Anyone using an SSD to Run Logos 4 on a Windows Platform?

Page 1 of 2 (34 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 33 Replies | 5 Followers

Posts 63
Jim Dunne | Forum Activity | Posted: Fri, Apr 23 2010 6:22 PM

Hi all,

Browsing at my local Micro Center, I see that they have a 64GB SSD available for $169.  That's within the range I would consider reasonable if there's a  decent performance boost to Logos 4.

I'm running on an AMD quad core with 8 GB RAM and a Hitachi 1TB SATA HD.  OS is Vista Home Premium.

Is there anyone who's got an SSD and can relate what their experience with Logos performance has been?

I've looked around on the forums, but most everything I've read seems to be from Mac users.

Blessings,

Jim D.

Posts 1367
JimTowler | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 23 2010 6:34 PM

Sorry Jim, I can't help you with an answer to this. I too would be interested in knowning.

[ I was watching drive-usage reporting in Vista at one point, and Logos4 hits a lot of updates back to the PreferencesManager database/journal. So for an SSD, I was wondering about memory-usage-leveling and possible lifetime of the SSD in this context. If its going to live for 7 years instead of 10, I think thats ok. If it dies in 6 mths, rather than 5-10 years, then that might be too expensive. But it might go nice and fast in the meanwhile.

I would love informed feedback on this aspect if someone is a subject-expert in these matters for SSDs.

Actually, if SSD lifetime is really a concern, I would expect early netbooks to be showing these kinds of issues, but I'm not been looking/reading in the kinds of places where this would be discussed. ]

Posts 19
Tom Traubitz | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 23 2010 7:20 PM

I have a 128GB SSD in my Sony Vaio.   (It's a 2 x64gb with integrated striped RAID 0 in a SATA form-factor)   Windows experience index for Primary HD is 7.6 which is up from 5.5 on my previous notebook.   I feel that Logos4 does really well with this setup.   The Passage Guide, for example is quite snappy.

Compared to the other notebooks (a Toshiba Netbook and an ASUS G50) it's a good step up.   It sounds like you have a good amount of RAM and CPU, so you probably should see some nice improvement.   You might want to see if the manufacturer of the SSD has down an Windows experience index for Primary HD and compare against your current HD.

HTH,

-Tom

 

Posts 1202
Ward Walker | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 23 2010 7:29 PM

I'd suggest this thread for earlier analysis: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/4390/34262.aspx#34262

I recall another thread somewhere saying that an SSD made the re-indexing much much faster.

Bottom line is that the graphics card you use has the most influence over logos 4 speed.

Posts 3163
Dominick Sela | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 24 2010 5:05 AM

On my laptop Logos 4 is running on an SSD (Dell XPS m1530). SSD's are very fast, I runs with no problems for anything.  That's my disk of choice from here on in on laptops. Soon we will use them on desktops as well once storage gets bigger.

Posts 44
Michael Krogstad | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 24 2010 5:36 AM

I am running Logos on Windows XP on a Dell Lattitude D4200 with a 64GB SSD drive in it and 3 GB of ram on a Duo2 dual core machine and I find that it is really nice to have the speed.  Load times are significantly better than my other machine.  Initial boot time on it from cold start was less than 30 seconds to login.  I typically find that the SSD load time is less than half the time of spindled drives, even faster 7200 RPM drives.  If you would like some comparison times, I can see if I could get some.

Posts 4588
Forum MVP
Fred Chapman | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 24 2010 6:16 AM

I have read that SSD's typically have a much shorter lifespan than standard drives; has anyone found that to be the case? If so, how long could I expect an SSD to last?

Posts 63
Jim Dunne | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 24 2010 6:39 PM

Well, I took the plunge.  The installation was painless - about the only thing that was unexpected was that I needed an adapter bracket to get the 2.5" drive to fit in a 3.5" drive bay.  No big deal.

There was no documentation of any use with the SSD, but that really wasn't an issue.  It installs and sets up just like any other SATA hard drive.  There are some decent sites on the web that outline useful tweaks that need to be made to windows to maximize the performance of the SSD, as well.

I installed this drive as an additonal drive on my system - I didn't move Windows to it.  So with the exception of Logos (so far), everything else on my system runs from the main hard drive.

Moving Logos over to the SSD was "interesting".  The information on the wiki was a great help, though, and I got it done.

I'm not really one for doing comparative analyses on things, but subjectively, I can say that there is a definite, noticable increase in overall Logos performance running from the SSD.  I will mention one obvoius difference - the initial program load went from approx. 45 seconds down to approx. 25 seconds. 

Books load faster, layouts reload faster, the information window populates faster as your mouse hovers over words.  There's stil a small amount of hesitation, but it's down to under 2 seconds, roughly.

YMMV, of course, but so far I'm pleased with my investment. 

