dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1584
share rss forum feed


ejg1

join:2004-12-01
Pacifica, CA

SSD Drives have arrived - I have Q's


120Gb test run 1

120Gb test run 2

115Gb test run 1

115Gb test run 2
2xOCZ 2 Vertex 120Gb SATA II drives. (All my data is completely backed up)

My goals, in order, are to
A) benchmark both OCZ drives individually while keeping the WD drive to boot with.
B) RAID both drives and install Win7 onto them for my final configuration.

My current system is now using 4 of the 6 Intel ports.
SATA1-WD Black drive (boot)
SATA2- DVD RW drive
SATA3- OCZ SSD
SATA4- unused
SATA5- OCZ SSD
SATA6- unused

All I did was plug the drives in, boot up, quick format, then benchmark. I ran two benchmarks for each drive. I now have questions:

1) I am surprised that the graphs don’t look so repeatable. Should they be?

2) The drives are rated for 285/275Mb/s and I am not getting this initially. Should I be looking for an AHCI mode somewhere and is that what bumps up my rates closer to spec?

3) should I be worried if one drive is recognized at 120Gb and the other 115Gb?

repeated benchmarks of 120Gb drive:


koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23

1. Make sure AHCI mode is enabled in your system BIOS. You will probably have to reinstall Windows if you toggle this capability else risk bluescreen on boot; be warned.

2. You did not disclose what exact motherboard model you're using. Chances are you're using a board with an Intel chipset that only offers SATA300 capability, or possibly only SATA150.

3. Please disclose exactly what Intel RST drivers you're using -- specifically exact driver number. If you're using Intel MatrixRAID drivers, please cease. If you're not using any, then assuming you're on Windows Vista or Windows 7, you're using Microsoft's (which are fine, but will not work for RAID).

4. The graphs will always show some degree of variance, and this is especially prominent on SSDs due to wear levelling and write amplification. I'd rather not get into explaining how to do proper benchmarking.

5. I believe some models of OCZ drives require "weird tweaks" to make them negotiate higher SATA speeds (i.e. SATA300 or SATA600). You should look at the OCZ forums for details about this. I should note these kind of "tweaks" are not normally required for SATA, which means OCZ or some motherboard manufacturers are doing something quite stupid somewhere.

6. Were these drives brand new, refurbished, or used? It matters. The capacities may vary as a result of OCZ changing flash manufacturers; nobody here can tell you what the cause of this is, you will need to talk to OCZ and only OCZ.

7. Going forward, please do not use HD Tune 2.55. Please use HD Tune Pro (trial version is fine). There are too many bugs in the old (free) version. Please re-do your tests using HD Tune Pro.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
reply to ejg1

I'm assuming you're using a P55 motherboard with a Marvel SATA III controller from this threaD?

»Want to go with a SSD now....

Vertex 2's are SATA II drives only capable of 3.0 Gbps. As Koitsu said, you may need to "force" the drive to SATA II, as it seems to be running at SATA I speeds right now. I can't help you here, my Vertex 2 120GB ran natively at SATA II speeds when I installed it, so I never looked into it.

It also looks like you got two different versions of the Vertex 2--one with 34/32nm NAND, and one with 25nm NAND flash. See here for more information: »www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ocz···867.html

I'm not a HDD guy, so I'll let Koitsu guide you through the troubleshooting, but booting off RAID 0 is a Very Bad idea as it doubles the chance of failure--booting off of an SSD raid is an even worse idea (SSDs tend to fail suddenly and with no warning), and running SSDs outside of Ivy Bridge LGA1155 7-series motherboards (ONLY) where TRIM is supported is an even worse idea.

I'm baffled why you would pick up two smaller SATA II--you seem to be going for maximum amount of problems with this approach.

Why not just get a Samsung 250GB 840 Series 2.5" Solid State Drive for $170? Set your SATA controller to AHCI mode and call it a day.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.



ejg1

join:2004-12-01
Pacifica, CA
reply to koitsu

Click for full size
Koitsu:
1) this means I wont be able to benchmark the drives from my current OS without installing the final OS to change AHCI. ok

2) P7P55D-E as the previous poster correctly assumed. Am using the Intel SATA II ports and have Marvell turned off. Is it more appropriate to use the flaky 6Gb Marvell with these 3b drives? I stayed away because others said there were issues with the Marvell.

