Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Smart Response Technology and partitioning

<< < (2/2)

Stoic Joker:
Crap, 40 got ahead of me ... But I'll go ahead and post my nonsense anyway.

To me, this seems like Good bye to partitioning the (mechanical) hard drive as we used to do, in order to separate the OS+software install from saved files. Any one care to comment on this?-nosie (September 25, 2011, 01:41 AM)
--- End quote ---

Segregation, is segregation ... It can be done with either partitions or folders, the end result is still the same. Separating things by partition is only necessary when fragmentation is an issue/factor.

With mechanical drives, if you have several databases and log files (things that like to fragment) on a single partition. They will all be trying to write to the largest free space and therefore end up chopping eachother to bits. This is why fragment prone files (like those mentioned) are typically segregated from static files (like the OS) to keep mechanical drives from scuttling as the read head flutters back and forth trying to keep up with the read operation seeks for the rest of a badly fragmented file.

With SSDs, none of that matters. there are no read heads ... So regardless if the file is on one piece or 1,000 it'll still read at the same speed because there is no mechanical arm to wag back and forth trying to find the next fragment.

So while it may seem like a problem that it's forcing the single partition "issue", the point is you don't really need more than one anyway.

40hz:
Crap, 40 got ahead of me ... But I'll go ahead and post my nonsense anyway.
-Stoic Joker (October 19, 2011, 06:56 AM)
--- End quote ---

@SJ - Feel free to slip in ahead of me whenever you like.

Anything that gets me out of typing up something is fine by me. ;)

 ;D

Stoic Joker:
A charter member since 2006 and this is only your first post? That has got to be some sort of record! :)-40hz (October 19, 2011, 06:53 AM)
--- End quote ---

...Guess that's why they call'em nosie and not chatty. ;)

JavaJones:
All I want to know is will SRT work and make a difference in the case where you have a primary SSD and a secondary spinning disk, and want to cache the 2nd disk (which is not the boot drive). Anyone know? SSDs are still too expensive to use for large amounts of primary storage but if I can get improved data access speed to my mass storage hard drive using SRT that would still be worthwhile, even in addition to a main SSD.

Here's an example usage scenario where I could see the caching actually working, despite large file sizes: I'm an amateur photographer, I shoot in RAW and use Lightroom to rate, select, edit, and publish my photos. Usually I spend several days - sometimes even a week or more - on a set of shots, depending on how big the set is, how much free time I have to work on it, and how much editing each shot requires. Now a set is never larger than 32GB (the size of my memory card), and generally much smaller, averaging 5-10GB. I load up Lightroom and import the folder, all images are loaded, previews and thumbnails are generated, etc. Now I leave Lightroom open and every time I switch between images it should be noticing the increased use of these files and caching them. In a given start-to-finish selection and editing process I may look at a single image 100 times, from the start where I do a quick pass to select likely good ones, to the 2nd pass where I select the cream of the crop, to the editing phase, and then the final pass where I weed out any edits that didn't work out, through to the meta data editing phase, and finally publishing where I upload to Picasa and Facebook. In all those stages the large image files need to be accessed multiple times. So I reiterate the question, would SRT help at all in such a scenario? I'm getting a Z68 motherboard and tempted to test it...

- Oshyan

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page