77 replies to this topic

[BLJ]

ok i've got a working REG file for you. Ramdisk Size is 0x10 --> 16MB.

Attached Files

•  RRamdisk_working.reg   3.4KB   1342 downloads

[s4e8]

ok i've got a working REG file for you. Ramdisk Size is 0x10 --> 16MB.

This puppy is hot in chinese sites, because it's first ramdisk support physical ram over 4G, ie: over 4G under XP32. There's 3 registry value may be useful:
MediaType = 2, overcome the NTFS only system problem
UsePAE = 1, use memory above 4G address as ramdisk.
DiskSizeM, the ramdisk size in megabytes.

[raijinsetsu]

My question, which doesn't seem to be directly covered in any of these posts, is the following:
RRamDisk says it can use memory over the 4gb limitation of the 32-bit Windows XP operating system with the registry entry "UsePAE=1". My box has 4gb of ram installed. Windows only see 3.4 GB of this. Potentially, I could create a 768mb ram disk and place a swap file on it, thereby allowing windows to use the whole 4gb of my memory. This is not as performance friendly as windows having access to the full 4gb, but is better than windows forgetting about the extra memory.
Is this true? Or am I reading it wrong?

If it is true, I'm probably going to upgrade my box to 8gb, and make a ~4.7gb ram-disk for my swap file, removing the swap from the HDD completely.

Thanks

[raijinsetsu]

^bump^

Could someone please answer my question above? This is the only English forums with any mention of RRamdisk.

Thanks

[maxlaw]

My question, which doesn't seem to be directly covered in any of these posts, is the following:
RRamDisk says it can use memory over the 4gb limitation of the 32-bit Windows XP operating system with the registry entry "UsePAE=1". My box has 4gb of ram installed. Windows only see 3.4 GB of this. Potentially, I could create a 768mb ram disk and place a swap file on it, thereby allowing windows to use the whole 4gb of my memory. This is not as performance friendly as windows having access to the full 4gb, but is better than windows forgetting about the extra memory.
Is this true? Or am I reading it wrong?

If it is true, I'm probably going to upgrade my box to 8gb, and make a ~4.7gb ram-disk for my swap file, removing the swap from the HDD completely.

Thanks

I have the same question as yours. I get a 4G Ram laptop with 32bits XP/Vista. My windows only recognize the first 2.99GB memory. According to those Chinese websites or forums, people agree that RRamdisk can utilize the shadowed upper memory block. However, none of these sites or forums give a way to prove that RRamdisk is working on that particular memory section. I also doubt how's hibernate work if the swap file is on the ram drive.