3) Above are the pics of the drivers used. I did nothing special as windows decided what to use.

4) ok

Kris:

I did not get the same feed back your giving in my other planning thread. Bad idea to RAID the boot system? I understand your reasoning but if the rate of failure of a single drive is 1 in 10,000 I dont mind 2 in 10,000 chances of failure.( I am guessing the rate is better than 1 in 10,000) I am good with backups. I will need more time to look at your link but I understand the OCZs have wear leveling and will be lightly used thus diminishing the TRIM concern.


FizzyMyNizzy

join:2004-05-29
New York, NY

Can you use »www.softpedia.com/get/System/Ben···rk.shtml and bench the drives.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
reply to ejg1

said by ejg1:

I did not get the same feed back your giving in my other planning thread. Bad idea to RAID the boot system? I understand your reasoning but if the rate of failure of a single drive is 1 in 10,000 I dont mind 2 in 10,000 chances of failure.( I am guessing the rate is better than 1 in 10,000) I am good with backups. I will need more time to look at your link but I understand the OCZs have wear leveling and will be lightly used thus diminishing the TRIM concern.

I'm sorry I wasn't around to provide you that feedback, but I would never RAID SSDs and then boot from them--I know the Vertex 2s have better reliability than the atrocious asynchronous Agility drives--but I would stay away from RAIDing them. You will not notice the speed difference (once you force them to SATA II) and the potential for headache is not worth it.

If the chance in failure is 1 in 10,000, yours becomes double that, or 1 in 5,000.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


miakica

join:2009-11-10
reply to ejg1

said by koitsu:

1. Make sure AHCI mode is enabled in your system BIOS. You will probably have to reinstall Windows if you toggle this capability else risk bluescreen on boot; be warned.

said by ejg1:

Koitsu:
1) this means I wont be able to benchmark the drives from my current OS without installing the final OS to change AHCI. ok

Actually, there is a way to do it with Windows already installed, and save yourself re-installation time... I had to do it couple of times, and it worked without a hitch

1. Startup "Regedit
2. Open HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE / SYSTEM / CurrentControlset / Services
3. Open msahci
4. In the right field left click on "start" and go to Modify
5. In the value Data field enter "0" and click "ok"
6. exit "Regedit"
7. Reboot Rig and enter BIOS (hold "Delete" key while Booting

In your BIOS select "Integrated Peripherals" and OnChip PATA/SATA Devices. Now change SATA Mode to AHCI from IDE.

You now boot into windows 7, the OS will recognize AHCI and install the devices. Now the system needs one more reboot and voilla .. enjoy the improved SSD performance.

1. Startup "Regedit
2. Open HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE / SYSTEM / CurrentControlset / Services
3. Open msahci
4. In the right field left click on "start" and go to Modify
5. In the value Data field enter "0" and click "ok"
6. exit "Regedit"
7. Reboot Rig and enter BIOS (hold "Delete" key while Booting

In your BIOS select "Integrated Peripherals" and OnChip PATA/SATA Devices. Now change SATA Mode to AHCI from IDE.

You now boot into windows 7, the OS will recognize AHCI and install the devices. Now the system needs one more reboot and voilla .. enjoy the improved SSD performance.


koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23
reply to ejg1

The Intel-driven SATA ports on the P7P55D-E are SATA300.

I would not move to the Marvell controller; SATA600 isn't going to give you a massive speed boost for this model of drive, as shown in this review (read slowly first paragraph of "Synthetic Benchmarks" -- quite clearly they are using SATA300).

Figuring out what speed the port is operating at is a serious pain in the ass, for whatever reason, on Windows. All the utilities I've used/seen tend to hide this information in some way or another; for example HWiNFO will tell you "Drive Controller" speed, but that doesn't necessarily indicate what speed the port is actually operating at; other people insist to look at "Transfer Mode" which is not correct either (that applies to classic IDE/ATA only). A SATA600 controller can operate at SATA150, SATA300, or SATA600 speeds depending on what the controller (device) on the other end supports as well. The only tool I'd trust myself would be smartmontools 6.0 or newer; smartctl -a will show "SATA Version" which should be what the active port speed is (I've checked this on Windows and FreeBSD).

