So my SSD said goodbye!

[Jack the Swede in Spain]

Hi guys

 

Just a VERY unscientific test with SSD-discs and FS.

 

I have a Desktop with 4 normal HD:s (3*1TB + 1*3TB) and a 128 GB SSD installed. I have TWO sets of FSX installed on the desktop (to be able to compare). One copy with ALL my add-ons on one 1 TB HD and one copy on the SSD. I fly in general 2-4 hrs per day with the FS on the SSD (since 2011) and the FS on the normal HD I have been using since 2007 (10 000 flight hrs).

 

My conclusions are:

 

1.

As my SSD is only 128 GB I can NOT have all my add-ons installed on that disc. I have to install some of them on another 1TB HD. Sometimes that is a BIG problem as I can NOT use the default installer provided with the add-on. So if you want to have your FS on an SSD it must be at least 512GB. The other FS installation gives my NO problems with installers OR having my add-ons in default locations.

 

2.

I have NOT noticed ANY performance differences having FS installed on a SSD or a HD.

 

3.

By having EVERYTHING in one place makes it easy to do backups,

 

4.

As FS is very read intense it uses the discs very much and we all know that an SSD has limited R/W cycles during it¨s liftetime. As for  my SSD it lasted ONLY two years and yesterday it stopped working. My 1TB HD has had NO problems what so ever.

 

5.

For me, in the future, I will ONLY have my OS on an SSD and my FS on a fast HD at least 1TB. Right now I have plans to move it to a fast 3TB HD that can host EVERYTHING I have and wish for my FS.

 

Jack

the Swede in Spain

[aviator49]

Hey JJJ,

 

I must admit that SSD's are fast. I personally use 2 600GB Veloci Raptors, which accommodates for all my OS files, and FSX running on my second drive with no issues at all. I agree that you need at least a 5OOGB SSD plus, to house FSX and all its add-ons.

 

Regards

 

Sam

[JohnR]

Hi JJ

 

SSD currently available in UK for a little over 60 pence per GB (Toshiba 512GB £315)

 

http://www.ebuyer.com/480347-toshiba-512gb-2-5-ssd-thnsnh512gcst4paga

[JimmiG]

I keep P3D+OrbX on my 120GB SSD, but I have to admit it's getting tight. Not sure what I'll do when I run out - either get a 256GB SSD or just move it to an HDD.

 

There's a *slight* difference in initial loading time, unless you've used the AffinityMask tweak to turn off some cores for FSX/P3D. It's very tiny, though. The FSX loading processes is more CPU-bound than disk-bound. The only exception are large FS9 photo sceneries that contain tens of thousands of tiny files that have to be read and assembled. Contrary to popular belief, getting a SSD (or manically defragmenting your HDD) does not help with "the blurries".

 

There's no limit to the number of read operations, only Erase/Write cycles. So keeping FSX on a SSD will not shorten its life span unless you constantly install and remove add-ons. However I agree that the best use of an SSD is for the OS and applications. That's where you'll notice the biggest difference, especially with the boot up time of the OS and the performance just after a reboot before the SuperFetch cache has been populated.

[spirit_66]

I've a 512 GB OCZ-Vertex4 and the tool says it's in excellent health and will still last 7 more years. The SSD has 3 partitions which house Windows, FSX and P3P.

 

FSX and P3P are not very challenging for disks after loading the Sim.The difference in speed between HDD and SSD is significant but not for Sims and does not improve the FPS.

 

Any other program run like a charm with SSD. The browser is opened in a blink of an eye. Windows Office tools like words, excel etc. are working pretty fast.

 

My system has no HDD anymore. I've an external 1 TB HDD drive and this one is for backup of 1 PC and 2 Laptops only.

 

Last year the HDD on my Sony Vaio died and I changed it to a 480 GB SSD and now I've the pleasure of a much faster Laptop.

 

Spirit

[Adam Howarth]

You wont notice an improvement in apps that arent constrained by IO. P3D FSX arent really IO bound.

