Hi all,
With the new generation of SSD (Vertex), there is no more stuttering issue, and all there is is sunshine and happiness (ignoring the price-premium). The only slight problem in sight is the wear (10’000 cycles), respective the small files write/read issue.
Now, these days, the ram is so freaking cheap, a thought occurred to me: How about letting the things that do a lot of random read/write (swap file, temp file etc ) run on a “Virtual RAM Driveâ€
SSD + Virtual RAM Drive
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Well, some linux filesystems already do very aggressive write clustering, so you might not need to set up any kind of RAM drives, just choose your filesystem and maybe set it's parameters accordigly.
And in any case, if the software does not request a disk sync for it's writes, then the OS can postpone the write as it sees fit.
And in any case, if the software does not request a disk sync for it's writes, then the OS can postpone the write as it sees fit.
-
dhanson865
- Posts: 2198
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
- Location: TN, USA
Re: SSD + Virtual RAM Drive
[quote="Swissguy"]How about letting the things that do a lot of random read/write (swap file, temp file etc ) run on a “Virtual RAM Driveâ€
One thing, though, is that Windows XP doesn't work correctly unless virtual memory is turned on. If it IS turned on, it swaps into it like crazy, so you're stuck. A ramdisk is a cheap way to get it to work properly again. And also a dirty method of getting past the 2GB limit in Photoshop, since you can have it use swapfile/virtual memory as much as you want. As long as it's as fast as ram, it's like using real ram.
But they are expensive.
Vista has a couple of ramdisk options and behaves itself a bit better. Windows 7 is supposedly smart enough to run 100% in ram if you have enough of it, that is(4-8GB recommended for this, though)
But they are expensive.
Vista has a couple of ramdisk options and behaves itself a bit better. Windows 7 is supposedly smart enough to run 100% in ram if you have enough of it, that is(4-8GB recommended for this, though)
i use this to create a ramdrive in xp: http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/05/2 ... 03-server/
it's free and so far i have not had any problems with it. however i don't think it's a good idea to put your system temp folder on a ramdrive, as you can get into trouble when installing things that requiere a reboot.
it's free and so far i have not had any problems with it. however i don't think it's a good idea to put your system temp folder on a ramdrive, as you can get into trouble when installing things that requiere a reboot.
I've never had that problem either. And temp is temp after all - it would be pretty presumptuous for an application to store important "long term" data there.larsolsen wrote:however i don't think it's a good idea to put your system temp folder on a ramdrive, as you can get into trouble when installing things that requiere a reboot.
Sometimes when I install a very large program the installer complains about lack of space, since my ramdisk is only 512MB. I then point the temp system variable to c:\temp or something, and then back to the ramdisk again after the installer has finished. It's a bit of a hassle, but something I can live with since it doesn't happen that often.
edit: On that note, many large applications (Open Office for example) now asks where to put the installation files. That's a very polite thing for an installer to do.
Last edited by Vicotnik on Thu May 14, 2009 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hi all,
Thanks a lot for all the input so far.
Just a short clarification: i am not talking about a ramdisc that sits in a 5.25’’ or in a PCI-e slot – sometimes i don’t turn the machine on for a couple of days at a time, which would lead to problems with a physical ramdisc (due to batteries - i don’t like keeping things in standby); as well, their still pretty expensive, and I don’t like to spend money for only a small benefit.
I am talking about a virtual disc, e.g. what larsolsen is talking about (thanks for the link, btw). Meaning that the additional costs are marginal (50$ or less for the 3g-partition i had in mind) –going for 12g of ram instead of 6, and using 3g of those additional RAM for a virtual ram disc.
Having read a bit more, the best way seems to be to simply turn off the virtual memory (swap file), and (possibly) use a small virtual ram disc as planned for the other temp files. That way, there is very little HD usage, and unless you execute some old programs that NEED a swapfile, you are fine to go (as long as you got enough RAM).
Greetings
Swissguy
Thanks a lot for all the input so far.
Just a short clarification: i am not talking about a ramdisc that sits in a 5.25’’ or in a PCI-e slot – sometimes i don’t turn the machine on for a couple of days at a time, which would lead to problems with a physical ramdisc (due to batteries - i don’t like keeping things in standby); as well, their still pretty expensive, and I don’t like to spend money for only a small benefit.
I am talking about a virtual disc, e.g. what larsolsen is talking about (thanks for the link, btw). Meaning that the additional costs are marginal (50$ or less for the 3g-partition i had in mind) –going for 12g of ram instead of 6, and using 3g of those additional RAM for a virtual ram disc.
Having read a bit more, the best way seems to be to simply turn off the virtual memory (swap file), and (possibly) use a small virtual ram disc as planned for the other temp files. That way, there is very little HD usage, and unless you execute some old programs that NEED a swapfile, you are fine to go (as long as you got enough RAM).
Greetings
Swissguy
-
dhanson865
- Posts: 2198
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
- Location: TN, USA
I don't think anyone in this thread assumed you were talking about a device separate from the ram normally present on a motherboard. Most devices of that type are replaced by or called SSDs now anyway. Solid State Drive for seperate physical drives that may be flash memory or sdram.Swissguy wrote:Hi all,
Thanks a lot for all the input so far.
