By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zkuq on 03 July 2016
Edit Thread
Pemalite said:
Zkuq said:

Nope what? Care to enlighten me? If I said something incorrect, I'd gladly be corrected and told why it's wrong. If I did happen to spread some misinformation, I'd like to make sure I won't do it again.

Nope as in the SSD will still not accellerate the retreival/writing of data for the SSHD.

Virtual Memory/Swap File, whatever you want to call it isn't designed to cache hard drives on the SSD and you should probably read up on what it really is used for.
In-fact you would wan't to avoid lots of small writes on an SSD for things like Virtual Memory/Caching. - Why? Wear and tear. SSD's have a finite amount of write cycles, it's wise to minimise your Virtual Memory, disable things like Superfetch.
There is a reason why the notoriously unreliable OCZ Vertex 2 in another machine of mine is still running as strongly as the day I bought it many years ago. (I was an early adopter, sue me.)

In short... There is still a benefit to owning an SSHD over a mechanical drive even if you have an SSD as the main.
I know this, because I have all 3 and have done extensive testing in memory management, the pinnicle of which being a Ram drive.

I think I really failed to explain myself the first time because I got two people trying to correct me, and I don't think either of you understood my original point. :P Yeah, I meant SSD caching (despite talking about swapping because I'm bad with storage-related terms) and how I believe it should be equivalent to owning an SSHD. That is, to me it would seem that using SSD caching (SSD for cache + HDD for actual storage) should be roughly equal to having an SSHD performance-wise.

I do realize SSD caching is going to be stressful for the SSD, but doesn't the SSD component of an SSHD face the same problem?