I've started using a 32GB USB stick as a HDD cache (Operating under Readyboost software supplied in Win 7) for the desktops 500GB main drive. It definitely seems to reduce OS load time as well as making video ops much faster.

Any body else tried this ? - @ £17 it seems like an ultra cheap way of getting a hybrid drive.

Is there a downside ?

Nick

Haven't tried it, but will be giving it a go tonight. I don't boot my desktop often so I'm using the 64GB SSD in it to hold a few larger Steam games, rather than as my OS drive, if this works it could be a nice way to get the benefits of that and better OS operation.

It wont be anything like a hybrid drive!

Your relying on USB 2.0 and a slow usb memory stick, for sure it will be faster than the mechanical drive but nothing compared to a proper SSD!

I used ready boost a while back, found it made little to no noticeable difference to my system.

Used ready boost....then just fitted more ram....much better now!!!!

Haven't tried it, but will be giving it a go tonight. I don't boot my desktop often so I'm using the 64GB SSD in it to hold a few larger Steam games, rather than as my OS drive, if this works it could be a nice way to get the benefits of that and better OS operation.

I seem to recall the Readyboost instructions saying that it won't operate if you have a Solid State Disk installed - though it inferred that it may operate with some of the early ones. Give it a try.

Nick

Used ready boost....then just fitted more ram....much better now!!!!

My system has 4GB installed and has a four core Athlon and it was still hesitating on some apps despite access to 3GBps SATA HDD.

So, before installing the USB stick, I cleared out the C drive of unwanted files, compacted the registry, minimised the TSRs and memory resident applications and optimised the system using Registry Mechanic. I inserted the USB stick in a USB Hub remote from the desktop !!! (You're not supposed to do that). I then formatted to NTFS and activated ReadyBoost on the "Use this device" option.

Works a treat and seems to get better after a couple of restarts once it learns what applications you use on a regular basis.

Nearest equivalent I could find to this was 4GB of flash ram on a PCI card @£36 !! Cheapest SSD I could find was about £59 for 60GB.

Postscript

Supposedly, it shows maximum benefit on slow HDD (5400RPM) operating on laptops. However, its definately showing benefits on my Seagate 3GBps (7,200RPM)- motherboard supports 6GBPs.

May be the advantaged lies in nonsequential disk operations as this article suggests:-

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/window-on-windows/keep-tabs-on-readyboost-with-windows-7s-performance-monitor/2257

Apparently increasing ram should make no difference to disk operations, whereas this app focuses solely on boosts disk ops.

Nick

Edited 26 January, 201214 yr by Clunkclick

I seem to recall the Readyboost instructions saying that it won't operate if you have a Solid State Disk installed - though it inferred that it may operate with some of the early ones. Give it a try.

Nick

I think what they actually say is that you don't need to use it if you already use an SSD as your boot drive. Same as things like SuperFetch are disabled if your boot drive is an SSD. It certainly let me enable it, I'm not planning on any scientific tests but I'll leave this USB drive plugged in for a while and see if it "feels" different

My system has 4GB installed and has a four core Athlon and it was still hesitating on some apps despite access to 3GBps SATA HDD.

Postscript

Supposedly, it shows maximum benefit on slow HDD (5400RPM) operating on laptops. However, its definately showing benefits on my Seagate 3GBps (7,200RPM)- motherboard supports 6GBPs.

May be the advantaged lies in nonsequential disk operations as this article suggests:-

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/window-on-windows/keep-tabs-on-readyboost-with-windows-7s-performance-monitor/2257

Apparently increasing ram should make no difference to disk operations, whereas this app focuses solely on boosts disk ops.

Nick

Having a 4core cpu with 4gb of ram.....1gb of ram per core then!..not the best!

I run an old 3200 Athlon64bit with 4gb of ram (max the MB can support)....320gb SATA150 7200rpm 16mb cache.....win7ultimate.....but I have increased the page file to 6gb and partitioned the harddrive so the system is all in one part and the "mydocs, my photos" etc is in the other partion........nice and fast now!!!

My vista machine now wont run without using an SD card as readyboost. Without it it take ages to load and become usable.

My vista machine now wont run without using an SD card as readyboost. Without it it take ages to load and become usable.

