• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Readyboost capable flash drives > 4GB

Rubycon

Rubycon

Madame President
Vista will only use 4GB so why have a 8GB drive (or larger even) labeled "ready boost capable"? Seems like a waste. I have a 4GB (Sandisk) cruzer as well as an 8GB and the 8GB tests faster so it would (theoretically) achieve better RB performance but the other half gets wasted.
 
It doesn't have to be used exclusively for ReadyBoost. You could use 4gb for ReadyBoost, and use the other 4gb for storage. That may not work for everybody because you naturally lose your ReadyBoost when you remove the drive, but I think that scheme would work for a good bit of PC users.
 
Originally posted by: lxskllr
It doesn't have to be used exclusively for ReadyBoost. You could use 4gb for ReadyBoost, and use the other 4gb for storage. That may not work for everybody because you naturally lose your ReadyBoost when you remove the drive, but I think that scheme would work for a good bit of PC users.
Click to expand...

I'd rather just buy 2x4gb for that situation 😛
 
Originally posted by: lxskllr
It doesn't have to be used exclusively for ReadyBoost. You could use 4gb for ReadyBoost, and use the other 4gb for storage. That may not work for everybody because you naturally lose your ReadyBoost when you remove the drive, but I think that scheme would work for a good bit of PC users.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what comes to mind when this is brought up.

 
If I'm not mistaken, 64-bit versions of Vista will use more than 4 GB on a ready boost drive.

I don't even know what to say about the fact that if you remove the flash drive you "lose your ReadyBoost." Umm... duh?
 
Originally posted by: Rubycon
Originally posted by: lxskllr
It doesn't have to be used exclusively for ReadyBoost. You could use 4gb for ReadyBoost, and use the other 4gb for storage. That may not work for everybody because you naturally lose your ReadyBoost when you remove the drive, but I think that scheme would work for a good bit of PC users.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what comes to mind when this is brought up.
Click to expand...

How many times do you need a removable drive removed and still be at your computer? I imagine it can happen frequently enough, but generally if your thumb drive isn't there, than neither are you. You could copy some files over, remove the drive, walk to wherever you're taking the files, and transfer them. You go back to your computer, plug the drive back in, and you're ready to go. Not a perfect situation, but It would work about 95% of the time for me.
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
If I'm not mistaken, 64-bit versions of Vista will use more than 4 GB on a ready boost drive.

I don't even know what to say about the fact that if you remove the flash drive you "lose your ReadyBoost." Umm... duh?
Click to expand...

This was with Vista x64.
 
I don't think Vista 64bit allows more than 4 GB for the ready boost, however if you have an insane amount of RAM (like 8 GB) you can create a RAM Drive and store the page file in that drive so that the page file read/write speed will be as fast as the RAM speed naturally increasing the overall responsiveness but if you leave it just like that- vista will use the empty space of your RAM to superfetch the frequently used apps. So to take full advantage of your 8GB+ RAM, all you have to do is

1. Create a 4 GB Ready Boost
2. Enable Superfetch
3. Create a 4 GB Ram Drive and use it store the primary page file
4. If you have an extra hdd you can create another 2 GB page file there
 
Every once in a while we read about "put your page file on a RAM drive". Isn't that defeating the purpose? perhaps attempting to second-guess the OS designer? If there's free RAM, the OS should not swap pages out, to HDD or "RAM disk". Swapping to RAM must be more expensive than not swapping at all.

Reminds me of QEMM swapping to Expanded RAM in the days of "no one would ever need more than 640KB". Haven't we gone beyond that?
 
Originally posted by: Aberforth
I don't think Vista 64bit allows more than 4 GB for the ready boost,
Click to expand...

This is correct.

however if you have an insane amount of RAM (like 8 GB) you can create a RAM Drive and store the page file in that drive so that the page file read/write speed will be as fast as the RAM speed naturally increasing the overall responsiveness but if you leave it just like that- vista will use the empty space of your RAM to superfetch the frequently used apps. So to take full advantage of your 8GB+ RAM, all you have to do is
Click to expand...

