FiraDisk and WinVBlock Performance
#1
Posted 16 February 2011 - 01:34 AM
#2
Posted 16 February 2011 - 10:09 AM
http://reboot.pro/8804/page__st__70
Wonko
#3
Posted 16 February 2011 - 12:57 PM
If you mean the RAM disk performance (as opposed to the AoE, HTTPDisk, sector-mapped disk, file-backed disk performances), I thought that someone had posted screen-shots of their favourite timing software in the main WinVBlock thread.Inspired by this comparison of ramdisk drivers and the huge differences in the Random 4k performance, i was wondering, if anyone already tested the two drivers for performance, in this most important category for a system drive?
#4
Posted 16 February 2011 - 03:15 PM
Actually, if you look into the previous posts, the other question was: "If someone had made a test on their machine with firadisk and also another ramdisk as reference. Cause both testers claimed, that firadisk was way slow, without giving a reference to what kind of performance their machines were capable of."NO , but someone already asked about this, even without inspiration.
Also that subtopic dealt with read speed of sequential files or top read speed, while this topic deals explicitly with performance of the Random 4k accesses.
#5
Posted 16 February 2011 - 03:52 PM
Sure .Actually, if you look into the previous posts, the other question was: "If someone had made a test on their machine with firadisk and also another ramdisk as reference. Cause both testers claimed, that firadisk was way slow, without giving a reference to what kind of performance their machines were capable of."
Also that subtopic dealt with read speed of sequential files or top read speed, while this topic deals explicitly with performance of the Random 4k accesses.
The answer(s) is/are still (and AFAIK):
NO. (to the generic question about people having posted performance comparison)
and
NO. (to the specific question about reading/writing 4kb chunks)
You also have to take into consideration that, several different versions of BOTH Winvblock and Firadisk have been published lately (so ANY test not performed with the very latest of both may give incorrect or anyway meaningless results).
The understated part was (now explicited ):
Why - since both drivers are freely available and at least three of the ramdisks listed in the linked to page are also freely available, if you are so curious about the performance comparison you don't do it yourself? (and possibly publish the results )
Personally I find - without having EVER tested them - their speed "sufficient".
But you know how we don't agree on the "good enough" computing approach.
Wonko
#6
Posted 16 February 2011 - 04:24 PM
I actually intend to do that, just wanted to know, if anyone already done that.if you are so curious about the performance comparison you don't do it yourself? (and possibly publish the results )
I know, that i don't agree with Peters definition of "good enough", can't remember, that we ever had a fall out over that topic.But you know how we don't agree on the "good enough" computing approach.
#7
Posted 16 February 2011 - 04:51 PM
We did.I know, that i don't agree with Peters definition of "good enough", can't remember, that we ever had a fall out over that topic.
http://reboot.pro/10906/page__st__15
Wonko
#8
Posted 16 February 2011 - 06:02 PM
#9
Posted 16 February 2011 - 06:07 PM
wow , so when properly optimized, ram disk can reach this level. Take a look at this monster Desktop PC, benchmarks would report much higher with these?Inspired by this comparison of ramdisk drivers and the huge differences in the Random 4k performance....
#10
Posted 16 February 2011 - 06:21 PM
That was so minor, not even worth remembering.
Hmmm.
Wonko
#11
Posted 17 February 2011 - 11:21 PM
Don't be confused about the low values shown in the screenshots. I ran the tests in a VM on my WinbuilderPC.
Let's start off with ImDisk.
ImDisk.gif 25.95KB 58 downloads
It shows good performance with big files and then performance slowly drops as the files get smaller and smaller.
Would have loved to show QSoft Enterprise Ramdisk too, to show the max possible values in this setup. However all scripts for QSoft ramdisks have myteriously disappeared from this forum.
So we can only assume based on this test that max. possible 4k performance is about 2 times ImDisks.
Next stop Win2k3 ramdisk.sys.
MS-RamDisk.gif 26.31KB 47 downloads
It's performance is seriously worst than ImDisks. However the smaller the files get, the better the M$ driver gets in comparison. At 4k it finally outperforms ImDisk and is almost twice as fast.
Being optimized for small files is the behaviour i'd expected from a driver, meant to power systemdrives.
Now to our two homegrown candidates.
Let's start with Firadisk. (v0.0.1.16)
FiraDisk.gif 25.82KB 37 downloads
It's performance with big files is slightly worst, than that of the M$ one, but not that much that it would be noticable.
It's not until we get to the 4k category, that things start looking realy bad. Just half the performance of the M$ driver and still worst than ImDisk.