As such, you should be seeing 200-250MBytes/sec (not "285/275Mb/s" -- Mb = megabit). If you aren't, make it OCZ's problem, re: what I said earlier about some models of OCZ drives requiring strange "tweaks" to make them negotiate correct SATA speeds. You should always engage vendors of products first.

To determine if you're using AHCI or not, please refer to your system BIOS. You cannot rely on the "Driver" tab for this information. You're using Microsoft's native drivers, by the way, which is a good choice (IMO). However if you do go the RAID route, you will need to switch to Intel's RST drivers (and then the advice given to you by miakica See Profile will not apply, as Intel's RST drives have nothing to do with the msahci registry section).

Finally: were these drives brand new, refurbished, or used? It matters.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.


n_w95482
Premium
join:2005-08-03
Ukiah, CA
reply to ejg1


Vertex 3/ICH10R (3 Gbps)/random data

Vertex 3/ICH10R (3 Gbps)/0 fill
The drives are definitely running at 3 Gbps, as 1.5 yields approximately 130-135 MB/sec max throughput. As an FYI, OCZ has Linux-based tools for their drives (here's the one for the Vertex 2) that'll let you do firmware updates and the various tweaks (forcing SATA speeds, "fixing" reported temperatures, etc.). I had to force negotiated speeds with my spare machine (Agility 3, nForce 4 SLI chipset), the tools worked perfectly for doing that.

As others have said, try testing it with different software. ATTO, AS-SSD, and CrystalDiskMark should give you an idea what the drive will do. CDM will default to using random data for the test, which is a worst-case scenario for SandForce-based SSDs. To change this, click on File, Test Data, and select either 0 or 1 fill. Try testing with both random and 0/1 fill. AS-SSD uses random data as well.
--
KI6RIT


ejg1

join:2004-12-01
Pacifica, CA

2 edits
reply to koitsu

Click for full size
There is so much information posted here I dont know what to do next.

I downloaded ATTO Benchmark tool and the above is what the two drives currently measure. This is a far way from what the first utility measured in my opening post.

I just verified both drives are at the latest firmware of 1.37. Now I will try the Miakica trick to set the AHCI mode. I have one question before I try that though.

Would I be affecting my current boot disk, WD Black SATA drive that runs off the same group of Intel SATA3 ports if I change any settings to AHCI? If I can switch the drives without affecting my whole system I thought I would repeat the ATTO bench to compare with the initial measurements.

My current system is using 4 of the 6 Intel SATA3 ports.
SATA1-WD Black drive (boot)
SATA2- DVD RW drive
SATA3- OCZ SSD
SATA4- unused
SATA5- OCZ SSD
SATA6- unused

Yes, Koitsu these are refurbished drives and since the above tests fall within the range you gave it, 200-250MB/s, it sounds like my SATA ports most likely have the required throughput.

n_w95482
Premium
join:2005-08-03
Ukiah, CA

1 edit

Yes, the AHCI change will affect all of the Intel ports.

A couple of days ago, I got a Core 2 system (X38/ICH9R chipset) to successfully migrate from IDE to AHCI without going into the registry. I forced the controller to update to these drivers. I rebooted afterwards, set it to AHCI in the BIOS, and XP was happy.
--
KI6RIT



ejg1

join:2004-12-01
Pacifica, CA

Thanks Ukaih guy...

What this means to me then is to now:

1) set the boot-able disk aside in case I need it later.

2) make my BIOS settings for AHCI/RAID0 (the only con I have against doing this is increased MTBF of the pair @ 1 in 500,000 hours. The pro for doing it is a post on the OCZ forms saying it is fairly un-problematic for my mobo-disk combination)

3) re-install Win7Pro on the RAID0. Where am I going to find the MSFT phone number to get the code allowing me to re-install on a different disk set? would I be able to phone off work hours as I can only work on this after 6pm eves?

3b) I am concerned about where to put system swap? Does it make sense to have it on the raid-pair or should I put it on a spinning disk? My usage has never caused my system to use the swap file in the 4-5 years I have had the system.

What else do I need to think about?

