How much Ram does RAPID use with Magician 4.4 with EVO

[G73S]

So we know that the 850 PRO with Magician's new RAPID use 4 GB of RAM right?

I just formatted my laptop and installed the new Magician just to test if it would use more than 2 GB as in the past

Here is a screenshot of my task manager upon a fresh reboot:

Does that mean it's using 4GB (almost)? am I right in my assumption?

It's annoying that RAPID does not allow you to specifically choose how much RAM you wanna use.

PS: I have 32 GB of RAM

 

[G73S]

And this is the usage after 1 hour. Only had Pale Moon opened but visited numerous sites:

 

[R0H1T]

So we know that the 850 PRO with Magician's new RAPID use 4 GB of RAM right?

I just formatted my laptop and installed the new Magician just to test if it would use more than 2 GB as in the past

Here is a screenshot of my task manager upon a fresh reboot:

Does that mean it's using 4GB (almost)? am I right in my assumption?

It's annoying that RAPID does not allow you to specifically choose how much RAM you wanna use.

PS: I have 32 GB of RAM

Yup that's right however there are other software alternatives(if you're looking for one) to RAPID like PrimoCache & Condusiv's V-locity & eBoostr plus they're more flexible/mature as compared to RAPID.

 

[R0H1T]

RAPID as a dedicated software solution, for DRAM cache, is evolving but it will take sometime for them to catch up to dedicated professional applications like the ones in my post above.

 

[G73S]

Yup that's right however there are other software alternatives(if you're looking for one) to RAPID like PrimoCache & Condusiv's V-locity & eBoostr plus they're more flexible/mature as compared to RAPID.

I used Primocache and didn't feel any difference other than benchmarks.

What I don't like about primocache is that they tell you on their forums to keep the SUPERFETCH service enabled! Then how is it different than SUPERFETECH which automatically caches your frequently used data into RAM? it seemed like a useless gimmick to me so I got a refund as they had nothing to say against this logic

 

[R0H1T]

I used Primocache and didn't feel any difference other than benchmarks.

What I don't like about primocache is that they tell you on their forums to keep the SUPERFETCH service enabled! Then how is it different than SUPERFETECH which automatically caches your frequently used data into RAM? it seemed like a useless gimmick to me so I got a refund as they had nothing to say against this logic

Interesting btw was this after they released their long awaited final release (v1.0.1) just a few months ago & did you use it with an SSD or simply HDD ? I've been a long time beta tester myself & just recently upgraded to the final release on my laptop, still on a 90day trial license, but I only have a TB of HDD & just 8GB of RAM so I'm debating if it's worth a purchase or not. I have tried it with an L2 storage config, used a USB 2.0 flash drive, but even then it seems a bit slow than what I was expecting though I will try it again with a USB 3.0 flash drive before the trial runs out. I just wanted to know the system (specs?) on which you used Primocache & whether you tried all the different options within the program like deferred write, read/write caching, L2 storage et al.

 

[G73S]

Interesting btw was this after they released their long awaited final release (v1.0.1) just a few months ago & did you use it with an SSD or simply HDD ? I've been a long time beta tester myself & just recently upgraded to the final release on my laptop, still on a 90day trial license, but I only have a TB of HDD & just 8GB of RAM so I'm debating if it's worth a purchase or not. I have tried it with an L2 storage config, used a USB 2.0 flash drive, but even then it seems a bit slow than what I was expecting though I will try it again with a USB 3.0 flash drive before the trial runs out. I just wanted to know the system (specs?) on which you used Primocache & whether you tried all the different options within the program like deferred write, read/write caching, L2 storage et al.

The system specs are in my sig.

I allocated 15 GB for primocache as that's what it recommended and yes I did use the latest version 1.0.1 since this was just 2 weeks ago.

I gave it some time, my hit rate was 44% but guess what? my system felt no more snappier than without it.

So I went on their forums asking, if you guys recommend me to keep SUPERFETECH ON, which will eventually use all of my RAM for caching and leave me with 0 free RAM only standby RAM, then why the heck would I need primocache, they started talking about some technical stuff about deep file system and what not, but at the end of the day, it was just a worthless gimmick that looks great on paper.

I tested it with an SSD. I never owned an HDD since 3 years, my entire system consists of ONLY SSDs as you see in my sig.

 

[R0H1T]

The system specs are in my sig.

I allocated 15 GB for primocache as that's what it recommended and yes I did use the latest version 1.0.1 since this was just 2 weeks ago.

I gave it some time, my hit rate was 44% but guess what? my system felt no more snappier than without it.