All at all, I don't want to waste a gigabyte of memory.
~~~ sincere thanks ~~~~

[was_jaclaz]

@raijinsetsu
@maxlaw

Don't want to seem rude , but you have BOTH:
1) the appropriate hardware (I mean more RAM that XP can access)
2) the need/want to test this feature

Why don't you simply try it?

Theoretically it will work as well with the RAM between 2.99 or 3.4 and 4 Gb.

About SWAP, there are two different "schools of thought":
1) a SWAP file is needed
2) a SWAP file is only needed when it is needed
(I personally belong to the second one)

XP has been "historically" targeted to 512 Mb of RAM, with which, by using the 1.5x "magic" factor that followers of the first theory usually adopted, would have made for a 768Mb SWAP file on disk.
In extreme cases I have seen setups where the "magic factor" was up to 3.0 (which was the "previous" magic number, when most PC had 128 or 256 Mb).
I have rarely seen the SWAP being actually used intensively on a 512 Mb machine, thus with 3 or 3.4 Gb I guess it will never be used, so running without a SWAP file or making it on a RAMDISK (placed in an area of RAM that would otherwise remain unused) does make sense.

About hybernation, I seem to remember to have seen reports about it not working on Ramdisk drives, but most probably further experiments has to take place.

jaclaz

[pscEx]

About SWAP, there are two different "schools of thought":
1) a SWAP file is needed
2) a SWAP file is only needed when it is needed
(I personally belong to the second one)

Let me add school #3:

If there is more swap than needed, the OS uses it, even this is not necessary.
This decreases performance.

Peter

[maxlaw]

@raijinsetsu
@maxlaw

Don't want to seem rude , but you have BOTH:
1) the appropriate hardware (I mean more RAM that XP can access)
2) the need/want to test this feature

Why don't you simply try it?

Theoretically it will work as well with the RAM between 2.99 or 3.4 and 4 Gb.

About SWAP, there are two different "schools of thought":
1) a SWAP file is needed
2) a SWAP file is only needed when it is needed
(I personally belong to the second one)

XP has been "historically" targeted to 512 Mb of RAM, with which, by using the 1.5x "magic" factor that followers of the first theory usually adopted, would have made for a 768Mb SWAP file on disk.
In extreme cases I have seen setups where the "magic factor" was up to 3.0 (which was the "previous" magic number, when most PC had 128 or 256 Mb).
I have rarely seen the SWAP being actually used intensively on a 512 Mb machine, thus with 3 or 3.4 Gb I guess it will never be used, so running without a SWAP file or making it on a RAMDISK (placed in an area of RAM that would otherwise remain unused) does make sense.

About hybernation, I seem to remember to have seen reports about it not working on Ramdisk drives, but most probably further experiments has to take place.

jaclaz

jaclaz, thanks for your comments.
I've tried it in my machine which has 2.99GB RAM in XP. My idea is setting a 2.8GB Ramdrive to leave XP around 100MB RAM (if RRamdrive can't reach the abandoned section) or 1.1GB Ram (if RRamdrive can dig that section). Since XP under 100MB Ram and 1.1GB Ram have a large performance difference, I can thus see if RRamdrive works on those shadowed memory.

However, all the versions fail when I setup a ramdrive > 2GB. It simply gives me a blue screen once I apply the setting. I will keep checking the document in order to make it works. Or, is there any other way to check which memory location that RRamdrive works for?

[was_jaclaz]

However, and all the versions fail when I setup a ramdrive > 2GB. It simply gives me a blue screen. I will keep checking the document in order to make it works. Or, is there any other way to check which memory location that RRamdrive works for?

Did you try just with the GUI or through the Registry entries?

I guess that combining the info here:
http://www.mydigital...nd-2003-server/
http://www.mydigital...-2003-server/2/

with the "base" Registry file posted here:
http://www.boot-land...?...=4064&st=25

You should have all the available info to get started.

Since you have enough RAM, I would use a VM to make the preliminary tests, Qemu, though a bit slowish when compared to Virtualbox, would be my first attempt, Virtualbox second.

I would stay clear of VirtualPC.

jaclaz

[maxlaw]

Did you try just with the GUI or through the Registry entries?

I guess that combining the info here:
http://www.mydigital...nd-2003-server/
http://www.mydigital...-2003-server/2/

with the "base" Registry file posted here:
http://www.boot-land...?...=4064&st=25