Last but not least WInVBlock. (v 0.0.1.7)
WinVBlock.gif 29.38KB 29 downloads
Performace with big files is actually a bit better than with the two competitioners. However performance takes a huge blow in the 4k category. It drops again by about 50% compared to FiraDisk and delivers only a quater of the performace of the M$ driver.
So now of course everyone wants to know, what do those numbers exactly mean for my boot time?
I timed the boot process of a LIveXP with a 133MB ISO from end of ramdisk loading till PENetwork startup.
with ramdisk - 37 seconds
with FiraDisk - 44 seconds
with WinVBlock - 46 seconds
Interestingly, the differences are not that big, as one might though based on the test results.
With WinVBlock just being 24% slower than ramdisk.sys.
So in conclusion, yes there is room for improvement and not little, but if it is actually worth to invest work into improving the performance is still open for discussion.
#12
Posted 18 February 2011 - 01:13 AM
Let's see if we get any improvement.
ImDisk RAM Disk CPU: Core2 Duo E8400 RAM: DDR2-800
FiraDisk 0.0.1.30 RAM Disk CPU: Core2 Duo E8400 RAM: DDR2-800-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 © 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]
Sequential Read : 2402.629 MB/s
Sequential Write : 4602.827 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 2352.485 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 4374.599 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 520.924 MB/s [127178.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 242.948 MB/s [ 59313.6 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 884.080 MB/s [215839.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 726.321 MB/s [177324.6 IOPS]
Test : 500 MB [H: 2.0% (40.8/2048.0 MB)] (x5)
Date : 2011/02/18 9:20:07
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 © 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]
Sequential Read : 2172.224 MB/s
Sequential Write : 3108.427 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 2053.840 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 2875.944 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 168.044 MB/s [ 41026.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 159.666 MB/s [ 38980.8 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 243.468 MB/s [ 59440.4 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 224.352 MB/s [ 54773.4 IOPS]
Test : 500 MB [H: 2.0% (40.8/2045.0 MB)] (x5)
Date : 2011/02/18 9:04:22
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
#13
Posted 18 February 2011 - 02:26 PM
In my test, FiraDisk showed ~75% of ImDisks performance in the Random Read/Write 4KB category. In your test it shows only ~30% of ImDisks performance.Please try latest version, in a real machine.
Let's see if we get any improvement.
Unless you hope, that ramdrive.sys will bomb even more, i don't understand your request.
#14
Posted 18 February 2011 - 06:47 PM
Different versions. Your test was with Firadisk 0.0.1.16. Firadisk is now at 0.0.1.30....i don't understand your request...
#15
Posted 18 February 2011 - 07:33 PM
But karyonix intention to propose another test, the way i read it, was to show that the newer driver had improved performance.
Yet, the test posted by him, clearly shows a way worst performance compared to ImDisk, than my test. So i don't understand, what he hopes to gain from another test done by me.
#16
Posted 18 February 2011 - 07:39 PM
Maybe something that is NOT meaningless but actually representative of CURRENT status of the drivers?....what he hopes to gain from another test done by me.
You also have to take into consideration that, several different versions of BOTH Winvblock and Firadisk have been published lately (so ANY test not performed with the very latest of both may give incorrect or anyway meaningless results).
Wonko
#17
Posted 18 February 2011 - 07:39 PM
Apples are different to orangesSo i don't understand, what he hopes to gain from another test done by me.
But there is a new orange, which may be better than the old orange
Hope that helps
#18
Posted 18 February 2011 - 08:40 PM
Maybe something that is NOT meaningless but actually representative of CURRENT status of the drivers?
But there is a new orange, which may be better than the old orange
Would you two do me the favour and at least try to read the tests done by karyonix and me!
Karyonix tests, with the new driver, show a way worst performance, than my test with the old one.
So a retest by my can only give worst results, than the one before.
Or to put it more clearly: "Karyonix tests should have shown at least an improved level of performance, in the 4k category, for a retest by someone else to make sense!"
#19
Posted 18 February 2011 - 09:20 PM
You actually meant:...i don't understand your request...
Is that right? If so, is it worth considering the difference(s) between karyonix' testing hardware and your testing hardware?...I don't understand why this test is needed when you've already shown some test results...
Please try latest version, in a real machine.
Let's see if we get any improvement.
#20
Posted 18 February 2011 - 10:11 PM
#21
Posted 19 February 2011 - 01:07 AM
I post the two line first before I run the Win7 x64 test.
To test for improvement, you should compare old version with new version in similar environment.
And the environment should be real machine.
Later, I run Crystal DiskMark in FiraDisk in Windows 7 x64.
FiraDisk runs slower in Windows 7 x64 than in Windows XP x86.
