SSD for KSP

[Combatsmithen]

I don't know if this belongs here but.... Will KSP load faster on an SSD? With 90+ mods installed for KSP RO it takes ~10 minutes for KSP to load up. And it is really annoying if the game crashes or something and I don't have a chance to save whatever im building and then I have to launch the whole game again and go do something else while it loads. I might just buy a small little SSD to put KSP by itself on.

[Cucco-Master]

Well, I don't have too many mods installed (yet ...), only like 10-15, but my KSP takes about 20 seconds to load from the SSD, so I'd say an SSD definitely helps with loading times.

[pandaman]

I got a new rig in January with an SSD and my KSP start up (only about 4 mods) is a lot lot faster (10 min to less than 1 min).  I can't say how much of that is due to the SSD, or just having a new more up to date machine though. I only have my Windows etc and KSP on the SSD, everything else is on HDD

If you are moving your OS to the SSD too then computer start up will be quicker anyway.

Actually  -  if I remember to try it, I will copy my KSP onto the HDD and do a test for you.

[Archgeek]

10 minutes is a little much.  You may want to check you don't have any unused network connectors in the background, like Hamachi or the like -- an old Unity bug makes KSP waste time checking every one of 'em until they each time out...per individual file.  If individual textures, or, egregiously, flags are taking seconds to load, check that first.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Yes, definitely.  With a new computer and SSD, load times, everywhere, were more than halved for me.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

I would say a SSD could help, but at the same time there are other bottlenecks, RAM and bus speed, SATA speed, etc. My un-scientific test is on my new rig KSP loads faster than my old one, SSD vs mechanical HD, but then again all the hardware is faster.

[ISE]

well I have a total of 132 mods installed so....

[linuxgurugamer]

200+ mods.  SSDs definitely help.  So does a RAMDisk (loads faster than an SSD)

[Deddly]

1 hour ago, Combatsmithen said:

Will KSP load faster on an SSD? 

An SSD should significantly speed up the loading time of pretty much everything you put on it. It is often the single biggest performance upgrade you can do to a computer when it comes to everyday usage. Put your OS and KSP on an SSD and it will feel like a new machine.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Deddly

[Greenfire32]

Yes. 100%.

Software loading times on SSDs has nothing to do with the software itself. Anything and everything will run faster on a SSD because the hardware is built to be more efficient and quicker than standard HDDs.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Greenfire32

[Combatsmithen]

1 hour ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

I would say a SSD could help, but at the same time there are other bottlenecks, RAM and bus speed, SATA speed, etc. My un-scientific test is on my new rig KSP loads faster than my old one, SSD vs mechanical HD, but then again all the hardware is faster.

 

I have 12 GB of DDR3 RAM. My specs arent horrible, but its not a monster PC running an high power I7 with a GTX 980ti

[Red Iron Crown]

I have to go against the consensus here and say that an SSD makes little difference for KSP loading times. KSP does so much processing of data as it loads that it's largely CPU-bound rather than storage-bound, so the differences are marginal at best. My testing for this is a couple of years old, if someone would care to test on a machine with both (my current machines are either/or), I'd love to hear about the results.

One place is does help is if a bug (whether stock or from a mod) causes the game to start logspamming, logspam is barely noticeable on an SSD machine while it can feel crippling on a spinning disk.

For just about everything else an SSD is a win for load times and general snappiness, I would not build or buy a PC today without one.

[Combatsmithen]

1 hour ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I have to go against the consensus here and say that an SSD makes little difference for KSP loading times. KSP does so much processing of data as it loads that it's largely CPU-bound rather than storage-bound, so the differences are marginal at best. My testing for this is a couple of years old, if someone would care to test on a machine with both (my current machines are either/or), I'd love to hear about the results.

One place is does help is if a bug (whether stock or from a mod) causes the game to start logspamming, logspam is barely noticeable on an SSD machine while it can feel crippling on a spinning disk.

For just about everything else an SSD is a win for load times and general snappiness, I would not build or buy a PC today without one.

 

I have an AMD FX 8300 eight core running 3.5+ GHZ when I overclock it when I play. so its not a processor problem. Its not a RAM problem. I have 12 gigs of DDR3. So it must be a harddrive thing :P. Thats what its stored on afterall.

[Red Iron Crown]

1 minute ago, Combatsmithen said:

I have an AMD FX 8300 eight core running 3.5+ GHZ when I overclock it when I play. so its not a processor problem. Its not a RAM problem. I have 12 gigs of DDR3. So it must be a harddrive thing :P. Thats what its stored on afterall.

Good specs don't demonstrate that you're not CPU bound when loading. What does your CPU usage look like during the load process?

I have an Intel at 4 GHz and an SSD, the first load of my RO install is typically about 8 mins. After module manager has its cache filled it's more like 4 mins. To me it sounds like one of your mods is storing changeable files somewhere that MM doesn't like and is not caching effectively.