You should have all the available info to get started.

Since you have enough RAM, I would use a VM to make the preliminary tests, Qemu, though a bit slowish when compared to Virtualbox, would be my first attempt, Virtualbox second.

I would stay clear of VirtualPC.

jaclaz

Finally my test is finished on a clean installation of XP SP2 (then updated to SP3), and usePAE. I can setup a over 3GB RAM Drive. There is no performance drop when I have a 2.8GB RAM Drive. It shows that RRAMDrive is actually accessing the upper 1GB memory block when creating a drive > 2GB, so that the Windows have sufficient memory to operate. Also, I can create at most a 3.6G RAM Drive (more the RAM Drive will disappear after apply/reboot, I guest the RRAMDrive driver is failed to load), it also proves RRAMDrive is capable of accessing the memory beyond the 3.x GB addressable space of XP.

[dencorso]

According to Goldie, from http://forum.pcdvd.c...st in page #18), a new version has been released:

Gavotte RAMDisk 1.0.4096.5 [2008-11-13 updated]
What's New (更新內容):
　1.) Disk label shows whether the upper memory (PAE) is actually in use or not
(透過磁碟標籤查看是否使用高記憶體).
　2.) Fixes compatibility issues with ASUS motherboards
(修正與部分 ASUS 主機板有兼容性的問題).
Download Sites (下載點):
　1.) Badongo
　2.) MediaFire
　3.) Turbo Upload
　4.) FileFactory
MD5: E362A8FE59C57C4114E46600340A6C1C

Can any of the members who really understand chinese tell us whether my attempt at translating Goldie's post is accurate, please?
There is documentation both in traditional and in simplified chinese inside the .7z, and many comments in page #19 of the above mentioned forum...
I've used both Google Translator and Babel Fish, and some common sense, but I know no chinese at all, so the above is just my best guess...

I've attached it here, too, for it to remain available, when the above links all stop working:

Attached Files

•  Gavotte_RAMDisk_1.0.4096.5_200811130.7z   160.59KB   3336 downloads

[was_jaclaz]

Just to keep things "as together" as possible, Olof has posted a new app able to create/change the swapfiles on-the-fly, SWAPADD:
http://www.boot-land...?...c=6745&st=8

jaclaz

[dencorso]

This may interest you all:
Gigabyte i-RAM hardware ramdisk vs. Gavotte's software-only RRAMDISK performance test.

[was_jaclaz]

This may interest you all:
Gigabyte i-RAM hardware ramdisk vs. Gavotte's software-only RRAMDISK performance test.

With all due respect , I am failing to see what is the scope of a comparison of this kind.

You are comparing apple with oranges.

Which are almost, but not quite, different things. :
http://improbable.co...1-3-apples.html

The Gigabyte thingy is an (old by now) "hardware solution" that ships (today) for something between 50 and 100 €:
http://www.wikio.it/...-ram-68702.html

WITHOUT any RAM, for which you have to spend some 4x35 €=140 € more to have a 4 Gbyte device (maximum).

The competitor to the i-Ram is not a Ramdisk driver, but rather a SSD device:
http://www.xbitlabs....y/ssd-iram.html
http://www.xbitlabs....am_2.html#sect2

Internal RAM (using a ramdick driver) is fastest, less expensive than I-Ram, has small capacity but cannot hold data with PC switched off.
The I-Ram is fast, expensive, and has small capacity (but has backup battery to hold what's stored in it and allows booting in seconds)
The SSD is faster than conventional HD's, has greater capacity, and costs per megabyte less than 1/4th of the above.
Conventional HD's are slowish, but cost per megabyte a fraction of RAM and an even smaller fraction of I-RAM.

If you want to boot fast:

nothing currently can beat I-RAM.

And if next model will have SATAII....



jaclaz

[dencorso]

Let's throw in some mangoes and cashews (the fruit, not the nut) to add to the confusion!

Now, seriously, my intention is just to start a comparison of various ramdisks, across various OSes, using the GB i-RAM as a reference. Why the GB i-RAM? Because it's by far the fastest standard hardware device I could find (so it can be used by any contemporary OS with no fuss) and it can be set to identical sizes (512 KiB - 4 GiB) to the ones normally attainable by software-only ramdisks, thus simplifying the comparison. Now, the point is there are available great articles with detailed tests of almost every sort of hardware device (the one you cited is a good example of it), but I don't know any dedicated to ramdisks. So, while we all know they are the fastest devices possible, we really don't know just how fast, and, among them, which is the fastest. Time permitting, I intend to fill this gap. This is just the begining of a work-in-progress...