So I went on their forums asking, if you guys recommend me to keep SUPERFETECH ON, which will eventually use all of my RAM for caching and leave me with 0 free RAM only standby RAM, then why the heck would I need primocache, they started talking about some technical stuff about deep file system and what not, but at the end of the day, it was just a worthless gimmick that looks great on paper.

I tested it with an SSD. I never owned an HDD since 3 years, my entire system consists of ONLY SSDs as you see in my sig.

The problem with your system probably is that the OS (windows) & programs as such can't make use of that extra perf atm & till they get a decent overhaul the additional GBps won't really matter, I think Kristian mentioned this in his review of Sandisk Extreme Pro or the recent one of 850 pro. Also the type of workload, program & disk access (RAW) can make a lot of difference when talking about the use of DRAM as cache & in your case you (probably) already have maxed out the capability of your storage system & what the OS can extract out of it.

Here's my recent results with primocache ~

 

[G73S]

true I guess, benchmarks were insanely high, but I didn't feel a diff. coz my system was already fast as it could get

 

[R0H1T]

true I guess, benchmarks were insanely high, but I didn't feel a diff. coz my system was already fast as it could get

Primocache works at the OS level so it doesn't accelerate RAW disk reads/writes as can be seen with the AIDA disk bench above, I dunno how RAPID works but if its anything like Primocache then it'll also be limited by the OS & will only be really useful in certain cases, like when the data can be fully cached 😀

 

[G73S]

Wait a minute this is very confusing, I just noticed this is KB not MB so that's NOT 3.X GB as I though...how could it be so low?

this is a screenshot of my system after 3 hours from boot and copying 2 TB of data from my SSD to my external HDD

 

[G73S]

I was just reading the manual...

does this mean anything to you....

what does paged and non-paged pool mean?

 

[R0H1T]

I was just reading the manual...

does this mean anything to you....

what does paged and non-paged pool mean?

It generally refers to system drivers residing in main memory & that they cannot be swapped to a pagefile OR paged in/out because they're essential to the running system.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2009/03/26/3211216.aspx

As for RAPID the amount of RAM it'll use depends on the data/task it's handling btw if you want to track the RAM usage, in case of RAPID, I suggest using something like this ~

 

[G73S]

thanks mr. Pro! you are a true gem man!

It shows 3 MB for RAPID? no other running service for RAPID is showing and no other process using above 200 MB is in the entire list:

 

[R0H1T]

thanks mr. Pro! you are a true gem man!

It shows 3 MB for RAPID? no other running service for RAPID is showing and no other process using above 200 MB is in the entire list:

That's the private bytes column which as the name impliesis is "the current size of memory that the process has allocated & which cannot be shared with other processes" but you'll have to access the process' properties tab (right click the process & select the option from the drop down menu) to see the max amount of memory it uses, you may have to run it as admin. Now the thing to see in the properties tab is the virtual size & the working set (see the screenshot above) also you can access the disk tab in process hacker to see what's RAPID doing.

 

[G73S]

That's the private bytes column which as the name impliesis is "the current size of memory that the process has allocated & which cannot be shared with other processes" but you'll have to access the process' properties tab (right click the process & select the option from the drop down menu) to see the max amount of memory it uses, you may have to run it as admin. Now the thing to see in the properties tab is the virtual size & the working set (see the screenshot above) also you can access the disk tab in process hacker to see what's RAPID doing.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The focus of interest here seems so far to be "How much RAM does the new version of RAPID use?

I don't think I saw anyone here post a Sammy benchmark result for the new version of RAPID though. That is -- a benchmark on a system with 16GB of RAM. I thought I looked; I didn't see it.

So, obviously, since the point was well-taken that it can't use "extra RAM" unless you have closer to 16GB (my dual-channel, G.SKILL 2x8GB Ripjaws Z) -- I thought to test my system with the new version of RAPID and I ran the Magician benchtest after installing it. I thought I noticed my system felt much "snappier" after installing the new version, rebooting and letting the system run 24/7 for a couple days:

 

[R0H1T]

Alright now try & copy large files/folders from one partition to another &/or from external (flash) drives with RAPID turned ON & see the usage, you should also keep the process hacker "system information" window open (just under the help menu item in the main window) btw do remember to run it (process hacker) as admin.

 

[R0H1T]

The focus of interest here seems so far to be "How much RAM does the new version of RAPID use?

I don't think I saw anyone here post a Sammy benchmark result for the new version of RAPID though. I thought I looked; I didn't see it.

So, obviously, since the point was well-taken that it can't use "extra RAM" unless you have closer to 16GB (my dual-channel, G.SKILL 2x8GB Ripjaws Z) -- I thought to test my system with the new version of RAPID and I ran the Magician benchtest after installing it. I thought I noticed my system felt much "snappier" after installing the new version, rebooting and letting the system run 24/7 for a couple days:

Well you can also find it here :thumbsup:

The thing I'd like to know about RAPID is whether it frequently caches system files/folders as well OR mostly/just the data accessed by (currently) running programs.