[kBob]

Same computer: Load from SSD: 34 seconds;

  Load from HD: 74 seconds.

Edit:

Hard drive is almost full Hitachi HDS73015bLA642 and might be able to shave a couple secs off by defragging it.

SSD is Samsung 840EVO (with firmware update to prevent the "senility" bug).

Edited June 21, 2016 by kBob

[JoeNapalm]

GIANT

RAID

ZERO

 

-Jn-

[swjr-swis]

3 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I have to go against the consensus here and say that an SSD makes little difference for KSP loading times. KSP does so much processing of data as it loads that it's largely CPU-bound rather than storage-bound, so the differences are marginal at best. My testing for this is a couple of years old, if someone would care to test on a machine with both (my current machines are either/or), I'd love to hear about the results.

I do have a big fast SSD in RAID. My unmodded 1.1.2 install loads in under 30 seconds, the modded one takes 12 mins if the MM cache wasn't invalidated by some mod update, or 17 mins if it was and needs to be redone. I agree with you that I find those times disappointing and it does appear like KSP is very slow in loading despite the potential SSD speed. That the MM cache makes such a difference also points to processing being a huge factor that rather undoes the benefits of the SSD.

I just did a reload while watching performance details: during the load time, 1 of 8 CPU cores is practically pegged to 100% by the KSP process, while the disk read activity on the SSD is on average under 20%, in separated peaks. So yes, most of the load process appears CPU bound, not disk bound. And before you ask: network activity during this all was, with the exception of a few tiny dispersed dimples, 0%.

Edit: turns out it's even 'worse'... there was a background backup going on at the time that appears to account for a significant part of the read activity, as it was doing the SSD at the time. As I am reloading the game right now, disk activity averages easily below 10% and even the peaks don't get to more than 40-50%. 1 CPU core still pegged to 100% by the loading KSP process.

Edited June 21, 2016 by swjr-swis
some corrected stats

[Combatsmithen]

I remember the days where it took stock KSP a good 10 minutes to load. And a good 15-20 minutes with lots of mods. Then they did an update and drastically improved loading times with it, I don't remember what update it was. maybe .21-.23?

[Carraux]

3 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I have to go against the consensus here and say that an SSD makes little difference for KSP loading times. KSP does so much processing of data as it loads that it's largely CPU-bound rather than storage-bound, so the differences are marginal at best. My testing for this is a couple of years old, if someone would care to test on a machine with both (my current machines are either/or), I'd love to hear about the results.

One place is does help is if a bug (whether stock or from a mod) causes the game to start logspamming, logspam is barely noticeable on an SSD machine while it can feel crippling on a spinning disk.

For just about everything else an SSD is a win for load times and general snappiness, I would not build or buy a PC today without one.

I have two SSDs in RAID 0 and it makes a difference, a big one.

[Red Iron Crown]

17 minutes ago, Carraux said:

I have two SSDs in RAID 0 and it makes a difference, a big one.

Have you tested the same install on the same machine with a regular disk? I'm curious if anyone has tested recently.

[pandaman]

10 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Have you tested the same install on the same machine with a regular disk? I'm curious if anyone has tested recently.

I can give this a go, if I get chance I'll do it later this evening and post the results on here. 

[swjr-swis]

34 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Have you tested the same install on the same machine with a regular disk? I'm curious if anyone has tested recently.

Ok, copied the game over to the HDD (5400rpm, 8GB cache, cheap and slow but good enough for pure data), which btw took 4 mins for 8.06GB.

Load time of the game with valid MM cache (since I just ran it on the SSD, no changes) took 14 mins, compared to the SSD 12 mins. Disk read activity averaged around 50%, though it was in peaks mostly.

So does it make a difference? Sure. But the difference is disappointingly small, considering the vast difference in read speeds of the HDD compared to the SSD RAID, and the fact that a full copy of the game shows this machine can read it all (and simultaneously write it) in under 4 mins. KSP is spending the vast majority of its 'loading' time... not really loading. Or at least, not reading from disk, which means an SSD does not make the difference it could.

[Red Iron Crown]

@swjr-swis Thanks for testing, that bears out the results from my testing a couple of years ago. 

[Van Disaster]

14 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

@swjr-swis Thanks for testing, that bears out the results from my testing a couple of years ago. 

My game storage is a fast HDD with an old 120GB SSD as a cache - I can shove KSP off the cache easily enough as you'd expect, and the only noticeable difference is the noise of HDD access. Of course that's without timing.

I have a vast collection of mods in my current career install & it only takes a couple of mins to start - if people are waiting 20 mins there's something seriously amiss.

[kBob]

1 hour ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Have you tested the same install on the same machine with a regular disk? I'm curious if anyone has tested recently.

Did you see my post right after you first asked the question?  SSD is considerably faster.