How should I treat or place system swap?



koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23

1 edit

said by ejg1:

How should I treat or place system swap?

Assuming you're talking about the Windows pagefile: please don't disable it. Discussed in a different thread, where I provide lots of references: »Re: SSD in an older XP Home System???

If you want to move it to your MHDD, feel free.

Edit: Also, Krisnatharok See Profile reminded me about the fact that these are two different versions of NAND within the same model (which explains the capacity difference). I'm still not sure if BIOS-level RAID / RAID option ROMs let you intermix two drives with different capacities (by making the larger drive appear to have the same capacity as the smaller drive in the set). Rather than risk it, I would strongly recommend RMAing one (preferably the older one/34nm one). If the distributor won't do this, contact OCZ and explain the situation and they'll probably be willing to send you a matching replacement.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.


ejg1

join:2004-12-01
Pacifica, CA

kool

I will RMA the 34nm and report back when it makes sense. Thanks !



ejg1

join:2004-12-01
Pacifica, CA
reply to koitsu

I now have two identical drives of 120GB after going directly to OCZ via their RMA process.

Q - as soon as I start to re-install Win7, somewhere in the process, I will need to call MSFT for some kind of a new “key”. I think that is what it is called? Where do I find the phone number for getting this? Does a popup come telling me where to call?

Koitsu – Do you share the same opinion as Krisnatharok about Raiding the drives to use for boot? The failure rate is 1/1M so raided would be 1/500k. I think he is saying IF there is a failure it is not worth the trouble reconstructing the system again. I don’t seem to mind it as I am pretty good with backups and the extra work to construct another system does not bother me too much.

I went over some of the links you posted on the topic of system swap file. Summary: I don’t like the idea of turning off the system swap file and I fall into the camp that it should be present and sized based on my usage of the system. I am thinking to size it 500MB or larger depending on my max memory usage of the system. I either put the swap on my system SSD raid0, or my WD Black.

I expect the swap to be very rarely used (if at all) so placing it on the SSDraid seems best. Theoretically, without raiding, my reads/writes channel will be on the order of 250MB/s(much higher with my intended raid0) and via the WDblack they would be on the order of 90MB/s. Since I will have more than enough space on the SSDs it seems the logical place to put it. I can see how this strategy might change for those using drives with equivalent throughput performance though.

You also mentioned using Smartmon6 tools for validating the port speed of my system. I should do this immediately after my OS system is installed, right? Or, does it even make sense to do it because after switching to ATTO Benchmark I already posted benches of the drives close to 225MB/s reads?



koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23

said by ejg1:

Q - as soon as I start to re-install Win7, somewhere in the process, I will need to call MSFT for some kind of a new “key”. I think that is what it is called? Where do I find the phone number for getting this? Does a popup come telling me where to call?

You're talking about Windows activation. It may or may not pass activation (the actual changes that induce a failed activation have been under scrutiny/debate for many years, as Microsoft says it's X and people find it's Y then suddenly one day it's Z). If it fails, you'll be given instructions and a phone number to call. Most of the time you do not have to speak to a person, it's an automated system, but if you do have to speak to someone just explain that your system is exactly the same (motherboard, case, RAM, CPU, etc.) but that you've added an SSD/disk to the system and reinstalled. Any other questions about this should be asked over on the Microsoft forum.

said by ejg1:

Koitsu – Do you share the same opinion as Krisnatharok about Raiding the drives to use for boot? The failure rate is 1/1M so raided would be 1/500k. I think he is saying IF there is a failure it is not worth the trouble reconstructing the system again. I don’t seem to mind it as I am pretty good with backups and the extra work to construct another system does not bother me too much.

I generally mirror his sentiments, particularly on Windows. The only RAID I would consider booting from would be RAID-1; other RAID models (RAID-0, RAID-10, RAID-10, RAID-5, and RAID-6) do not particularly work well with booting, at least not historically -- this has to do with how data written to LBAs is spread (interleaved, etc.) across multiple physical disks. RAID-1 would (should) get you a speed improvement for reads, but none for writes; naturally RAID-0 would get you a speed improvement for both.

