PDA

View Full Version : SSD worth buying?



iloveOOv
02-07-2010, 10:38 PM
Hey,

I think about playing on two sites (PS and FTP) and want to buy 6-8 million hands combined to use Table Scanner on 2 Sites.
I play NL100 longhanded.

I want to know if a SSD and especially this one http://www.intel.com/design/flash/nand/extreme/index.htm is a worthy investment and improvement?
Or is a SSD not a worthy investment, because HM cant handle that huge Databases no matter how fast ur CPU or SSD/HHD is?

Moreover I use Windows 7 and a Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400.

regards

tim

ProsperousOne
02-07-2010, 10:50 PM
Tim,

I just built a AMD Phenom II X4 955 Quad Core, 3.2GHz, with 8MB RAM, a CRUCIAL 64GB SDD, and 2 x 1TB Western Digital Black Caviar HDDs in a RAID 0 Config (from avadirect.com). The Crucial had the highest read/write speeds (250/150MB/s) compare to the Kensington, which was like 90/70.

I put my os and all programs on the SDD, and my postgres DB will go on the HDDs. I'm expecing it to run like greased lighting, esp. compared to my 4 year old dell laptop single core...

I was 10 tabling, and having freezeup issues, and my 50GB drive was maxed...

I'm still configuring it and it will probably be 3 weeks before I"m realling running (leaving for vacation in 3 days), but ping me after that and I'll let you know my results....

iloveOOv
02-07-2010, 11:02 PM
Hey,

Sounds like a really nice System.
Right now I just have a Seagate Barracude 7200 with a 4,5 millionen Database and I can multitable 12-18 tables without any freezes.

But I think a 8 million Database and 16 - 20 Tables is much harder to harder for HM and a Seagate HDD.

itsavest
02-08-2010, 12:28 AM
have intel ssd and it is much faster. it is ridiculous.

iloveOOv
02-08-2010, 02:52 AM
So I guess you mean its worthy every penny ;)

What Intel you have? X-18,X-25 E, X-25 M ...?
How much you paid for it?

itsavest
02-08-2010, 12:37 PM
So I guess you mean its worthy every penny ;)

What Intel you have? X-18,X-25 E, X-25 M ...?
How much you paid for it?

i have the x-25 m, i think, and got it for 225€ a few months ago.

ProsperousOne
02-08-2010, 02:01 PM
have intel ssd and it is much faster. it is ridiculous.

Do you have the postgreSQL and HM programs installed on your SSD, and your PostgreSQL DB installed on a Standard HDD?

Blixx
02-08-2010, 02:20 PM
I just re-installed after picking up an SSD + Win7 on boxing day and there is a noticeable improvement on all application load times.

SSD's aren't nearly as fast for write access as they are for reads and space is a premium. So, I kept my 150gig Raptor drive for postgres and installed HEM/ Poker clients / Operating system on the SSD. Greased lightening indeed :D

iloveOOv
02-08-2010, 02:58 PM
I am thinking what would fit best for me.

The Intel X25-E or the X25-M (Postville) which had good ratings and much more GBB for less money.

You guys have any recomendations?

itsavest
02-08-2010, 04:08 PM
Do you have the postgreSQL and HM programs installed on your SSD, and your PostgreSQL DB installed on a Standard HDD?

everything on ssd and it is much faster than before.

ProsperousOne
02-08-2010, 04:21 PM
I am thinking what would fit best for me.

The Intel X25-E or the X25-M (Postville) which hddfad good ratings and much more GBB for less money.

You guys have any recomendations?

I used the following performance review at Tom's Hardware to help me with my selection (Crucial 64MB).

Unfortunatly, Tom's Hardware hasn't done a recent performance review with my model (Crucial 64GB), but I'm sure the 128GB reviewed here wil will be about the same.