The word (and source of the problems) there is VISTA.........

Nah, it's a 5 yr old machine that's no longer upto the job of what I do with it.

Choice is though a new phone, or laptop. TBH I've pulled the laptop out twice since christmas....

vista can only use a max of 4gb

ive used these in the past but once i fitted ssd's it became pointless as the usb drives are slower than the ssd

there worthwhile if your using a mechanical drive but not sure by how much, i guess if you have a spare drive doing nothing then why not use it

Having a 4core cpu with 4gb of ram.....1gb of ram per core then!..not the best!

I run an old 3200 Athlon64bit with 4gb of ram (max the MB can support)....320gb SATA150 7200rpm 16mb cache.....win7ultimate.....but I have increased the page file to 6gb and partitioned the harddrive so the system is all in one part and the "mydocs, my photos" etc is in the other partion........nice and fast now!!!

No, its not the best amount of memory. In fact, I've ordered another 4GB this morning. The intention is to put the windows Virtual Memory pagefile into a 3GB Ram Disk (System requests this figure) using the DataRam free software (Tried doing this earlier today, but 4GB main memory isn't enough to run a ram disk based page file as Windows demands a minimum 3GB page file on my system and won't accept a lower user set figure). Hopefully, that + Readyboost will really speed things up.

Even without the ram disk, operating only Readyboost on the 32GB USB stick timings are as follows:-

Windows 7 load from pressing BRS to final load of desktop gadgets (Including password entry) 1 minute 15 secs (According to the system logs was 3 minutes before).

Load Ms Word and Excel 2 secs each.

Load Outlook 3 secs

Load Ms Internet Explorer (Google search default) 3 secs

Load Kindle 5 secs

Load Picasa 2 secs

Load Google Earth 10 secs

Load Photoshop (Including selecting edit option) 12 secs

Load epson Scan (which includes handshaking with the scanner) 5 secs.

Load Adobe Reader 2 secs.

Load Registry Mechanic (Includes cliking OK to load) 4 secs.

That's steaming hot.

Previous times for app loads were anything up to a minute.

I have got another gash 16GB USB stick, if only I could stick the pagefile on that. Hmmm ? Win 7 hasn't got a native ramdisk management tool and unfortunately the Dataram software doesn't identify the any of the USB stick drives as candidates for a ram disk.Any ideas ?

Nick

Edited 27 January, 201214 yr by Clunkclick

It wont be anything like a hybrid drive!

Your relying on USB 2.0 and a slow usb memory stick, for sure it will be faster than the mechanical drive but nothing compared to a proper SSD!

I used ready boost a while back, found it made little to no noticeable difference to my system.

A USB flash disk can be a lot lot slower than a hard disk, especially during writes.

I'm not so sure it'll make any positive difference to be honest. Especially when it's hung off a 400Mbit bus, that uses quite a bit of CPU as it gets towards the top end speeds.

If you're after ultimate speed then SSD really is your best option.

I recently stuck one in my netbook: Atom N270, 3GB Ram and ION GFX.

Boot times for Windows 7 Home Premium 32 bit are about 35-40 seconds from powering on to fully booted. Super quick. A resume from Hibernate is even quicker at about 25 seconds.

Moving the pagefile to a usb drive really isn't a good option. The read/write speeds are going to be nowhere near fast enough.

I played around with readyboost on a couple of SD cards for a while... then just bought the SSD in the end. Got a 128GB Samsung one (HP Branded) for £100 then upgraded the firmware to a generic Samsung one that supports TRIM.

Phil

Also when you get you ram do you order singles???.......I tend to strip it all out then get a matched pair or modules.

Also don't know about the data thingly you on about...but I use Easus home partition (free version)...which is very good for doing stuff to drives etc!......

Having a 4core cpu with 4gb of ram.....1gb of ram per core then!..not the best!

RAM is not tied to a processor/core and running processes (which may run on a single or across multiple cores) request RAM from the virtual memory pool (some physical, some disk based). 32-bit processes are limited to 2/3Gb addressability under Windows, a 64-bit process can ask for anything up to 8 TB of memory, but it doesn't mean that they have to be CPU hungry processes.