If you're willing to put full/total trust into the option ROM or RAID controller you're using and use RAID-1, then sure, go ahead. Just make sure you do backups regularly. Just be aware that in the case of "issues" pertaining to the array, storage subsystem, or "wonky system behaviour", troubleshooting any of this is virtually impossible. Most people I've seen use RAID-0 for a boot/OS volume brag about it, then 6-12 months later experience some massive problem (where I then opt not to assist with their issue :P).

said by ejg1:

You also mentioned using Smartmon6 tools for validating the port speed of my system. I should do this immediately after my OS system is installed, right?

When smartmontools (not "smartmon6 tools") is installed doesn't matter; it's just a series of text files and a couple .exe files. It's a CLI/command-line utility and does not run in the background or anything of that sort.

Instead of having to install it, I've attached smartctl.exe (but zipped) for you to download/use if needed.

If using Windows Vista or newer, be sure to run Command Prompt as Administrator before using this. It will not work properly otherwise. You should use smartctl --scan to get a list of recommended arguments and devices/disks on your system, then use smartctl -a {xxx} {yyy} where {xxx} are the parameters it recommends using and {yyy} is the device it lists. Eventually you'll find your SSDs; it also has support for Intel RST, so you can get SMART statistics even if your drives are in RAID behind such an option ROM. Some example output/behaviour:

C:\Documents and Settings\jdc>smartctl --scan
/dev/sda -d ata # /dev/sda, ATA device
/dev/sdb -d ata # /dev/sdb, ATA device
 
C:\Documents and Settings\jdc>smartctl -a -d ata /dev/sda
smartctl 6.0 2012-10-10 r3643 [i686-w64-mingw32-xp-sp3] (sf-6.0-1)
Copyright (C) 2002-12, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org
 
=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Family:     Intel 510 Series SSDs
Device Model:     INTEL SSDSC2MH120A2
Serial Number:    LNEL123100QS120CGN
LU WWN Device Id: 0 1507a5 1e26ba7c7
Firmware Version: PPG4
User Capacity:    120,034,123,776 bytes [120 GB]
Sector Size:      512 bytes logical/physical
Rotation Rate:    Solid State Device
Device is:        In smartctl database [for details use: -P show]
ATA Version is:   ATA8-ACS T13/1699-D revision 2d
SATA Version is:  SATA 3.0, 6.0 Gb/s
Local Time is:    Wed Jan 16 15:54:54 2013 PST
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
SMART support is: Enabled
 
{...and so on...}
 

said by ejg1:

Or, does it even make sense to do it because after switching to ATTO Benchmark I already posted benches of the drives close to 225MB/s reads?

It's your decision. If you just want to verify that the port speed is SATA600 then you can use that to see. The relevant line will be near the top, reading something like this:

SATA Version is:  SATA 3.0, 6.0 Gb/s
 

If the speed negotiated is SATA300 (despite the device itself supporting SATA600, i.e. the SATA controller is limited to SATA300), it will show:

SATA Version is:  SATA 3.0, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 3.0 Gb/s)
 

Hopefully that makes sense.

--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.


ejg1

join:2004-12-01
Pacifica, CA

quote:
Most people I've seen use RAID-0 for a boot/OS volume brag about it, then 6-12 months later experience some massive problem (where I then opt not to assist with their issue :P).
Well I admit to being stubborn, but since I was a little boy I always had the good sense submit to people I know with more experience. That is why I am here! So I guess I will delay expanding my talents to raid for another day when I have an application that makes more sense and then brag at that time. LOL.

Well... here I go... I am feeling comfortable enough to get going now.

I am going to shelve the smartmon tools unless I come across a good reason to need them.


ejg1

join:2004-12-01
Pacifica, CA

1 edit
reply to koitsu

Click for full size
Click for full size
I feel like an idiot after my previous comments. I have to tell you guys that I just could not get myself away from the RAID topic. I bought the disks with RAIDing in my heart and after they arrived I learned from you guys here that booting with this kind of configuration has proven to be more trouble than it is worth… in the long run.

Anyway, I just had to put these two disks together to see what happens and study the whole topic and get some experience with it.

