Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

FiraDisk and WinVBlock Performance


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

Poll: (9 member(s) have cast votes)

Are FiraDisk and WinVBlock fast enought or should they get optimized?

  1. They are fast enough. (2 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  2. They should get optimized. (7 votes [77.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 77.78%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#26 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 20 February 2011 - 01:07 PM

I mean in this "real-life" test you apparently miss the "structural" dfference of the booting methods. :cheers:
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 :thumbsup: 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.

I timed the boot process of a LIveXP with a 133MB ISO from end of ramdisk loading till PENetwork startup.


:)

#27 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 20 February 2011 - 01:19 PM

I see :cheers:.

Then it is not the "real world" kind of test I thought it was, my bad :thumbsup: .

:)
Wonko

#28 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 20 February 2011 - 06:49 PM

Rien ne va plus! The ultimate RamDisk driver test is here. ;)

Drivers tested:
QSoft RamDisk Enterprise 5.3.1.10
ImDisk 1.40
M$ RamDisk 5.2.3790.1830
FiraDisk 0.0.1.30
WinVBlock 0.0.1.8

Testsystem: i5-750 @ 2.67GHz, 6GB/PC3-10600, LiveXP (Windows XP Professional [5.1 Build 2600] (x86)), 235MB ISO

Attached File  QDisk10.gif   27.59KB   56 downloads Attached File  ImDisk1.40.gif   27.78KB   58 downloads Attached File  RamDisk.gif   28.02KB   48 downloads Attached File  FiraDisk.gif   32.4KB   50 downloads Attached File  WinVBlock.gif   25.2KB   43 downloads

Most impressive, ImDisk outperforms in almost all categories QSofts RamDisk which was shown to be the fastest in all internet comparisons.
Strange is that M$RamDisk actually performs worst with the bigger queue depth.


And now to the boot-time comparison.
I timed again the boot process of a LiveXP from end of ramdisk loading till PENetwork startup.

with M$RamDisk - 14,55 seconds
with FiraDisk - 16,60 seconds
with WinVBlock - 19,50 seconds

Again, especialy the huge difference between WinVBlocks performance and the one of the two other drivers in CrystalDiskMark and the small difference in boot time. Most puzzeling! :confused1: :smiling9:


And now! Especialy for our italian viewers. Live from Germany! A comparison of the complete boot time. :poke: :lol:
Meassured from pressing of the power button till PENetwork startup. (LiveXP is loaded from a DVD not a CD, which would take even longer.)

with M$RamDisk + Setupldr - 2:20:48 minutes
with FiraDisk + grub4dos - 2:22:66 minutes
with WinVBlock + grub4dos - 2:25:82 minutes



For me, it is M$RamDisk + Setupldr all the way. Mostly due to a reason, not shown here.
Only with this combination of scripts, is it possible to have a PE, that can switch between Uni- and Multiprocessor setup.
With the other two drivers, one has to decide for the one or the other at build time. Multi choice setup is so messed up, i couldn't even figure out, where things started to go wrong. :angry7:


:cheers:

#29 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 01 April 2011 - 12:12 AM

And now! Especialy for our italian viewers. Live from Germany! A comparison of the complete boot time. :poke: :cheers:
Meassured from pressing of the power button till PENetwork startup. (LiveXP is loaded from a DVD not a CD, which would take even longer.)

with M$RamDisk + Setupldr - 2:20:48 minutes
with FiraDisk + grub4dos - 2:22:66 minutes
with WinVBlock + grub4dos - 2:25:82 minutes

From here in Italy we would like to thank Medevil for :cheers: providing meaningful results.

Applying simple math to them, we know know that on a "reference" SAME hardware:
M$ 140
Firadisk 143
WinVblock 146

Thus, being 143/140-1=2.14% and 146/140-1=4.28% or if you prefer 143-140=3 and 146.140=6, we can conclude that for RAMDISK booting there are NO noticeable differences in time needed to boot (real world), whilst in purely theoretical tests there is a very noticeable difference in speed.
If something rated to be 61 *units* in speed is compared to something else rated 6,772 *units* in speed (factor or relative order of magnitude of 100 or 10^2) BUT takes more or less the SAME time to do the *whatever* it is MAINLY supposed to be doing, it should mean that the "theoretical" testing is either NOT-suitable or simply meaningless.:smiling9:

:cheers:
Wonko

#30 i

i

    Silver Member

  • Advanced user
  • 522 posts
  •  
    United Nations

Posted 01 April 2011 - 01:48 PM

Hi :thumbup:
how come winvblock and firadisk has such a huge difference?


map --mem performance (IMG from hard disk to ram disk) speed which matters, is slow. Somehow :dubbio: firadisk is doing great on windows now but grub4dos is doing bad? (the real world?). Was there any update on this section somewhere? which i missed?



Gzip sucks, LZO rocks but ignored here, why?

#31 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 03:55 PM

No there was no update of the tests.

:cheers:

#32 i

i

    Silver Member

  • Advanced user
  • 522 posts
  •  
    United Nations

Posted 15 June 2011 - 02:09 PM

2 month old post replied... are you doing new tests :cheers:




Some superspeed guys also updated their ramdisk versions... 4.6? Can you test their SuperVolume 4.x + use their unManager memory stored above 4GB? (it looks same like g4d creating ramdisk above 4GB) with exception of saving files to disk after few intervals. (which is good and BAD) when you test read and write, technically the speed should be similar to RAMdisk.

#33 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 15 June 2011 - 03:28 PM

Sorry, did not check the date of your last post. It got highlighted yesterday as new. Don't know, why i missed it back then.

As for tests with newer versions.
There will be none from me. Makes no sense to retest every couple of weeks.
As you can see from the stupid request issued here, for me to use the latest version for all tests. Didn't change a damn thing. Wasted only my time.


:cheers:

#34 Praise the LORD

Praise the LORD
  • Members
  • 5 posts
  •  
    India

Posted 07 December 2011 - 07:56 AM

any driver tht can boot xp image without --mem option with g4d?

#35 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 07 December 2011 - 10:13 AM

any driver tht can boot xp image without --mem option with g4d?

Firadisk and Winvblock.
http://reboot.pro/8804/
http://reboot.pro/13738/

:cheers:
Wonko

#36 wimb

wimb

    Gold Member

  • Developer
  • 2281 posts
  •  
    Netherlands

Posted 09 February 2012 - 09:24 AM

any driver tht can boot xp image without --mem option with g4d?

http://www.911cd.net...showtopic=23553

:cheers:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users