Chris

Some comparable times for writes:-

One page of text MS Word 1-2 secs

600 pages of 26MB PDF files as text (Conversion) 17 secs.

Rotate Counterclockwise/clockwise 3.25 MB JPEG (4000 x 3000 pixel) in Windows Explorer 2 secs.

Drag and drop same image to desktop 2-3 secs

Load same image into Photoshop 2 secs

Save that image on desktop 3 secs.

I think I'll hold fire on an SSD at the moment as I'll need at least a 250GB to accommodate Win 7 and Vista dual boot system and they are a bit expensive at the moment. I'll wait 'till they are below the £100 level - two years ?

And I always buy matched pairs of memory.

Nick

Edited 27 January, 201214 yr by Clunkclick

Why would you ever dual boot 7 and vista?

Why would you ever dual boot 7 and vista?

FIFO leapfrog progression XP-VISTA-Win 7.

Fall back position to maintain capabity. I always keep two OS on the go, in case one gets irretrievably screwed by friendly fire i.e. the latest virus/Coding error (As is their wont) and I find that I haven't got the time to fix it and/or have to wait for a fix to issue from MS.

I suppose its less important now I've got the laptop and considering the fact that Win 7 is the most bullet-proof Win version yet.

Nick

FIFO leapfrog progression XP-VISTA-Win 7.

Fall back position to maintain capabity. I always keep two OS on the go, in case one gets irretrievably screwed by friendly fire i.e. the latest virus/Coding error (As is their wont) and I find that I haven't got the time to fix it and/or have to wait for a fix to issue from MS.

I suppose its less important now I've got the laptop and considering the fact that Win 7 is the most bullet-proof Win version yet.

Nick

I have win7 Ultimate and it lets you make a complete disc image of the whole computer/system etc........on a regular basis I take a complete image and have it stored on an external hard drive.....if the main computer goes endup I just do a complete re-install....and than means everything is installed as I had it...folders,icons,shortcuts,programes....etc....etc......all in 45mins...in one easy opperation!!!!.....did it when I fitted a new hard drive...disconnect old one...fit new one...insert image initiate cd and connect backup external hard drive..pres go....wait 45mins......nice computer as you left it!!!!

Also win7 ultimate has "backward" xp run options too!!

I have win7 Ultimate and it lets you make a complete disc image of the whole computer/system

Also win7 ultimate has "backward" xp run options too!!

I'll definitely have a look at that.

At the moment, my C drive with Win 7 and other stuff (Win virtual machine) has got 70GB on board. Most of the big applications are on drives in the secondary partition. I could remove the contents of Windows Old and Virtual machine and save about 15GB - only installed the VM in order to see if I could run some old games in XP mode (Didn't work). That change would put me in the bracket for a 70 or 80GB SSD at under £100.

That's perked me up a bit.

Cheers.

Nick

Edited 29 January, 201214 yr by Clunkclick

The only problem with restoring a backup from a normal HDD to an SDD is that the sectors will be all wrong.

On an SSD the sectors are a certain size. Blocks of memory. On a normal HDD this isn't a problem as there are no blocks so data can go anywhere on the drive whereas on an SSD the data can "straddle" the blocks and you have a little bit in one and a little bit in another which slows the drive down as it has to read from two blocks to get the one bit of information which basically doubles the read/write operations.

Also the first sector has to be properly alinged which also doesn't matter with a traditional drive.

A fresh install is the only way to go with an SSD drive I'm afraid.

Phil

Have a look at this site on how to do it.......linky....

http://www.todo-backup.com/backup-resource/clone/how-to-migrate-to-a-solid-state-disk-without-reinstalling-windows.htm

I use the freeware version of the programe and it is very good!!!.......The tech forums are also very informative.......is can be done without as above without a scratch install etc............

it has to read from two blocks to get the one bit of information which basically doubles the read/write operations.

Would you notice given the differences in drive latencies between HDD and SSDs i.e. 10-15ms as against 0.1ms

Also the first sector has to be properly alinged which also doesn't matter with a traditional drive.

Doesn't a HDD have a set down point ?

This article gives a method, without a fresh install, and also accomodates an HDD with a partition:-

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/149969-ssd-install-transfer-operating-system.html

Nick

Edited 31 January, 201214 yr by Clunkclick