 

[G73S]

I don't think I saw anyone here post a Sammy benchmark result for the new version of RAPID though

I did:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2389702

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Well you can also find it here :thumbsup:

The thing I'd like to know about RAPID is whether it frequently caches system files/folders as well OR mostly/just the data accessed by (currently) running programs.

I was so excited with these [early morning] results that I forgot to check other similar threads.

If it were "just the data," it wouldn't make sense. So I suggest -- "All of it." That leaves an issue for comparing it to the Romex Software [PrimoCache???] alternative: "Does it save the cache to disk at system shutdown, and load that cache immediately on re-boot?"

Only guessing that you would be able to tell by comparing a benchtest immediately on boot-up against one performed after 24+ hours.

 

[R0H1T]

I was so excited with these [early morning] results that I forgot to check other similar threads.

If it were "just the data," it wouldn't make sense. So I suggest -- "All of it." That leaves an issue for comparing it to the Romex Software [PrimoCache???] alternative: "Does it save the cache to disk at system shutdown, and load that cache immediately on re-boot?"

Only guessing that you would be able to tell by comparing a benchtest immediately on boot-up against one performed after 24+ hours.

Spoiler

I believe Primocache does it but it's hard to verify that on my laptop with a 1TB 5400 rpm boot drive,

besides I have hybrid boot turned ON so that kinda defeats the purpose of a dedicated system boot "prefetcher" & I don't have access to a Samsung SSD to see what RAPID does in such cases.

Scratch that, it's supposed to be a function of (primo) ramdisk not primocache (DRAM cache) as the latter flushes the content of the cache to disk while the former saves the RAM content to an image file on the disk before shutdown.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Spoiler

I believe Primocache does it but it's hard to verify that on my laptop with a 1TB 5400 rpm boot drive,

besides I have hybrid boot turned ON so that kinda defeats the purpose of a dedicated system boot "prefetcher" & I don't have access to a Samsung SSD to see what RAPID does in such cases.

Scratch that, it's supposed to be a function of (primo) ramdisk not primocache (DRAM cache) as the latter flushes the content of the cache to disk while the former saves the RAM content to an image file on the disk before shutdown.

Well, I ruminated a bit over my speculations on this without any further clarity. Frankly, I can't even be sure that Magician's RAPID doesn't save the cache contents to disk at an orderly Windows shutdown. I just don't know. I DO know that the cache enhancement to benchmark scores for the successive two versions of Magician were respectively noticeable to me.

The first bump -- effectively double the spec sequential read-write stats -- was only slightly noticeable and I had to wonder whether my judgment wasn't driven by a "placebo effect." The second bump with the new version of Magician is noticeable enough to dismiss my doubts.

Even so -- now that I can compare responsiveness in recent experience between bare HDD, ISRT accelerated HDD, barebones SSD performance and now RAPID -- it points out how our perceptions are less precise with greater and greater benchmarks returned by opening computer "bottlenecks."

 

[MongGrel]

Have a couple Samsung EVO's in here, but the way I have them set up on a SATA3 add in card I can't use Magician, it clashes with my system.

I tried 4.4 out a few minutes ago, might have to maybe pick another smaller one in the future out on the side and put it in RAPID off the MOBO to try it out as a cache thing.

I had them set up that way at one time, but as old as my P6T7 and the X5650 are I can't run it the way it's set up atm, sticking a third in as a cache device might be interesting but I haven't had problems as is really I guess.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Have a couple Samsung EVO's in here, but the way I have them set up on a SATA3 add in card I can't use Magician, it clashes with my system.

I tried 4.4 out a few minutes ago, might have to maybe pick another smaller one in the future out on the side and put it in RAPID off the MOBO to try it out as a cache thing.

I had them set up that way at one time, but as old as my P6T7 and the X5650 are I can't run it the way it's set up atm, sticking a third in as a cache device might be interesting but I haven't had problems as is really I guess.

I am eager to have you tell me which make and model SATA3 controller card, and no less important -- the controller chip's make and model.

Does the SATA3 card work with the MS AHCI driver? Or do you have some sort of RAID configuration?

I crossed a well-written thread on an enthusiast site -- possibly UK -- in which it was asserted that Samsung had deliberately chosen the Intel controllers for their emphasis on compatibility, both for the hardware and for the software.

I have an EVO running through a PCI-E Marvell 2230/32 chip on my server, and it's been stellar so far with the only problem of Magician is its stated omission of RAPID for the WHS-2011 OS.