Charts, benchmarks Flash SSD Charts 2008, Price/Performance Index (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/flash-ssd-charts-2008/Price-Performance-Index,730.html)


Crucial 64GB M255 (250MB/s Read - 150 MB/s Write) $235 @ NewEgg.com ~ $3.67/GB

Intel X25 M 80GB (250MB/s Read - 70 MB/s Write) $290 @ NewEgg.com ~ $3.63GB, but ~ 1/2 Write speed of Crucial.

itsavest
02-08-2010, 07:04 PM
The E version is the enterprise version and it has faster writespeed and suited for servers in the first place. But it is more than 3 times as expensive. Only 64GB compared to 80GB of the M version and 612€ instead of 184€.

The quality of the Intel SSD's was considered to be the best by far when I did research on SSD's in November. I have not read any tests about the crucial though, you might check it out as well.

But generally, write speed is not as important unless you copy a lot of data from one HD to another. What makes the feel of a computer faster is the read speed.

theGreat
02-08-2010, 08:45 PM
If u have the money, go for the E version, it is based on SLC cells that allow for 10 times more cell rewrites than MLC (x-25m) - it will last longer. Not sure how long will x-25m last under heavy usage conditions (down to a year or less probably). Some reviews estimate that those mlc drives can handle no more thanm 50tb rewrites (for the 80gb model).

iloveOOv
02-09-2010, 04:00 AM
nice posts, guys.

I will check out the crucial, but in like all the reviews I read the last days they all recommended the Intel SSDs.

I mean I am not sure what is the most fitting SSD for my use.
I am not Datamining myself or run a Server,so I think a X25-M or the Crucial will be good for my use.
I dont have much other things installed on my Computer like Games or so and I just want it to run good with a 6-8 Mill. DB + daily updates.

But as "theGreat" already stated it will suck if I buy it and it will last only one year or so, but you think my use is "under heavy usage conditions"?

ProsperousOne
02-09-2010, 07:55 AM
Regardless, when you set up your system, you want to do all the tweaks for your system to minimize the number of writes to your SSD. I've spent the last few days doing that (thanks to pat for this linky):

Guide * Windows 7 Ultimate Tweaks & Utilities * (http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?63273-*-Windows-7-Ultimate-Tweaks-Utilities-*)

(see tweaks near bottom for SSD).

Don't know if you're using Windows 7, but I"m sure you can do the same or similiar tweaks for XP or Vista... create a RAM Disk for the TEMP directory, and create caches for IE and Firefox to minimize the number of writes t your SSD. Adding extra RAM if yo'ure under 4GB is probably a good idea.

iloveOOv
02-09-2010, 03:03 PM
I just check my Mainboard and I am not sure if it supports the Intel X25-M Postville 80GB.

Hope you guys can help:
FortKnox: 24 STUNDEN ONLINE SHOPPING (http://www.fortknox.de/cat9.php?art=51203)

"Storage Controller: ATA-133, Serial ATA-300"

ProsperousOne
02-09-2010, 04:28 PM
I just check my Mainboard and I am not sure if it supports the Intel X25-M Postville 80GB.

Hope you guys can help:
FortKnox: 24 STUNDEN ONLINE SHOPPING (http://www.fortknox.de/cat9.php?art=51203)

"Storage Controller: ATA-133, Serial ATA-300"

Yea, yours does. Most SSDs are "SATA" with stands for "Serial ATA"

Serial ATA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sata)

iloveOOv
02-10-2010, 01:44 AM
Hey,

some other technical related question (dont wanna extra open a new thread):
Right now I am using two screens with a Sparkle 9800 GT, but I want to use 3 screens now.
So my questions is can I just buy a 9500 GT (or lower) and attach the third monitor to it?

My Mainboards supports:
1 PCI Express 2.0 x16
2 PCI Express x1
3 PCI

Or do I have to buy a new mainboard with 2x PCI Express (x16) or a graphic card with three Slots?

aa45955
02-10-2010, 02:14 AM
What you're proposing is considered cheating by both PokerStars and FTP.

And almost every player on both sites.

aa45955
02-10-2010, 02:16 AM
And actually since PokerStars and FTP consider it cheating, and they decide what the rules are, it is by definition, cheating.

You should reconsider your decision to cheat.

iloveOOv
02-10-2010, 02:52 AM
What exactly do you mean? Playing with Databases?

I guess when like every regular regular does the same its just a "fair-thing" to comprehend their advantage.
It is cheating when I am the only one who uses 6M databases, but everyone has the freedom to buy hands themselves.

And when I read your post where you wrote for what you need a new computer:
"3 poker sites open
Up to 30 tables running HUDed
Multi-million hand database on Holdem Manager actively importing and being refreshed and viewed constantly
Web browsing up to 20 tabs including multiple embedded video etc
Music"

I think you do exactly the same thing.

regards

aa45955
02-10-2010, 03:04 AM
What exactly do you mean? Playing with Databases?

I guess when like every regular regular does the same its just a "fair-thing" to comprehend their advantage.
It is cheating when I am the only one who uses 6M databases, but everyone has the freedom to buy hands themselves.

If you dont have enough money for Databases then go to the casino and play live.

Having hands in your database that you weren't a player in is cheating. Not me saying it, it's PokerStars and FTP saying it. And they write the rulebook.

PokerStars - Third Party Tools & Services - PokerStars Poker Room (http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/prohibited/)

If you scroll down to the prohibited software list, you'll see TableRatings is listed there. Technically, you're not even allowed to look up names on that website while you play, let alone download 6 million hands.

And you're wrong. Very, very, very few of your opponents are using illegally supplemented databases. You would be in the cheating minority.

Some people who've been caught doing this have had their funds seized.

aa45955
02-10-2010, 03:12 AM
What exactly do you mean? Playing with Databases?

I guess when like every regular regular does the same its just a "fair-thing" to comprehend their advantage.
It is cheating when I am the only one who uses 6M databases, but everyone has the freedom to buy hands themselves.

And when I read your post where you wrote for what you need a new computer:
"3 poker sites open
Up to 30 tables running HUDed
Multi-million hand database on Holdem Manager actively importing and being refreshed and viewed constantly
Web browsing up to 20 tabs including multiple embedded video etc
Music"

I think you do exactly the same thing.

regards

You would be wrong. By the end of 2010 I'll have a database with over 2,000,000 hands in it and I'm planning for that, right now it's less than 200,000. And right now I play 24 tables on 1 site at a time and usually have about 5 - 10 tabs open. Again, just planning for the top end of where I think I might end up eventually

Stealing other people's hand histories isn't even as big of an advantage as you seem to think it is, but it's still cheating. When you factor in the price paid for bulk hand histories, it's debatable whether the nominal increase in winrate would even cover the cost before the data became obsolete. Especially for a 100nl player like you.

I'd strongly advise against cheating, both for moral reasons (it's good to feel like a good person) and also just because I think it's financially a bad decision, especially for a 100nl player, and especially when you factor in the potential for getting into trouble with PokerStars Security.

But for large databases I'd definitely go for an SSD. Mine just came in the mail today and it's probably the biggest performance boost of anything I've ever done to a computer in my life. I'm so happy with it I'm planning to get a second one and hook them together with RAID 0

I went with an Intel 80gig SSD

If you're just gonna get 1 I'd go for the 160gig

The 80gig is a lot smaller than most hard drives, and they give you a tray to screw it into so it'll fit into the HD cage. If you can wait 10 years you'll probably be able to get some 1TB SSDs for $150

These things are the future

ProsperousOne
02-10-2010, 10:02 AM
Hey,

some other technical related question (dont wanna extra open a new thread):
Right now I am using two screens with a Sparkle 9800 GT, but I want to use 3 screens now.
So my questions is can I just buy a 9500 GT (or lower) and attach the third monitor to it?