JD

 

Posts 3767
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 24 2010 6:42 PM

Fred Chapman:

I have read that SSD's typically have a much shorter lifespan than standard drives; has anyone found that to be the case? If so, how long could I expect an SSD to last?

seriously?  I would have thought they'd last much longer.  I am no techie, so I speak from ignorance, I guess.  But I thought that durability was one  of their attributes (in addition to speed)

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 1367
JimTowler | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 24 2010 8:01 PM

Dan,

For an SSD and related things (USB Thumb drives, SD cards in your camera, Flash Card ...) a READ is very fast, and for practical purposes, has no "cost" on the device life, and little on power usage.

HOWEVER, for a WRITE, even if changing a single typo in a note or prayer list, an entire BLOCK of memory must be erased and rewritten. That block might be, for example, 8 KB.

For a given single storage cell in the memory device, the write-life for devices as recent as 2008 can be as low as 1000 times!

The devices typically automatically does wear-level-balancing, so it attempts to wear the entire memory device out at about the same time. So, if you updated a small memo 1,000,000 times, those data writes might be spead all over your 32GB card and no single block would have been updated more than a very few times.

Unlike a physical disk drive, an SSD does wear out from writing to it.

I did a very small about of looking in Google last night, but NOT in any depth, and it seems 5+ years can be expected for typical PC use, but they can wear out in a few months for some kinds of usage.

I repeat my comment in the 2nd post here. I would love to hear from someone that understands this aspect in depth, rather than the light overview I have suggested here.

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 25 2010 8:10 AM

Almost all consumer SSD drives use MLC technology and are rated for 10,000 erase cycles PER CELL (even the ones from 2008).  The others use SLC technology, which is rated for 100,000 erase cycles PER CELL.  A desktop user will have no problem with either type of these drives lasting 5+ years...even if you are a ridiculously heavy-duty Logos user.  I don't care how hard you push your desktop, it is not going to get anywhere near the I/O load of a database server or file server.  They are (and have been) recommending SSDs as being long-term reliable enough for servers.  I know the Intel drives have a MTBF rating of 1.2 million hours.  They also have a 3 or 5 year warranty (don't remember off the top of my head) The other factor is that when an SSD "dies" it is still readable, you just can't write to it any longer...so you don't lose your data and it is easy to transition to a new drive...try that with your mechanical hard drive.

If you want a competent primer on SSDs including the technology, reliability, etc, take a look at these articles from AnandTech:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2614 - 9/2008 review of the 1st Gen Intel X25-M

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2738 - 3/2009 article "Understanding SSDs"

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2806- 7/2009 preview of the 2nd Gen Intel X25-M

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2829- 8/2009 article "Understanding and choosing the best SSD"

In reply to the original question, I'm running Logos on a 2nd generation X25-M.  I can't offer a legitimate apples-to-apples comparison to running on a non-SSD, but it is extremely fast and responsive.  I hit the home page in 10-15 seconds, a PG on a "normal-sized" pericope takes 2 seconds to display the first information and 20 seconds to fully populate, and a 3 chapter PG takes 5 seconds to display the first information and 40 seconds to fully populate.  My other relevant specs are: 3GHz Core 2 Duo, 8GB RAM, and a 4-year-old 7600GT video card.

EDIT - Oh, and a full re-index of my relatively small (300 resources) library typically takes about 10 minutes.

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 25 2010 9:20 AM

I had an SSD in my laptop for quite a while and ran L4 on it but when I got my new laptop I sold it.

It was only 80gb 60GB and in my mind...keeping a clean machine and having at least 7500 rpm caused performance to be 90% of the SSD's speed while having a much larger HDD.

IF SSD's ever got into the 200gb range...and affordable (translated to mean only 2X as expensive as the equiv HDD) then I'd switch back.

 

NOTE: It was a vast improvement over my previous 5000 rpm drive as noted in the other thread.

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 1281
toughski | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 25 2010 9:23 AM

I also read just recently that not all of the notebook chipsets have SATA II controllers, which is basically to say that an improvement from a SSD  upgrade will not be fully realized due to the speed limitation of SATA I channel.  This is generally not an issue for desktop computers.

Posts 852
Ron Corbett | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 25 2010 11:47 AM

How interesting to find this topic here . I was just doing some reading on the SSD's the other day.

There are alot of articles here: http://www.storagesearch.com/ssdmyths-endurance.html

One day (should the Lord tarry) these SDD's - or some morphed clone of these - will probably be in all of our machines.

Posts 1202
Ward Walker | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 25 2010 12:29 PM

Ron Keyston Jr:

...If you want a competent primer on SSDs ...

Awesome reference links...really glad to know the perils of buying OEM-supplied [samsung] SSDs...thanks!

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 26 2010 3:52 PM

Ward Walker:
Awesome reference links...really glad to know the perils of buying OEM-supplied [samsung] SSDs...thanks!

No problem...just so you know though, the "stuttering" problem cited in those articles has completely disappeared in recent drives due to implementation of the Trim command and its support in Windows 7.

