SSD question

[Bone]

The main drive on my primary rig is an SSD, then I have FSX installed on a 500GB Raptor, and all of my scenery on another 500 GB raptor. FSX is very stable... way better than when my main drive was just a standard hard drive. We've all heard that when you have an SSD, you're not supposed to defrag, because the read-write cycles wear out the memory nodules on the drive. Since I tend to do alot of changes to FSX and my scenery files, I have them on the standard HD's for fear of wearing out memory nodules. I've done alot of digging, and it turns out that it takes millions of read-write ops to start wearing out the memory nodules on the newer SSD's. To put it in a time perspective, it's about 80 years worth of adding/deleting/defragging an SSD that will eventually wear it out. Now, I'm considering putting EVERYTHING on an SSD.

Since it is now fairly clear that we don't need worry about wearing out SSD's from massive adding/deleting/defragging of files on a regular basis, what about the "other" standard school of thought of separating FSX and scenery files to separate HD's? The premis of this method is based on the read/write head flying over the surface of the HD to retrieve, and you will get faster load times by having separate drives. But, the SSD can retrieve somewhat simultaneously.

So, here's my question. Since the SSD doesn't have a movable read/write head, is there any speed advantage to having FSX and scenery files on other drives? There's a new SSD that is 1 TB large, so my question is about speed, rather than space.

[txnetcop]

O&O Defrag will let you defrag SSDs safely! FSX runs hella fast on SSD because the computer access the scenery files quicker and it is very stable if you have real good SSD I recommend Vertex, Corsair, and OCZ SSDs


http://storagenewsletter.com/news/so...optimizes-ssds

[OleBoy]

I've been considering a 120gb SSD drive for FSX for some time now, although I'm real hesitant to pull the trigger. I don't want to buy a lemon that doesn't perform well.

I found this, but I don't see any SSD drives listed on sale. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/27...-special-sale#

[Bone]

OK, thanks. Any thoughts on putting everything on one large SSD?

[Naismith]

Personally, I am waiting until the standard settles down and capacity goes way way up hand in hand with prices coming way way down.

[txnetcop]

You really should buy at least a 240GB or better if you want to use it for FSX and any other games heck FSX alone can run up as high at 150-160GB of hard drive with all the stuff we have available now...

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/fea...union?page=0,0 this only for an example the SSDs have gotten more powerful since this was written!

[OleBoy]

240gb or bigger, understood. My only trouble with that is the cost. The reason for settling in to a 120gb drive is that my FSX install has never gotten close to that. Although I can imagine it getting large very quickly depending on someone's likes and uses.

[Roger]

I hate to admit how big my FsX is:redf:. I presume to get the maximum benefit that all the scenery like ORBX would have to be on an SSD too for fast access.

[wombat666]

Just as a matter of interest, I'm running a pair of 120G OCZ Agility 3 Sata 3 SSDs.
One for my OS and t'other for FSX.
It works for me as I only use ORBX 'Australia' and I see no reason to have multiple colour scheme variations of aircraft, especially if they are not Australian registered.
At roughly A$200+/- change, these are good 'bang for your buck' drives.
Before you commit to any SSD check your Mobo for Sata 3 ports, while Sata 3 SSDs are backward compatible with Sata 2 it rather defeats the purpose.
Everything else goes on a pair of 600G Raptors, perfectly adequate for FS2004 and all my Race Sims.

[P38man]

My thoughts:
- do not buy an OCZ small SSD - there is a well documented "speed" issue with them and you will not know until after you have bought it whether it has that issue or not.
- 120GB is fine for an SSD - the slow parts are (1) starting the PC and (2) The "Choose Plane" button in FSX and on an SSD these are both much faster on the SSD - the scenery is not as slow as you might think (frankly if there is a difference I would need a stopwatch to determine it)
- why 120GB is OK? - because you can easily put your ORBX folder on your regular hard drive with this technique and save money.

Junction points
- you essentially are telling windows your Hard drive's new Orbx folder is your SSD's Orbx folder

How to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) turn of User Account Control and reboot machine
2) copy all ORBX directory from SSD to Hard Drive using copy and paste
(copy to E:\ORBX - if E is the hard drive it may be another letter, usually if your OS is on SSD then that would be C and DVD drive would be D making the hard drive E)
3) Delete the ORBX directory on the SSD (not just contents)

4)
Option A - for people who can - use "Command" window DOS commands to navigate to correct FSX directory

Option B - download this program (http://sourceforge.net/projects/console/) and unzip it and put the contents into the FSX directory by way of copy and paste using windows explorer then run it from the FSX directory by double-clicking it using windows explorer
(it is the same as the Command window but no need to navigate manually using dos commands)

5)
Then to make a link in your FSX folder type this:
(in either console window or command window while in the FSX directory)

mklink /J "ORBX" "E:\ORBX"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damn easy. I use it BTW.

Now boot FSX and enjoy the suddenly extra space you have on your SSD!

Perhaps you never really needed a bigger SSD.