 

Crapsumer HDDs dont sustain more than 120MB/s. Good SSDs will do 550 MBs in the consumer class. Still my lsi hardware raid 6 array with eight sas drives that does over 1 GBs and provides me with 24 TB spanks ssd arrays for the blend of storage and speed it would take allot of ssds to get bulk storage.

 

Id say the MTBF of SSDs in the real world is better than crapsumer HDDs. Now that the controllers are good and wear levelling is working robustly they are featuring in the enterprise storage space.

[petfy]

Current SSDs are only supposed to last about 2 to 3 years, depending on usage (about 10,000 read / write cycles per element).

 

Be careful of the Operating System SSD as this should get the the most usage. As I understand it, it is the Windows swap file that generates the greatest amount of read / write usage and therefore it is the OS SSD which should fail first.

 

I have increased my RAM as much as I can afford in an attempt to minimise swap file usege. I also try to minimise read / writes by doing things such as very rarely performing defrags, etc.

[alan2]

You've all got me thinking now ......hmmm.....what about my hybrid ?  Prone to collapse after a couple of years  ?  Theres plenty of action happening on that disk.

[Ian Routley]

.....

As FS is very read intense it uses the discs very much and we all know that an SSD has limited R/W cycles during it¨s liftetime. ......

Bearing in mind, it is the Write cycles that probably do the damage, and FSX is generally written infrequently, and read often.

 

Also, I think overt drive failure (as you have reported) is a different entity to drive WEAR.

 

The effect of an SSD is on load-times, not performance.  It is probably most evident with first-time loads, and slewing rapidly across terrain (like scenery developers do).

[Adam Howarth]

Current SSDs are only supposed to last about 2 to 3 years, depending on usage (about 10,000 read / write cycles per element).

 

My samsung 512gb 840 pro is warranted by samsung for 5 years.

 

Heres an article on endurance testing

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6459/samsung-ssd-840-testing-the-endurance-of-tlc-nand

[boleyd]

I can add that P3D on an SSD vs. FSX on a mechanical no appreciable difference. Both operate satisfactorly. Loading(start) is CPU bound.

If Microsoft did nothing else correctly the look-ahead buffering of data(scenery) on a disk is done very well.

 

I moved my paging file to the SSD for a short time. Did not notice any difference.My paging use is low due to 16gb of memory.Right now it is zero usage.With 5.9gb free normal memory.

 

i5-2550 4ghz, 16mb memory, GTX 550TI 1gb

[birdguy]

I read this thread with interest and decided to do some testing myself.  I started yesterday afternoon and finished this morning.  One caveat.  I know how to do basic stuff with a computer by am an order of magnitude below guru level.  I do know how to perform test per my background as an electronic development engineer a lifetime or so ago.

 

My system is a Dell XPS 8500.  I&-3770 CPU @ 3.4 GHZ.  8GB Ram.  nVidia GeForce GTX 650.

 

I ran identical tests on using an SSD and an HHD.  I have an icon on my desktop that loads FSX and brings me to my Quest Kodiak on a parking space at KORS, Orcas Island.  I used go to airport to put me 34 Right at KSEA Seattle.  My framerates are locked in at 30FPS. I started the Kodiak and monitored the frame rates from rolling to flying to the Seattle waterfront at about 1200 feet and terminating the flight at the Space Needle.

 

The first tests were run with my present system, a Samsung 500GB SSD.  I ran the tests yesterday afternoon.

 

This morning I copied the complete FSX installation from the SSD to a temporary folder on my 'C' Drive.

 

I then removed the SSD and replaced it with a 1TB Caviar Green WD10EZRX 6GB/s 64M Buffer I have;lying in a drawer.  I don't know it's speed except that it runs more slowly than 7200 RPM.

 

I then formatted the HHD and copied the FSX system from the 'C' Drive temporary folder to the new HHD.  Once the files were copied I defragged the HHD.

 

I then ran exactly the same tests I ran with the SSD yesterday Afternoon.  Her are the results.

 

Samsung 500GB SSD

 

Load FSX from desktop icon to Orcas Island.  Time 55 seconds

 

Go to KSEA from KORS using 'go to airport'.  Time 35 seconds.  My Ultimate Traffic 2 is set to airliners 50% to get some airliners at the KSEA gates.

