Microsoft recommends the paging file tto remain on the SSD: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx
Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?
Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well.
In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that
- Pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1,
- Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB.
- Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size.
In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD.
Paging file is not required for Solid State drives.Works just fine without it. However, some users can create a small paging file about 1/4 of your ram size (if you have the space on the ssd) that's fine its actually optimum performance to do this on the SSD for reads but the writes will simply speed up the defrag process.
Since you can't use defrag with SSD this can be tricky. If you can use the intel tool (I can't with this Nvida Video card) then you should be good to go.
I'm old school 2x ram paging <4 gigs then 4gigs> 1:1 if you send the paging file to a dedicated seperate disk drive. My only concern is reliability.
Paging file requirement has nothing to do with SSDs.... but SSDs are the optimal place for them due to the large number of small file read (random) and relatively small writes.
What does defragging have to do with anything?
You might want to read this article about Paging File size: http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/11/17/3155406.aspx
How Big Should I Make the Paging File?Perhaps one of the most commonly asked questions related to virtual memory is, how big should I make the paging file? There’s no end of ridiculous advice out on the web and in the newsstand magazines that cover Windows, and even Microsoft has published misleading recommendations. Almost all the suggestions are based on multiplying RAM size by some factor, with common values being 1.2, 1.5 and 2.
Using a test file of 1,000MB is not necessary if you are using an onboard controller without cache. The only reason to test with larger file sizes is if you want to test the hard drive and not the cache.
With no cache a large test file only wears the drive out quicker.
Nice result though
I have done a number of monitoring tests and for a single drive on ICH9 turning the page file off completely reduces average latency. If you have loads of RAM there is no need for a page file, it only slows down the SSD. (On my set up at least ).
What are you using to subjectively monitor performance?
I used hIOmon. You can see the output of what I have monitored over at Xtreme Systems. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=260956
Later today I will be monitoring activity on the page file and will post the results on Xtreme when available. Unlike benchmarks hIOmon can tell me what is best for my particular usage, although what might be right for me may not be right for someone else.
What has really impressed me is how well engineered the X25-M's are for desktop usage patterns. In that context there were well ahead of their time and even now they continue to provide leading edge performance......where it actually matters.
I can't wait for the G3's. I suspect they will be even more tuned to desktop performance.
When you post your results, would you mind describing your usage pattern and applications as well?