My Mainboards supports:
1 PCI Express 2.0 x16
2 PCI Express x1
3 PCI

Or do I have to buy a new mainboard with 2x PCI Express (x16) or a graphic card with three Slots?

I'm just starting to research 3+ monitors. I have a 25" for playing and a 17" for HM. Until I'm 12+ tabling, I'm not upgrading to a 30", and eventually plan on playing with 2 30", plus my 25" for HM/other programs.

You''l need 3 graphic channels, one for each montitor. Some video cards support 2 montiors (2 graphic output channels), and there's one out now that supports 3.

There's a new ATI card in the 5000 series, that supports up to 3 monitors, and it's available in the US for about $70.
Probably not good for high end 3D gaming, but fine for poker and running standard office/holdem'/postgres apps.

Here's some articles to get you started:

ATI Radeon HD 5450: Eyefinity And HTPCs For Everyone? : A Radeon For The Rest Of Us? - Review Tom's Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5450,2549.html?xtmc=eyefinity_multi_display&xtcr=2)

Note that one of your monitors needs a DisplayPort connection (competetor to HDMI) with this card...

Just found this article, that makes me think for much less Money, I can actually use like 4 20" monitors... I think this is probably my long term budget goal now. I think it's even less eye movement, vs. using 2 30" monitors, where' I'd have to swing way left to right with my field of vision... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm thanks for the question... I think I've found a much cheapter and ergonomically better solution!!!!

http://daytradingcomputers.info/2009/10/compare-a-single-30-inch-monitor-to-a-quad-monitor-display-if-you-can/

ProsperousOne
02-10-2010, 11:11 AM
Wow, thanks for this questoon OOv!

I've now totally rethought my monitor set up, and am going to be using either 4,5 or 6 smaller monitors vs. 2 30's!

I've attached a spreadsheet showing the total viewing area in square inches (sorry non-US folk...)....

My thinking is that I can put 6 tables comfortably on each 17"+ monitor, and with 4 monitors, arranged in a 2x2 grid, I can ealy multi table with less eye movement than 2 30" monitors!

Since 30" monitors run easily $1500+ each, I can get ~4 20" monitors for under $600 (less if used.... viva la ebay!), plus $100 for a quad monitor stand (ditto ebay), plus the graphics cards to run them (<$400)... total is less than the price of a single 30" Monitor!

And (per my spreadsheet) the total Viewing area of 2 30" monitors is about 810 sq. inches, vs. 4 20" monitors is about 719".

If you go up to 4 21.5" monitors, the total size is 831 sq. inches, bigger than the 2 30's. And I think you can get bargain 21.5" monitors cheaper than the 20's...

For reference here's some info on multi monitor stands (again, I'll be getting mine from ebay, for 1/4 the cost):

SUPER PC | Multi-Monitor LCD Stands | Multi-Screen Mounts | Multiple Monitors (http://www.multi-monitors.com/SUPER_PC_Multi_Monitor_LCD_Stands_Multi_Screen_Mou nts_s/24.htm)

quad monitor stand, Computers Networking, Electronics. Great deals on eBay! (http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1311&_nkw=quad+monitor+stand&_sacat=See-All-Categories)

iloveOOv
02-11-2010, 01:06 AM
Looks like a very nice system and much cheaper then buying one single 30''.
Especially the stands is something I have to check for myself.
Ive you checked you system in another thread and like it very much, especially your RAID 0.

I would like to use RAID 0 for myself, but I am not sure what you need for that?
Is it a good Idea to combine the Intel X25-M and the Seagate Barracude 7200 together in RAID0?
Or should I use the Intel X25-M individual and put the Seagate Barracude 7200 with my Samsung HD 161 HJ in RAID 0 mode?