 

Started Kodiak engine at end of runway34R.  Framerates 24 to 27 FPS.  Once I hit about 500ft and headed toward the Seattle waterfront the framerates increased to 25-30 range and stayed that way until I reached the Space Needle. 

 

WD10EZRX

 

Load FSX from desktop icon to Orcas Island.  Time 2 minutes.

 

Go to KSEA from KORS 'using go to airport.'  Time 50 seconds.

 

Flying from end of runway 34R to Space Needle via Seattle waterfront showed IDENTICAL framerates as I experienced with the SSD.

 

Conclusions:

 

Since loading times are a very minor issue with me I decided to leave the HHD installed for capacity and reliability.  The Samsung SSD goes into the drawer until I can find some other use for it.  I'm kinda sorry I fell for the SSD hype.  I beleived framerates would be better because of what I had read.  And in my minds eye they were..

 

Now a question for someone more knowledgeable about computers than I am.

 

What would I gain by getting a hard drive that spins faster than my WD10EZRX, say a 7200 or 10,000 RPM guy?

 

Noel

[spirit_66]

Hi Noel,

 

your experience is exactly what I expected to happen.

 

As FSX is NOT I/O related so one can't improve the FPS with a SSD.

 

What I like on a SSD is that the most other applications and programs run faster as with HDD. I'm spoiled now with a quick startup of Windows and all my other stuff. Even scrolling in a word document is much faster. There's no way back for me. I think a SSD is as much reliable as a HDD. What lifespan should one expect from a PC at all? I'm sure that the SSD lives long enough. It produce less noise and less heat. I need not to defragment anything but for sure there are more advantages.

 

I'll never ever again put a HDD for normal use in my PC. It's only good for a backup drive or maybe for a Raid-System but I've no experience with Raid-Systems.

 

Spirit

[tuisong]

Well I have found this discussion very interesting. I have learnt quite a bit. Thanks.

[robmw]

As mentioned above SSD wear only occurs on write cycles, reading is effectively unlimited. If FSX is installed on it's own disk (which is recommended for optimal performance) writing will be minimal when actually using FSX. SSD firmware balances writes across the disk either in conjunction with Windows or alone as in earlier PCIe SSD to ensure that cell writes are spread as much as possible and to relocate if a cell is close to failing - this is a bit like finding and avoiding bad sectors on a mechanical HD. It's also a reason why SSD shouldn't be filled to the brim as the firmware needs some reserve to work with.

 

The throughput of an SSD will vary enormously depending on overall quality (usually reflected in the price) but on older machines can actually be limited by the SATA interface, which is why I chose a PCIe SSD at the time. The biggest benefit to SSD which no mechanical HD will beat (although hybrids might get close) is random access time which is well below 1ms. This will be noticable in FSX as an elimination of occasional brief pauses which occur from time to time when flying across scenery boundaries, loading AI or other objects etc.

 

I've monitored FSX disk activity with SysInternals' Process Explorer - in a typical flight for me FSX can read 3-4 GB of data and but only write a few KB to the FSX disk. Most FSX file writes will be in the FSX config and user folder folders which are usually located on the Windows OS drive.

 

I've used SSD for FSX for some time now and I wouldn't go back.

 

Rob W

[birdguy]

Interesting remarks Spirit.

Speed outside of frame rates for my simulators is no issue with me.

I use my computer for only three things; internet access, e-mail and simulators. Load times or scrolling times with HHDs are fine with me.

I do have my MSTS train simulator on a dedicated 240MB SSD and will leave it there since it only take up about 20% of the space, leaving a lot of room for expansion.

But I do want the 1 TB size of the HHD for FSX, Orbx, Mesh, Ultimate Terrain, FTX Global, etc, etc, etc. And a 1TB SSD is WAY out of my price range. (OCZ 1TB SSD $2588.00 at Amazon.Com). That's something my wife would notice.