Just a short clarification: i am not talking about a ramdisc that sits in a 5.25’’ or in a PCI-e slot
Nowadays when you say ramdrive people think virtual not physical.
If you say SSD they think physical not virtual.
I don't know of any board that has a dedicated ramdisk memory slot on it, which would be a workaround for the Windows/Intel idiocy. Some boards will work under Vista and Windows 7 though to use on-board CF/flash drives though via ReadyBoost. I have seen various CF to SATA and similar adapters, though.
****
What you suggest, though, with the ramdisk, isn't possible with Intel chipsets because the motherboards themselves are crippled to only supporting 4GB in a 32 bit OS. (won't work with PAE mode at all) With PAE mode on, though, the board will see up to 40GB or so of memory. The CPU will support PAE, but the chipset won't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
http://www.windowskb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx ... y-uses-3Gb
The issue is that the motherboard also has to have a 64 bit memory controller. If it has a 32 bit Southbridge, the board itself won't see the extra RAM, even under Vista. This is a problem with almost any Intel chipset board made older than 2 years ago.
Also, the CPU itself has to support PAE *and* have a 64 bit memory controller on the die as well. This makes 75%+ of Intel CPU/motherboard combos unable to use the function. Intel's i7 newer processors do work correctly, though, in 32 bit PAE mode. But, again, not in Intel motherboards or Intel chipset boards - unless they are designed to work that way.(some are, some aren't)
(note - this is a 32/64 bit issue - in 64 bit mode, Core or later processors work perfectly fine with as much ram as you can fit on it, but in 32 bit mode, they are crippled by design - It just doesn't "Grok" how to stuff 36 bits into 32 bits and gives up)
Finally, Windows adds another layer of cripple-ware as well in the it has nerfed for no good reason all of the 32 bit OSs since XP SP2 so that they can't work with more than 4GB. The annoying thing is that if ANY link in the chain won't work, it's a no-fly for PAE. But when it does work, life is golden.
But there is hope -
* AMD boards and X64 processors have no problems - they work as intended. No BS, no idiocy - just work.
So the current solution among the Linux crowds is to run Linux on an AMD processor. PAE works as intended and you can access all 64GB. You can find ways and combinations that make the Intel processors work, but it's a lot harder than going AMD.
Then again, there's no reason not to run Linux in 64 bit mode, either, which is what most people who have Intel hardware do.
**Note - Macs also work up to 32GB as of the latest couple of releases, though they lack the ability to fit more than 16GB in any of their machines. Yes, I know 8GB modules exist - nobody can afford it, though) They do this by running in 64 bit mode and kludging 32 bit fairly seamlessly into it at the same time.
Finally, as I stated - Windows 7 seems to have cured this idiocy once and for all, much like how Apple had to - because 4GB wasn't enough for hardly anything any more.
****
What you suggest, though, with the ramdisk, isn't possible with Intel chipsets because the motherboards themselves are crippled to only supporting 4GB in a 32 bit OS. (won't work with PAE mode at all) With PAE mode on, though, the board will see up to 40GB or so of memory. The CPU will support PAE, but the chipset won't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
http://www.windowskb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx ... y-uses-3Gb
The issue is that the motherboard also has to have a 64 bit memory controller. If it has a 32 bit Southbridge, the board itself won't see the extra RAM, even under Vista. This is a problem with almost any Intel chipset board made older than 2 years ago.
Also, the CPU itself has to support PAE *and* have a 64 bit memory controller on the die as well. This makes 75%+ of Intel CPU/motherboard combos unable to use the function. Intel's i7 newer processors do work correctly, though, in 32 bit PAE mode. But, again, not in Intel motherboards or Intel chipset boards - unless they are designed to work that way.(some are, some aren't)
(note - this is a 32/64 bit issue - in 64 bit mode, Core or later processors work perfectly fine with as much ram as you can fit on it, but in 32 bit mode, they are crippled by design - It just doesn't "Grok" how to stuff 36 bits into 32 bits and gives up)
Finally, Windows adds another layer of cripple-ware as well in the it has nerfed for no good reason all of the 32 bit OSs since XP SP2 so that they can't work with more than 4GB. The annoying thing is that if ANY link in the chain won't work, it's a no-fly for PAE. But when it does work, life is golden.
But there is hope -
* AMD boards and X64 processors have no problems - they work as intended. No BS, no idiocy - just work.
So the current solution among the Linux crowds is to run Linux on an AMD processor. PAE works as intended and you can access all 64GB. You can find ways and combinations that make the Intel processors work, but it's a lot harder than going AMD.
Then again, there's no reason not to run Linux in 64 bit mode, either, which is what most people who have Intel hardware do.
**Note - Macs also work up to 32GB as of the latest couple of releases, though they lack the ability to fit more than 16GB in any of their machines. Yes, I know 8GB modules exist - nobody can afford it, though) They do this by running in 64 bit mode and kludging 32 bit fairly seamlessly into it at the same time.
Finally, as I stated - Windows 7 seems to have cured this idiocy once and for all, much like how Apple had to - because 4GB wasn't enough for hardly anything any more.