[Lancelot]

nothing currently can beat I-RAM.

And if next model will have SATAII....



jaclaz

Gigabyte have capacity problem, 4 gigabytes (i once see a product with 8 gigabytes upper limit which i believe there is an internal raid0). I know with raid0 it is expandable but........


I guess the answer is IO Drive, sadly not cheap.
Nice pdf sheets here (i guess you will like them, nice infos )
http://www.fusionio.com/Products.aspx

Connection with pci express 4x


if you have money , from info here:
http://rgadget.com/2...ket-at-q1-2008/

The ioDrives will be available from Q1 2008 in 80GB, 160GB, 320GB and 640GB capacities, with the 640GB is set at only about $2400.

ps: 80GB is enough for me .



an old picture from early 2008, i am not sure the current state:


i know iodrive for a while since begining 2008, in times i look in deep to Fusion website, product told to be released in late 2008 and compatibility to windows will also be made in the end of 2008. I am not sure about the current progress and my google-fu abilities are not good enough as you. (ps: Also i cant afford to buy such a device now so i am a bit lazy to look deep again).

I hope you like iodrive and i guess you will have very nice google-fu results if i miss.

[TheHive]

Anyone have 2,400+ in change around. Does that mean that it would be able to allow program to run faster. Like riping a DVD or creating a Video project.

[Lancelot]

TheHive

riping a DVD may not much effected, i am not sure about video project either. Old Chemistry rules acts on these things, a reaction takes place at speed of the lowest step. DVD rip is about DVD rom/rw speed ("dvd read" vs "hd write" the lowest is your dvd rip speed), i guess video project mostly depends on what you did on video, if you only cut/paste things than it will be faster, if you add animations or encode etc. to video than it wont be effected much. Giving example with building livexp, i guess verify script will react very fast + very significantly create iso step will be verrrrrry fast (i guess 3 seconds, i tested before with ramdrive) but process steps depends on your cpu. Another example: double clicking on winbuilder.exe will react very faster when you have loooooooooooooots of .scripts in the projects folder. (ps: it is already very fast, you will not notice the difference with the current projects). Loading big things to ram (with games or some big ram eating engineer utilities) will be very faster and also imagine the boot up speed of any os.


Simply, after having such a device, you will be sure that lowest speed of your process reactions on pc are not effected by hd speed

good night

[dencorso]

Fusion ioDrive rocks! But it really is too expensive...

Then again, there are also the SATA II SDHC RAIDs like Sharkoon's Flexi-Drive S2S or Photofast CR-9000, both being arrays of 6 SDHC cards, which can result in a 192 GiB disk, and are probably faster than Gigabyte's i-RAM. My main question about them is how long will the cards last? NAND RAM doesn't like to be rewritten too many times, so they're not a good ideia for locating a Swapfile (but i-RAM is ideal for that). On the other hand, they may be superb as boot disks!

[TheHive]

Better to wait untill its cheaper.


SDHC is slow i think. The sata is faster then the SDHC trasfer ability of data.

[Hoppertje]

so... what is the maximum sized ramdisk you can create with gavotte, assuming you are on a 64bit machine with enough memory to support that?

[dencorso]

4 GiB, AFAIK.

[was_jaclaz]

so... what is the maximum sized ramdisk you can create with gavotte, assuming you are on a 64bit machine with enough memory to support that?

4 GiB, AFAIK.

@dencorso
did you actually ever test RRAMDISK.SYS on a 64 bit machine? (I though it came only in 32 bit version )



jaclaz

[Lancelot]

Hi to all,

Remembering my post41 & checking links for IODrive (i guess it is more than a year now),... Well all are written, no need to comment much,
http://www.xbitlabs....h_Fatal1ty.html
http://www.fusionio.com/ioxtreme/
Hoping in the end of summer we will see some test results from users on net, and probably more hostosx64 users around who are happy not to sell their x64 pc on ebay. And next year(s)....

CU

[dencorso]

did you actually ever test RRAMDISK.SYS on a 64 bit machine?

Never! That's why the "AFAIK" is there. But 4 GiB is the upper limit for the x86 version, so a simple port, if there is one (I've never seen it either) ought to have the same limit. Then again, I might as well have kept silent than post a reply on impulse. Sorry!