Another question is how do you adapt 3 to 4 monitors at your Computer?
My 9800GT hast just 2 ports, but I dont want to buy the ATI Radeon with 3 ports.
I think about gettin another 9500-9800 and attach the third monitor to it.

Is that possible?

ProsperousOne
02-11-2010, 09:41 AM
I would like to use RAID 0 for myself, but I am not sure what you need for that?
Is it a good Idea to combine the Intel X25-M and the Seagate Barracude 7200 together in RAID0?
Or should I use the Intel X25-M individual and put the Seagate Barracude 7200 with my Samsung HD 161 HJ in RAID 0 mode?
From my understanding, you should really use identical drives for a RAID Configuration. You could use 2 identical SSDs, or 2 standard 7200RPM HDDs. The big issue of course is the cost/benefit radio... SSDs are very expensive. I woudn't recommend ever combining an SSD and HDD in a RAID config, and I don't even know if it's possible. You also would lose what ever excess capacity you have on the other drive. Ie if you had a 64GB SDD, and a 250GB HDD, you'd only be able to use 64 GB of the HDD, you would wind up with a single 64GB Drive (186GB in the HDD would be unusable)

RAID - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID)

The other issue with SSDs is db size. I don't think my DB was anywhere near 1M hands, but I was maxing out my 50GB laptop HDD (but I had windows, MS office, HM, Postgress and all my programs on it....). I do know that over 50% was taken up by my HM PostgreSQL DB, and yes, I had done all the vacumming, reindexing, etc. I would think that if you were going to use a SSD for your DB, you would want a minimum of 128GB, using it exclusively for the DB, and used a 2nd (64GB) for your OS & Programs.

One question I have is if anyone has ever done a Hand to GB ratio, ie on average, how many hands take up 1MB or GB?
Heh, created this post: http://forums.holdemmanager.com/manager-general/26270-how-big-your-db-calculating-typical-hands-gb.html#post126920

The other problem with hooking up 2 or more SSDs in a RAID configuration is that you lose the TRIM Functionality. TRIM is a software "fix" for SSDs to speed up performance. They way they work, when you erase data from a block of memory, the memory is marked as "deleted", but you cannot use that memory until a second erase cycle removes the data, so if you were to try to write new data over old, it would take extra time. TRIM aleivate this by waiting for idle time when the memory is not being used, and clears that memory, so the next time there is a write cycle to that memory block, no erasure is required. So there's a loss in performance using RAID SSDs, and I'm guessing it gets worse over time, as more and more of the SSD is used.


Another question is how do you adapt 3 to 4 monitors at your Computer?
My 9800GT hast just 2 ports, but I dont want to buy the ATI Radeon with 3 ports.
I think about gettin another 9500-9800 and attach the third monitor to it.

Is that possible? That's the beauty of my new concept: Very low cost for graphics cards. You can just get 2 inexpensive video cards (Under $60 US each) with 2 outputs each, so you have 4 monitor outputs. Since you have the 9800, just get a 2nd video card for the other 2 montitors. Since we're doing very low end graphics, and not gaming (you're NOT wasting your time gaming when you could be honing your poker game, are you?)you can forgo the expensive, high performance gaming cards.... Good Luck,

P1

iloveOOv
02-11-2010, 10:16 AM
Right now I have like 4 million and my Postgres Folder is 32GB.

So I am not sure if I just need the 80GB SSD or a 160GB SSD which is much more expansive.

On the SSD I just want to install HM,Postgres and Windows.
All other programs will be installed on the Seagate Barracuda.

ProsperousOne
02-12-2010, 03:56 PM
Right now I have like 4 million and my Postgres Folder is 32GB.

So I am not sure if I just need the 80GB SSD or a 160GB SSD which is much more expansive.

On the SSD I just want to install HM,Postgres and Windows.
All other programs will be installed on the Seagate Barracuda.

Sounds like you can only get a few more million hands at best on a 64gb ssd. Better either get the 128GB, or else put the DB on a RAID HDD array.