Noel

[spirit_66]

.........But I do want the 1 TB size of the HHD for FSX, Orbx, Mesh, Ultimate Terrain, FTX Global, etc, etc, etc. And a 1TB SSD is WAY out of my price range. (OCZ 1TB SSD $2588.00 at Amazon.Com). That's something my wife would notice.....

Hi Noel,

 

you could also think about a Raid 0 with 2x 512 GB SSD drives.

 

By the way - speed is always an issue for me. Once I had it I would like to enjoy it always.

 

Spirit

[birdguy]

You are way over my head Spirit.  I have no idea what Raid 0 is and I really have no desire to learn.  I'm retired now and I don't want to go back to work.  I just want to play with my sims.  And if the warts aren't too big I can tolerate them.  Perfection would be nice, but only if it requires no effort on my part..

 

I didn't get start on computers until I was in my late 50s.  Those were the DOS days which I knew something.  Windows 3.1 with it's win.ini file was manageable for me.  Then the technology left me in it's wake turbulence as windows sped on to bigger and better things.

 

Noel

[spirit_66]

Hi Noel,

 

don't worry but I'm retired too. My profession was a software developer and I'm still in touch with computing, now it's a hobby for me.

Raid 0 and other Raid systems are different ways to connect drives. If you want to know more try Google with Raid.

 

Wish you happy flying

Spirit

[Dibidut]

Quote Birdguy:

"I ran identical tests on using an SSD and an HHD.  I have an icon on my desktop that loads FSX and brings me to my Quest Kodiak on a parking space at KORS, Orcas Island.  I used go to airport to put me 34 Right at KSEA Seattle.  My framerates are locked in at 30FPS. I started the Kodiak and monitored the frame rates from rolling to flying to the Seattle waterfront at about 1200 feet and terminating the flight at the Space Needle."

Quote end.

 

Actually its a very "thought situation", i think, at least for me.

With plenty places to fly too/from, and plenty Planes to do it with, You actually have to do a test from the ground. 1. load fsx.  2. load time & date. 3 load plane. 4.load Airport. 5.load load...and more?(or in an other order).

And then compare.

There, You should see some very marcant  time differences.

 

I gennerally buy the cheapest (Samsung SSDs) on the marked. There is 3 years warranty and in 3 years, i guess that prices will drop a bit. But i always backup on a Extern HHD, though.

Personly, i will never go back.

And bad things can happend, even with "old" SSDs...  JJJackson I feel with You...but dont give in.

Kind regards

Henrik

[birdguy]

Henrick, I never open FSX directly unless I want to do something like add a scenery to the scenery library. Instead I have flights I select from the desktop.

This is a picture of my desktop.

When I am ready to fly I first go to FTX Control and select the region I want to fly in. Say it's Europe. I select Europe.

Then I click on the Europe Kodiak icon. That brings me directly to the ramp In Birmingham, England where I am standing outside my Kodiak.

Then I click on ALT-Flights-Load and that brings me to a list of over a hundred pre-positioned flights at selected airports in every ORBX area. For instance, If I want to fly from Inverness I scroll down to 'UK Inverness (EGPE)', click on it, and it takes me directly outside my Kodiak on the ramp at the Inverness airport.

I have a binder of maps for every ORBX region with a red dot on all the airports where I have per-positioned flights.

It's a bit of work to set up, but once you've done it, it couldn't be easier...at least for me.

I still have to work on setting things up for other aircraft, but as you know flight simming is something that is never finished.

Noel

[Dibidut]

Birdguy.

You cant do a test that like that, its really not comparaple, and you will always get the results that You want.

A test or a comparison have to be equel regarding use of elements. You cant compere appels & bananers.

Henrik

 

Btw.Actually its a very "thought situation", i think, at least for me.

[birdguy]

What do you mean I can't do a test like that? I just did it. And I didn't get the results I 'wanted', I got the results that compare SSDs to HHDs for the way I have MY system set up.

I didn't do the test for 'everybody', I did it for me. I shared it for those who might be interested. If you want to do a different kind of test then do it. I'm anxious to see the results.

Noel

[Dibidut]

I have thought about it and i admit, that You are right Birdguy.

Kind regards

Henrik

 

Btw. Tanks for sharing.