This is plain stupid. Hint, the system wont be paging if it has free memory. So its stupid to lower your available memory to store your page file in it which just increases the chances of you needing the page file in the first place. (I run 32gig here, and while I use a ramdrive for other purposes, the pagefile is NOT one of them...)
 
I use Virtual Hard Drive Pro to share my RAM, it has definitely increased my system speed. Windows uses pagefile when there isn't enough RAM left or some apps are designed to use the page file, it's an old method built into windows as a extra feature- which is obvious because in those days the price of the memory was very expensive and that's the reason the why the page file was designed. But the situation has now changed, we have demanding applications and cheap memory so in this scenario it isn't very wise to use the same old generic method, page file exists as a legacy feature because we know windows always uses page file and there are tons of apps that make use of it even if you have lots of RAM. MS may well remove this feature in the coming years when every computer we see will have more than adequate RAM.

http://www.farstone.com/software/virtual-hard-drive.htm
 
Originally posted by: Aberforth
I use Virtual Hard Drive Pro to share my RAM, it has definitely increased my system speed. Windows uses pagefile when there isn't enough RAM left or some apps are designed to use the page file, it's an old method built into windows as a extra feature- which is obvious because in those days the price of the memory was very expensive and that's the reason the why the page file was designed. But the situation has now changed, we have demanding applications and cheap memory so in this scenario it isn't very wise to use the same old generic method, page file exists as a legacy feature because we know windows always uses page file and there are tons of apps that make use of it even if you have lots of RAM. MS may well remove this feature in the coming years when every computer we see will have more than adequate RAM.

http://www.farstone.com/software/virtual-hard-drive.htm
Click to expand...

Im very happy you have placebo, but you are incorrect that this is any way a benefit.

 
Originally posted by: bsobel
(I run 32gig here, and while I use a ramdrive for other purposes, the pagefile is NOT one of them...)
Click to expand...

Which RamDrive software do you use? How big did you make it? I only have 8GBs, but I wanted to set aside some of it to see if it speeds up builds over my SAS raid.
 
Best use of a Ramdrive = put your IE cache on it. It makes your broadband feel all broadbandy.


Putting your pagefile on a ramdrive is retarded (and not worth debating).
 
Putting a page file on a usb stick is not a ram drive. At least not in the strictest sense. It would probably give a performance if you can read the usb stick faster then a traditional disk hard drive.
 
Originally posted by: sourceninja
Putting a page file on a usb stick is not a ram drive. At least not in the strictest sense. It would probably give a performance if you can read the usb stick faster then a traditional disk hard drive.
Click to expand...

True, but those comments were in response to "however if you have an insane amount of RAM (like 8 GB) you can create a RAM Drive and store the page file in that drive"
 
Originally posted by: Smilin
Best use of a Ramdrive = put your IE cache on it. It makes your broadband feel all broadbandy...
Click to expand...

The best use of a RAM drive, IMHO, is to run apps via TrueCrypt!

Actually, I encrypt all my thumbdrives with TrueCrypt - makes 'em fly like the wind!

TrueCrypt encrypted app runs in RAM, e.g. on-the-fly in a mounted Ram drive. 😉
 
Originally posted by: VinDSL
Originally posted by: Smilin
Best use of a Ramdrive = put your IE cache on it. It makes your broadband feel all broadbandy...
Click to expand...

The best use of a RAM drive, IMHO, is to run apps via TrueCrypt!

Actually, I encrypt all my thumbdrives with TrueCrypt - makes 'em fly like the wind!

TrueCrypt encrypted app runs in RAM, e.g. on-the-fly in a mounted Ram drive. 😉
Click to expand...

Encrypted apps cannot run in the RAM as PC can execute only the machine code instruction, however various protection schemes can be applied as a security measure like Anti-dumping, anti-debugging and API hooking which works like a protection shell around the executable code. Most of the drive encryption schemes use a method of live encryption that decrypts the data in the memory only when executed or accessed.

I also stand by what I previously said about the RAM drive.
 
Originally posted by: sourceninja
I guess I miss read, I assumed the post ment make a 4 gig readydisk, then a 4 gig ram drive on the remaining space.
Click to expand...

That's not really a ram drive...it's just a drive 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top