SSD drive for TRS2012 - Worth the cost?

gratton20

Member
Hi, I am wondering if it would be worth the effort/cost of buying an SSD drive to install TRS2012 on. I presently have a system as follows -

Windows 7 Home Premium, AMD A8-6600K CPU 4x 3900 MHz, 1TB Sata Hard drive @7200rpm, 16 Gig DDR3 RAM, Radeon HD 8570D 2 GB graphics.

Performance is good at present so I wonder if getting a SSD drive for either Trainz, or Windows or both is worthwhile. I am not well up on technical stuff so a non techie reply would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
 
I'd suggest you skip it, if you are questioning it, and wondering about worth the cost. If you have good performance, at present, do you really want to go through the hassle of reconfiguring and installing again?
 
There is a little difference in frames per second (3%? on my tests) however scenery objects will load faster and Trainz will load faster. It has more impact on large complex layouts.

Windows loads slightly faster but it depends how important this is to you. In a commercial environment where time is money you can get the stop watch out and decide based on the cost of people if it matters or not.

Cheerio John
 
I agree with Paul and John on this. if you are getting good performance with your SATA 1TB platter drive, keep it. You might want to use an SSD for boot and keep your platter drive for Trainz and data.

One of the biggest problems right now with SSDs, as they've moved beyond their instability pretty much, is their paltry sizes. If the 2 to 4TB drives were affordable, I might consider one, but at nearly $10,000 a piece for a 4TB SSD it's not worth the price at the this time.

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...ll-soon-provide-more-storage-than-hard-drives

Like anything else, the price will drop to a reasonable level for the consumers, but right now these are well out of reach for the rest of us.

John
 
I adore mine, at this point I've become impatient enough to dislike using a PC that has a mechanical drive for its boot partition! :hehe:

For now with costs and capacities as they are, the most common option is to go for the best SSD that suits your needs plus a large mechanical drive for mass storage. I use a 256GB SSD for Windows, software along with select games such as Trainz. Whilst everything else gets chucked onto a 2TB mechanical drive.

I cannot tolerate the slowdowns and lockups that occur on complex routes because of slow storage failing to load scenery quickly enough, if this is the case for yourself, an SSD is the way to go in my experience.

Jack.
 
Pretty much the same view as John except there is no stuttering when using an SSD, really comes into it's own with database repairs which are a heck of a lot quicker.
 
Hi, I am wondering if it would be worth the effort/cost of buying an SSD drive to install TRS2012 on.

Absolutely recommended. With only 1tB in your main drive, you need the extra space in any case. But the speed difference will amaze - you won't appreciate how slow the existing system is until you see the effect of the SSD. It's particularly noticeable at startup and when loading routes and sessions, and with large routes. But the biggest difference is in the smoothness of the running. Installation is trivial - the drive should come with a cable , so you simply plug the cable into a spare SATA slot and run the power lead. You don't have to mount it if you don't want to - it can sit in the bottom of the case. There is no need to do anything other than copy the whole Trainz folder to the new drive, and change your menu or desktop shortcuts if you use them. To get the full benefit, and if you have the space, you could install the operating system on the new drive, but that is a much bigger job that is not necessary if you only want to see the improvement in Trainz.
 
.. really comes into it's own with database repairs which are a heck of a lot quicker.

Just an interesting anecdote here. While optimising the initial database build process for T:ANE, I timed the process on my SSD/HDD fusion drive, then again on a pure HDD. The SSD came in at 6 seconds, the HDD took 245 seconds. We've optimised T:ANE to better handle the slower HDDs, so they're in the same league now, but it shows how much of a difference an SSD can make for the right kind of file access.

chris
 
Is it true that an external hard drive, or an internal hard drive can be defraged ... and a SSD should never be defraged ?

What is the minimum cost of a low end SSD, and the cost of a mid priced SSD ?
 
I have 2 SSD's in my machine, both Crucial M4's. The system drive is 128 GB and I have a dedicated 256GB SSD for Trainz. I love them, they are fast and quiet. You can get a 240GB Crucial M 500 for around $100.

You are correct in that you do not defrag SSD's.
 
Is it true that an external hard drive, or an internal hard drive can be defraged ... and a SSD should never be defraged ?

What is the minimum cost of a low end SSD, and the cost of a mid priced SSD ?

SSDs cannot be defragged because they are not really hard drives with platters. Internal or external platter hard drives, the kind that make buzzing and whirring sounds, are okay to defragment.