I raided the disks together for the first time so I can say I am no longer a Raid virgin. Summary of what I learned:

1) WD Caviar Black Win7 boot time was 103 seconds (orig system)
2) SSD boot time after reinstall timed out to be 13.8 seconds
3) Raid of 2-SSD boot time was between 26-28 seconds for stripe sizes of 4,8,16,128k.
4) Makes no sense to stripe less than 16KB
5) Interesting that the raid throughput sums up to the sum of the specs of the disk in this case.
6) Windows experience index went from 5.9 to 7.9 from a single boot SSD to a Raided pair.

Above left is the throughput comparison of the SSDs raided together with separate Read and separate Write comparison of the 4 stripe sizes. This tells me the optimum stripe size (for these tests) would be 16KB. There is no advantage striping less than 16 from a througput standpoint and if you did, your CPU appears to become more and more stressed.

Above right is what the CPU looked like during the tests. Splitting hairs tells me just what I was expecting to see. The smaller the stripe size the more work your CPU has to do. (Note: My I860 has 4 physical + 4 Virtual CPUs so you see 8 boxes)

Finally, an example of 16KB stripe size for those that are interested. I am not passing this information out to brag... just giving out my notes which may have value to others.


ImpldConsent
Under Siege
Premium
join:2001-03-04
Mcdonough, GA
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·magicjack.com

Click for full size
Video card is an old GTS 250/512
said by ejg1:

2) SSD boot time after reinstall timed out to be 13.8 seconds
3) Raid of 2-SSD boot time was between 26-28 seconds for stripe sizes of 4,8,16,128k.
6) Windows experience index went from 5.9 to 7.9 from a single boot SSD to a Raided pair.

Those are the strangest numbers I've seen, maybe koitsu See Profile can explain the reasons. On one hand, you have a screaming boot time, single SSD and a low WEI. On the other, you have a slower boot time RAID but a high WEI. Is there something in the RAID boot process that would slow you down?
Your WEI on single seems strange too. Your system (from what I can gather from posts) way exceed my 5yr old system (proc/memory/video) and yet my single SSD yields a greater WEI. Yes, I know I shouldn't rely on the WEI, but it is still a measurement/benchmark that is being used.
--
That's "MISTER" Kafir to you.


ejg1

join:2004-12-01
Pacifica, CA

After the single SSD install, I convinced myself that I re-triggered(updated) the score determination process of the WEI, but it came back the same numbers from after the immediate fresh install. I also second second guessed what I did but still am a little befuddled as you are.

However the Raid boot time being slower than the Single SSD boot time... google says there are lots of guys with this condition and I have yet to see a discussion that gives any kind of potential resolution.


n_w95482
Premium
join:2005-08-03
Ukiah, CA

When are you starting the timer? When you see the Windows bootup screen or when the PC first turns on? If it's the latter, the extra time could be from the RAID option ROM kicking in (you should see an additional screen between POST and Windows).
--
KI6RIT



koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23
reply to ImpldConsent

There's really nothing to explain -- the numbers in WEI mean jack squat. They've always meant jack squat, and they will always mean jack squat. They're arbitrary numbers that represents absolutely nothing useful in the real world. There's no comparison model, there's no indication how the numbers are calculated, there's no break down of how each test affects the number, and there's no unit. For sake of example, compare what WEI gives you to, say, the above ATTO results. ATTO's numbers make perfect sense and represent something real and useful -- WEI is just a number.

Imagine going into a home repair store and telling the clerk "I need some piping". The clerk asks you "what type and what for?" and you respond "I don't know". The clerk asks you what length, and you reply "5". "Five what?" he asks, and you respond "just 5". That's WEI.

The only thing I've seen WEI used for is to determine if your system is eligible or not for Aero capability. That's it.

Otherwise I'd recommend asking about anything pertaining to WEI over on the Microsoft forum -- or better yet, ask Microsoft directly. They invented this nonsense. I'm not a Windows administrator; I do UNIX and networks.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

My take on WEI...

The gamification of PC Hardware. Spend $500 on upgrading a component and see that "HIGH SCORE" number go from a 5.4 to 7.9 in psycho-emotional payoff! Elated yet? Let the serotonin flow! Aren't you addicted already???
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.



aurgathor

join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA
kudos:1

WTF is WEI? (that's my take on it)


bbear2
Premium
join:2003-10-06
94045
kudos:5

Windows Experience Index