Yesterday morning, I did not have time to continue the test with different version of FiraDisk and WinVBlock before I go to work, so I just post the result.
At least it give some information to users who will vote "Are FiraDisk and WinVBlock fast enought or should they get optimized?".
I think 12-86 MB/s is unacceptable. It is surely not fast enough.
But 160-3100 MB/s maybe acceptable even if it is slower than ImDisk.
FiraDisk before 0.0.1.18 use memcpy function to copy memory between RAM drive and buffer.
FiraDisk 0.0.1.18 use SSE2 to copy memory between RAM drive and buffer.
It results in faster sequential read/write in x86 build.
However, in x64 build, memcpy already utilize SSE2, so there is no speed improvement.
Edited by karyonix, 19 February 2011 - 05:14 AM.
#22
Posted 19 February 2011 - 09:29 AM
Sure, but since hopefully a new version has "better" capabilities, and it is advised as "version to use", which is the sense of testing an obsolete version ONLY?So a retest by my can only give worst results, than the one before.
A test has sense if performed on what you are using or should use, otherwise someone may have a false impression.
Or - if you really want to test an old one - have BOTH the old and new version tested on SAME hardware and OS to see which speed differences there are.
As always I may be wrong, but I don't see this kind of tests as a contest to see which is faster, but rather to see whether the "current" one (and NOT a previous version) is "fast enough" for the intended use.
As you have correctly evidenced in your booting test timing , what may seem an abyssal difference in theoretical speed actually turns out as a minor difference once applied to "real life".
Performing the tests on "real life" versions would be even more representative.
Wonko
#23
Posted 19 February 2011 - 09:04 PM
Since ramdisk performance depends havily on CPU Power and Speed of used RAM, everybody will get different results, no matter what test system is used.At least it give some information to users who will vote "Are FiraDisk and WinVBlock fast enought or should they get optimized?".
I think 12-86 MB/s is unacceptable. It is surely not fast enough.
But 160-3100 MB/s maybe acceptable even if it is slower than ImDisk.
However by running a simple test on the imdisk drive, which all PE include, on own hardware, everyone can calculate, about what to expect from each of the 3 drivers.
New test, with latest driver versions, will come in a day or two, once i have figured out, why todays builds froze on start.
#24
Posted 19 February 2011 - 09:18 PM
The FiraDisk and WinVBlock scripts contain lots of hardcoded entries, which makes it very hard to extend/update them.which is the sense of testing an obsolete version ONLY?
So i used the included versions of the drivers.
From what i know about your computers, i guess the values of the first test will give you a more realistic picture then the new one.A test has sense if performed on what you are using or should use, otherwise someone may have a false impression.
Well, this is where we clearly contradict. To just know if a driver is "fast enough" there is no need for a comparison test.As always I may be wrong, but I don't see this kind of tests as a contest to see which is faster, but rather to see whether the "current" one (and NOT a previous version) is "fast enough" for the intended use.
Those are done to see, which one is better/faster/...
I don't know about minor. 25% difference is clearly perceivable to a human being without test equipment.As you have correctly evidenced in your booting test timing , what may seem an abyssal difference in theoretical speed actually turns out as a minor difference once applied to "real life".
#25
Posted 20 February 2011 - 11:25 AM
I would say "minor" for the same reason you yourself used "just" and "not that big" :I don't know about minor. 25% difference is clearly perceivable to a human being without test equipment.
So now of course everyone wants to know, what do those numbers exactly mean for my boot time?
I timed the boot process of a LIveXP with a 133MB ISO from end of ramdisk loading till PENetwork startup.
with ramdisk - 37 seconds
with FiraDisk - 44 seconds
with WinVBlock - 46 seconds
Interestingly, the differences are not that big, as one might though based on the test results.
With WinVBlock just being 24% slower than ramdisk.sys.
But as I see it, you are somehow mixing apple with oranges (which is by now re-known as being a very possible thing: http://improbable.co...1-3-apples.html )
I mean in this "real-life" test you apparently miss the "structural" dfference of the booting methods.
With 2k3 ramdisk.sys it's ramdisk.sys itself (or SETUPLDR.BIN, or both) that load the image to RAM and then start the OS from it.
With BOTH firadisk and winvblock it is grub4dos (or memdisk - though I believe you used grub4dos) that loads the image to RAM and only later the actual driver is used to load the OS from it.
So, what you are timing is not "pure" firadisk/WinVblock performance, but rather the combined effect of grub4dos+firadisk or that of grub4dos+WinVblock.
You can test the drivers also with memdisk mapping, maybe the actual time will be different...
Wonko
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users