The reason is instead of using an actual magnetic surface on spinning media, an SSD is a giant thumb drive, or essentially uses similar technology. This technology, by the way, goes back quite far to the old days of EPROMS and EEROMS. Using special substrates and materials, the drives are written to by changing the voltage to a higher level and read at the normal lower voltage. In the olden days, this technology was used to write, burn as it was called, EEROMS. These are Electronically Erasable Read-Only Memory. To write the data, the voltage was boosted to +12V, and the device would get very warm. The data was read though at the normal, at the time, +5V. These devices were very slow in the old days - like 40ms, or even fast ones at 29ms. Today's SSDs run at RAM speeds of 10ns, which is a lot faster on reads than a regular hard drive. Writing though is still slower because of the act of changing voltages and the process of burning the data into the substrate. Today, the same or similar technology is used in SSDs, except the voltage levels are a lot lower. They do, however, get warm and this is quite obvious if you touch them while running. Even thumbdrives, which use similar technology, get warm as well.

The problem with this technology, though getting much better more recently, is these devices can be burned just so many times before they form dead spots. These writes though are many hundreds of thousands, so there's little risk of this happening too soon. The problem with defragging is this is a continous process which will degrade the life of the device as it writes a lot of data all over it. Instead of defragging an SSD, there are special routines, which either come with the software supplied by the manufacturer, or built-into the newer versions of Windows which handle the data and do clean-up routines. These clean-up routines reallocate the data and mark the bad spots so they're not used again.

Keep in mind that like real hard drives, the devices are a lot bigger than what you purchased. This extra space is for bad-sector replacement. Eventually, however, these spots run out and the device is dead. The other issue too is once these devices die, that's it! Unlike a regular drive, unless it suffers from a controller failure can still be operational except with lower performance. Then even with a controller failure, the drive may be recovered by a data recovery company. With SSD's this is impossible as the electronic device is completely dead.

SSD prices have come down considerably over the past years with quality going up as the technology has gotten better. I've seen 250GB drives going for about $180 these days with some lower and some higher, depending upon the brand. Their cost is still higher than the equivalent-sized platter drive, but this is still new technology. A 4TB SSD, however, is still upward of $10,000 while the equivalent-sized drive is about $250 the last time I looked. Like anything these days, look on New Egg or similar parts site for the best prices.

John
 
Thank you all very much for your replies to my initial question. A diversity of opinion but with much for food for thought. I saw a 256Gig SSD on ebuyer for £63 (gbpounds 63) today but cant decide ... By the way, am I right in thinking that I cannot just copy the entire Trainz folder to the new drive and have it work. It would be great if I could (assuming I get a new drive) as it would save doing all the updates etc.
 
Thank you all very much for your replies to my initial question. A diversity of opinion but with much for food for thought. I saw a 256Gig SSD on ebuyer for £63 (gbpounds 63) today but cant decide ... By the way, am I right in thinking that I cannot just copy the entire Trainz folder to the new drive and have it work. It would be great if I could (assuming I get a new drive) as it would save doing all the updates etc.

That's not a bad price. (63 x 1.7) for the 256GB drive. The prices of these has come down quite a bit over the years.

Yes, you can easily just copy your complete Trainz folder to your new drive. You'll have to do a couple of quick things after that, but the process is straight forward and we'll help you when you get there.

John
 
SSDs cannot be defragged because they are not really hard drives with platters. Internal or external platter hard drives, the kind that make buzzing and whirring sounds, are okay to defragment.

That's not correct. SSDs can be defragmented. However
(a) It's not worth the trouble of doing it. The improvement you will get is very small because the SSD does not have the seek latency of a HDD.
(b) It might reduce performance on an optimized SSD. Unlike HDD, the SSD can do interleaved access, so in some cases it actually improves performance to have data scattered across the drive. The controller usually manages this, but it is possible for a defrag to undo the optimising work that the controller does.
(c) It might not do anything at all. The internal optimization might override what the defragger is trying to do.

The optimisation that the SSD requires is different, and is associated with free space rather that contiguous files. If free space is scattered around a SSD it affects the time required to write files, and the effect can be very noticeable. The free space optimisation part of a defragger does something similar (which is probably the reason that some testing shows defragging will improve performance) but a special free space optimization tool (TRIM) is the preferable way to do it for SSDs.

Defragging has an insignificant effect on the life of a SSD. But it is a waste of time.
 
