Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

SSD/HDD and bittorrent


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 cbjfan2009

cbjfan2009

  • Members
  • 131 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:44 PM

Posted 29 October 2012 - 05:11 PM

I utilized Vuze bittorrent client on my old mechanical-drive computer. Now, I have my OS on an SSD. Has anyone seen an article (I couldn't find any on google....most were about whether SSD was better or not in general terms) that talks about whether it's damaging to a computer setup in the following way to use bittorrent?
64GB SSD with Win7/Drivers/most used programs
500GB Seagate mechanical and 1TB WD mechanical hard drives for storage.

Put another way: If Azureus Vuze is set to save the files onto the big mechanical drives, then the act of downloading files in Vuze doesn't "WRITE" to the SSD at all, correct? Or, is the SSD still being written to in a sort of temporary holding-type scenario? I would think the file downloads in pieces from the internet/client and those pieces are held in RAM until written to their storage drive, correct?
I'm worried because I understand the more "limited" number of writes to the SSD is an issue, more so than the client reading and sharing back out. I just haven't seen a good explanation of this mechanism.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 MDTechService

MDTechService

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Local time:06:44 PM

Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:33 PM

You will buy a new hard drive before you wear out the SSD. That said, when you set your save path, it will save the files directly to whatever disk that path is located at.
If I am helping you and I haven't replied to your thread in 3 days, please PM me or bump it

Mike D, BS, A+, HPSP, MCTS
I <3 Linux
The Airline Open source airline simulation game
Check the power cable to the wall first!

#3 cbjfan2009

cbjfan2009
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 131 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:44 PM

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:33 AM

Thanks.

#4 GoldenBox

GoldenBox

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:44 PM

Posted 25 November 2012 - 02:30 PM

You will buy a new hard drive before you wear out the SSD. That said, when you set your save path, it will save the files directly to whatever disk that path is located at.

You're wrong. So, so wrong.
Since I bought my SSD I've download more than 1,5 TB. I've been using BitTorrent and Vuze as torrent clients.

Today I was doing some research on SSD wear and through the software showed on the image attached to this post I found that when I started Vuze, downloading at 500 KB/s, the same speed of writing was being made on my SSD, even though all downloads are set to my storage HDDs. When I stop downloading, the writings stops too. This is obviously the client cache, which is is small, that uses the SSD. Not only the real time readings while Vuze is running prove this, but also the lifetime writings of 1,88 TB, which totally corresponds to the more than 1,5 TB I downloaded since the SSD upgrade.

So, yes, your torrent client wears not only your HDDs for storing, but equally wears your SSD because of the cache (little parts of the files are first stored in a cache in the SSD, then transfered to its destination folder, being in this case, another drive).

I didn't find any option within the client to change this. I'll try to uninstall the client from the SSD and install in the HDD. This might change the scenario.

#5 GoldenBox

GoldenBox

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:44 PM

Posted 25 November 2012 - 02:32 PM

No idea why the .png didn't get attached. Here is the image hosted on ImageShack:

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users