It was just a suggestion as you had no obvious solutions. I wasn't trying to suggest this was obviosly the the issue. Although I always disable it and never had an issue.
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Greg Sevart <[email protected]> wrote: > I've never disabled pagefile on any system I have with an SSD, and don't > have problems with excessive writes as was reported. Frankly, if for some > reason Windows needs to use the pagefile, I can think of few better places > than an SSD, as Microsoft described. I buy SSDs to benefit from their > tremendous speed advantage; it seems counterproductive to do anything to > limit their usefulness. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gary Hunter > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 10:18 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] Intel SSD Toolbox > > I am not an expert but I have always disabled it because depending on your > RAM it could easily kill sectors of the drive quicker than normal. > > > > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Eli Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Why do that? > > > > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-soli > > d-state-drives-and.aspx > > > > Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs? > > > > Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger > > sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs > > handle well. > > > > In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on > > pagefile reads and writes, we find that .Pagefile.sys reads outnumber > > pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1, .Pagefile.sys read sizes are > > typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% > > less than 16 KB. > > .Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or > > equal to 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size. > > > > In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable > > performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few > > files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD. > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Gary Hunter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sorry haven't followed the whole thread but did you forget to > > > disable the paging file on that drive? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Winterlight < > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> 330GB/day on a 84GB drive and I'm not noticing it...I don't think > > anything > > >> is writing that much data or ever did. I think something is wrong > > >> with either SMART or the drive. I am planning on calling Intel next > > >> week > > while > > >> my warrenty is still good. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> At 06:42 PM 8/26/2012, you wrote: > > >> > > >>> Performance monitor trace using process and IO write bytes? Try > > >>> to see what is writing such a large amount of data. > > >>> > > >>> Eli > > >>> > > >>> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Winterlight > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > I recently installed Intel SSD Toolbox 3.03 in order to check > > >>> > the > > >>> firmware > > >>> > of my SSD X25-M80GB drive. I susequently updated to the latest > > firmware. > > >>> > However I was startled to see my drives summary screen which > > >>> > shows > > Drive > > >>> > Health as all green = Good but Estimated Life Remaining of only > > >>> > 25 > > >>> percent! > > >>> > This drive was installed in May of 2010 a little over two years > ago. > > >>> The PC > > >>> > is on 24/7 but 25 percent left...that means I have less then a > > >>> > year > > of > > >>> life > > >>> > remaing! Is this software accurate? Any comments Greg? > > >>> > thanks > > >>> > w > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