That's not correct. SSDs can be defragmented. However
(a) It's not worth the trouble of doing it. The improvement you will get is very small because the SSD does not have the seek latency of a HDD.
(b) It might reduce performance on an optimized SSD. Unlike HDD, the SSD can do interleaved access, so in some cases it actually improves performance to have data scattered across the drive. The controller usually manages this, but it is possible for a defrag to undo the optimising work that the controller does.
(c) It might not do anything at all. The internal optimization might override what the defragger is trying to do.

The optimisation that the SSD requires is different, and is associated with free space rather that contiguous files. If free space is scattered around a SSD it affects the time required to write files, and the effect can be very noticeable. The free space optimisation part of a defragger does something similar (which is probably the reason that some testing shows defragging will improve performance) but a special free space optimization tool (TRIM) is the preferable way to do it for SSDs.

Defragging has an insignificant effect on the life of a SSD. But it is a waste of time.

Let's just recap here, yes technically you can defrag but defrag means putting all the bits of a single file together so that the head can scoop them up on a minimum number of track reads. There are two parts to reading a conventional hard drive the first is get the head to the track, the second is spin the disk so that the head reads in what is beneath it. The spin is interesting for a small bit of file say a sector then on average it will be half way round the disk but by reading in the disk as soon as the head hits the track then sorting out the sectors afterwards we can read an entire track in without bothering about where it starts on the disk. So dumping the files contiguously helps sort of sometimes.

Now we get to the economics, a disk sector needs so many little magnets, there are more magnets in the outermost part of the disk tracks than in the inner part. Are you sitting comfortably, so what a disk drive manufacturer will do is put more sectors in the outer tracks than in the inner tracks but in order to make sense to the operating system it tells the operating system that there are so many tracks with the same number of sectors. The reason for this is the data capacity goes up and you can sell it for a higher price. The outer tracks of course hold more data with less head movement so if we are clever we want to put the most heavily read files there. Guess where the operating system tends to install itself.

What this means of course is that when you defrag you sort of move things around but not to where you think they are going to. You're moving them to where the defrag program thinks is the minimum number of physical tracks but the hard drive firmware doesn't allow the defrag program access to where it actually places the data an on which physical track it goes on.

Then we get to Trainz, here the problem is not the same, here we don't want to keep the contents of a file together we want to group groups of files together. Ever looked at a folder for a loco? Lots of little files, but strangely enough when you install it together then tend to be written in the same location. Now run a defrag program and you'll probably break up those clusters of files as the defrag program doesn't understand that a loco needs a script or a .tga file etc. to be read in on the same read.

With an SSD it doesn't matter, we read the file segment in directly, we don't need to wait for the hard disk to spin round.

SSD have a certain number of writes before they die, do a defrag on them and move everything round you've just subtracted from the number of writes left or the life of the SSD and made very little practical difference to performance.

SSDs work nicely for small files but for larger files then what we want is something that can get the data in, the fastest transfer possible and strangely enough its the big multi-plater hard drives than do this best. The 4+ terabyte drives, the multiplater part means they can suck up the data under the heads very quickly. So ideal for loading the operating system, the Trainz program files etc. Ideally we want to put just the downloaded content on an SSD and if you browse the forum in suggestions authored by me, you'll see someone has worked out exactly how to do this using the operating system.

Cheerio John
 
Interesting thing about defragging SSDs...

Here's a nice article on the same subject and written as well as John's post here. :)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2047513/fragging-wonderful-the-truth-about-defragging-your-ssd.html

In summary it isn't worth the extra effort because of the extra write cycles.

Regarding my statement on defragging. This is what I was told by some technicians regarding the subject due to the reasons I described.

Speaking of regular hard drives and defragging...

I have found I have better performance in TS12 by doing that, and more so if I defrag my assets.tdx file more than the whole drive. Microsoft TechNet System Internals tool Contig.exe does just this. It can defrag a file specified in the command line. This makes me believe that this file's performance weighs more in the fragmentation than the rest of the content, though a periodic defrag of everything is good too.

John
 
No. In summary it isn't worth the extra effort because it provides little or no benefit. The extra write cycles are insignificant in terms of the life of the SSD.

Interesting so your theory is the number of writes to a SSD makes no difference to reliability or life expectancy of the device. This appears to differ from the manufacturers view.

Cheerio John
 
looking at the life expectancy of newer SSD units, you will die long before it goes bad. And, by then the technology will be obsolete, I'm sure that something else will be used by then.

Paul
 
Back
Top