4/2010, 10:00 PM
Boy, is my face red!!
I went back to my original post, and I had posted the wrong link.

Here's the right one:

Hope this makes more sense.

Can I blame a senior moment?
Stringer wrote on 11/4/2010, 10:09 PM
My link where I edited my post above is about the Acard.

Steve Mann wrote on 11/5/2010, 7:52 AM
I know, that's what prompted me to look at my original post.
I don't need more system RAM or non-volatility (flash). I am looking at offloading the disk I/O to the ramdrive to see if there's a measurable effect on render times. There has to be a lot of disk I/O during render because the disk activity LED flashes continuously.

"The OS sees it as a drive, not RAM, and it cannot be used to create a RAM drive."
Because the drive is made from DDR RAM, then it is probably *better* than a RAMdrive because it doesn't consume system resources.
Stringer wrote on 11/5/2010, 10:23 AM
It will use the same resources as any SATA drive, though it would use them less, but not much less than the best SSD's. (If you look at the TechReport review - CPU utilization is actually higher than other drives - but the faster transaction time might negate this )

It would be an interesting but expensive experiment ..

The card appears to be priced at $300+ less RAM..
16gb of DDR2 looks to be running $450 +

Two 60gb SSD's in RAID 0 would cost far less, and even the $344 PCIe 120gb SSD you referenced in your OP would come close enough to the performance of the Acard that I doubt you would notice the difference.