Posts 63
Jim Dunne | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Apr 27 2010 12:56 PM

I decided to do some benchmark testing, drive vs. drive.  Here's what I found using CrystalDiskBench 3.0:

                                         Hitachi 1TB Deskstar           A-Data S596 SSD

Sequential  Read :                      107.723 MB/s                   210.663 MB/s

Sequential Write :                        95.822 MB/s                     99.845 MB/s

Random Read 512KB :                36.681 MB/s                    175.545 MB/s

Random Write 512KB :                55.471 MB/s                      81.838 MB/s

Random Read 4KB (QD=1) :          0.823 MB/s                      16.790 MB/s

Random Write 4KB (QD=1) :          1.345 MB/s                       9.476 MB/s

Test : 1000 MB [C: 20.4% (187.0/916.9 GB)] (x2)

Test : 1000 MB [K: 25.6% (14.4/56.2 GB)] (x2)

Date : 2010/04/27 14:30:31

OS : Windows Vista Home Premium Edition SP2 [6.0 Build 6002] (x64)

 

There's obviously a performance difference, particularly on sequential/random reads and sequential writes.

I'm really curious to see what happens the next time Logos pushes down a significant update that requires rebuilding the indices.

Blessings,

Jim D.

Posts 63
Jim Dunne | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Apr 27 2010 1:06 PM

VladimirLukyanov:

I also read just recently that not all of the notebook chipsets have SATA II controllers, which is basically to say that an improvement from a SSD  upgrade will not be fully realized due to the speed limitation of SATA I channel.  This is generally not an issue for desktop computers.

 

That's not really true.  "SATA II" doesn't really exist - it's a misleading phrase cooked up by marketing folks to refer to the SATA 3.0 gb/sec standard.  The point is, there's no drive in existence that can even come close to this in performance - "For mechanical hard drives, SATA 3 Gbit/s transfer rate exceeds drive throughput, and will for some time, as the fastest mechanical drives barely saturate a SATA 1.5 Gbit/s link."

So a SATA controller should be fine handling an SSD.

Here's the wikipedia article the above quote came from:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA

Blessings,

Jim D.

 

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Apr 27 2010 2:51 PM

Jim Dunne:

The point is, there's no drive in existence that can even come close to this in performance - "For mechanical hard drives, SATA 3 Gbit/s transfer rate exceeds drive throughput, and will for some time, as the fastest mechanical drives barely saturate a SATA 1.5 Gbit/s link."

So a SATA controller should be fine handling an SSD.

Here's the wikipedia article the above quote came from:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA

The key phrase in your quote is "For mechanical hard drives".  You left out the very next sentence, which says: "However, high-performance flash drives are approaching SATA 3 Gbit/s transfer rate, and this is being addressed with the SATA 6Gb/s interoperability standard."  A Solid State Drive is a "high-performance flash drive".  The newest SSDs are fully saturating SATA 3Gbit (let alone SATA 1.5Gbit, which Vladamir correctly points out is what many notebooks are still stuck with) and are able to take advantage of the extra overhead offered by SATA 6Gbit.

So, while you are correct that a SATA (1.5) controller should be fine handling an SSD, it is less than ideal...1.5Gbps is fully saturated and then some by even a 2 year old SSD.  To see the full benefit of an SSD, you really want SATA 3Gbps

 

Posts 11
Brian McKenzie | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Sep 1 2010 8:40 PM

Hi. My recent experience upgrading to an SSD might help others to know what to expect.

Before upgrading opening Logos 4 was painfully slow. It would take 1 to 2 minutes to load including recreating whatever passage study I had previously had open. It was so slow I frequently asked myself if I really needed to open it if I was curious about something small like the exact wording of a Bible verse. In fact I would usually go to a Bible Website rather than open Logos if I wanted to quickly get a quotation from the Bible (1/2 the time!). But this problem is history after upgrading to and SSD. Also I appreciate that exegetic studies are faster too.

However, the improvement was much less than I expected. Even after the upgrade Logos takes  20-25 seconds to start up depending on what passage study I left open when I had closed Logos down (Logos has to recreate that study report as part of starting up). That is less than half the time it used to take with the old hard drive. So it is a very real improvement. 

To put my experience into context there is the background:

My Logos4 folder is a big one (15GB -- I have a lot of books). Windows 7. Intel cpu with lots of power (4 core, 2.33GHz) and lots of RAM (8GB, but windows never reported more than 4GB in use even with Logos and several other programs open). Graphics is ATI 4350 which is not a gaming card but is a lot more powerful than regular graphics. So the bottleneck was the traditional desktop hard drive (7,200 speed with lots of space so not congested or fragmented). The new hard drive is an OCZ Vertex SATA 2 with 120GB which reviewers say has average "write" speed for a MLC SSD and good "read" speed. I figured read speed was the key thing for speeding up my Logos experience.

I am glad I upgraded. Even though Logos 4 is still much slower than my other software (Word, Excell, PowerPoint, Outlook now open instantly), the SSD has made using Logos 4 is much nicer experience. 

Brian M.

Page 1 of 2 (34 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS