RAMDisk

[Marcin_gps]

here is a comparison of different RAMdisk programs - http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2009/12/08/12-ram-disk-software-benchmarked-for-fastest-read-and-write-speed/

Peter, which read test is the most important for XXHE - sequential, 512K or 4K? I suppose it's sequential, but I'd like to be sure before I try a new software.

EDIT
But according to that test, RAMdisk is the best and not by a small margin. Raj.V - what did you install?

[PeterSt]

Should also be able to check Ramdisk performance using HDTune. Just compared my HDD with the Dataram ramdisk and almost fell off the chair.

Hey Raj,

Sorry for the stupid question maybe, but I'm not sure the ramdisk was so slow, or so increadably more fast than the hdd (the latter would be obvious).

Anyway, thanks for some again fresh ideas.
Peter

[Raj.V]

Yes they do save/load images.

I used FAT16.

The three I saw are QSoft, GiliSoft & VirtualDisk.
I tried GiliSoft.

Peter,
yes I thought the ram read/write should be the same but the benchmark tables say otherwise. I don't understand why. The read/write rate differences are small but if I can hear (I believe) it then it matters to me.

P.S. I meant that the Ramdisk was way faster than the HDD. Just funny to see the test proceed in HDTune.
Raj

[Telstar]

Links to the two ramdisk software used please (i dont remember the name of the one you suggested at the beginning, Marcin)

[Raj.V]

gilisoft
http://www.gilisoft.com/product-ramdisk.htm

dataram
http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

I won't be able to test anything for a few days as I will be on holiday in a few hours.

Raj

[Marcin_gps]

http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/12-software-ram-disk-solutions-up-2358-1539mb-s-r-w-speeds-69781/
There you go - Dataram Ramdisk - free and the best

[Raj.V]

But guys no harm in trying. That's what we do here as members in this forum.
Imagine noone tried Marcin's super idea.

Software versions could have changed and different benchmarks seem to exist also.

P.S. I took the write speed as a benchmark in my selection.

Raj

[Telstar]

gilisoft
http://www.gilisoft.com/product-ramdisk.htm

dataram
http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

I won't be able to test anything for a few days as I will be on holiday in a few hours.

Raj

I'll also try both of those, only on W7 so far

[PeterSt]

Peter, which read test is the most important for XXHE - sequential, 512K or 4K? I suppose it's sequential, but I'd like to be sure before I try a new software.

I downloaded that benchmark software in order to get something from the Help in there, but it doesn't bring much ...

Anyway, what we would be using is sequential write and read at the largest block size. But, it doesn't work like that, because the block size is a hardware thing, and normally it is defined at creating the volume (the Cluster Size in Windows terms). Not so here. However, I examined "our" RAMDisk a bit, and found that the "Cluster Size" is 4KB. This is rather small, and actually not much "productive" for our 30MB and up files (read : with a Cluster Size of 64KB, all would virtually be 16 times faster).

But ...

We can also format the RAMDisk ourselves ...  
So, when done with 64KB Cluster Size (this is the maximum) we will gain much speed again, from writing and reading our very large files.
The downside : there's also a lot going on for small files (less than 1KB), and they will be written (and read) as 64KB ... So, that's more slow then.

So far the theories. The practice you see below, and it all doesn't matter a bit (look at the file names; when not mentioned otherwise, it's NTFS formatted). I also wrote an album to the RAMDisk in the various situations, and it takes the same time for each formatted occasion. To me this says that the format and Cluster Size just doesn't matter at all, hence internally some standard will be make of it. What will matter though, is the least allocated space. Thus, for a 1KB file, 64KB will be used when formatted with a 64KB Cluster Size.

One last thing I noticed, and didn't know : With exFAT the Cluster Size can be 32768KB (this is 32MB), which would improve significantly on normal disk files. Down side : the relatively small CoverArt files will consume 32MB also, *and* they will need to read that 32MB per piece. Not preferrable !

[PeterSt]

Boleary may be the starter of this all, although I am not sure at this moment whether Marcin mentioned it first.

All,

Above quote from me before was phrased a little differently (I changed it), and as I understood from boleary in my dutch-english it was quite upsetting. OF COURSE this was not intended at all. So, in case others perceived it the same as boleary himself did, I referred to his great capabilities of using women voices as a measure for the sound quality; not a thing everybody does. Besides, I think his daughter is a singer, so this will be the utmost good environment to compare with reality.
Well, at referring to that, I think it came out as boleary nagging as a baby or something, only because of mentioning the "woman" thing in a wrong way.
Brian already understands now, but I sure don't want anyone else to think I referred to him as a nagging woman, baby or whatever else can nag. I hope this is corrected now !

All the best,
Peter

[Raj.V]

Peter,

I might be writing complete nonsense now...

Is it possible to partition ramdisk with 2 separate cluster sizes?
Then the small files and coverart can sit in the 4k cluster sized partition.

Raj

[Telstar]

Peter,

I might be writing complete nonsense now...

Is it possible to partition ramdisk with 2 separate cluster sizes?
Then the small files and coverart can sit in the 4k cluster sized partition.

Raj

It should be possible to create 2 ramdisks, but i think that the dataram software that we are using doesnt support 2 ramdisks at the same time. (i still cant see the letter unit, which must be "O" btw  )

[PeterSt]

Yes Raj, you must be up to some vacation. Hahaha.

But, although I think that will be possible, it will be of no use. So yes, I referred to the CoverArt etc., but that was related to permanent storage (the "music disks"); the CoveArt just won't go to the RAMDisk.

But it made me think ...

When the music is selected from a Gallery, the CoverArt will be taken from there as well. IOW, the "Copy to XXDrive" parameter will store the music file on the "XX Drive" (which it normally is not), *and* it will take the CoverArt from there as well (why ? because the Gallery will be on the XXDrive, so that just needs to stay there, and all is right). However, in our RAMDisk situation, the Galleries are not on the RAMDisk, but on the "original" XXDrive (where the XX folder was copied from). This means that the CoverArt is taken from that real disk (be it HDD or SSD). Will that matter (SQ) ? maybe ...
I am not sure at this moment, but if you play Unattended and shut off the CoverArt Wallpaper stuff it just won't be addressed.

Hmm ...

But Raj, have a nice vacation. I guess we'll just have to do it alone.



PS: Just saw Telstar's post ... I think he is right. But notice it all doesn't matter, because the Cluster Size can be as small as we want, because I don't see any performance penalties (see earlier pictures).

[PeterSt]

which must be "O" btw :D)

Yes, I use O: too. It has the roundest shape, so it will sound the most smooth.

[Calibrator]

Also, those running 64 bits versions with more than 4GB ram installed, are you able to create RamDisks up to 4GB OK that survive a reboot intact?

Well I answered this question myself by using a spare drive and installing a virgin Vista 64 image on it. Creating a 3GB RamDisk within a 8GB total capacity was successful and should accommodate up to about 4 queued albums. More importantly there weren't any issues experienced after each reboot, although it was a little quirky getting it's act all together initially.

Time now to back up the new build with Acronis True Image and transfer across to my Vertex 2 SSD. I can't believe how much slower normal drives are after using SSD's for a whle.

I also run some quick read tests using HD Tune Pro while I was at it. The HDD used for this build was a 1GB WD "blue" and started out at approx 110 MB/sec transfer, the SSD was in the order of 250 MB/sec and the RamDIsk was a whisker under 3500 MB/sec with a burst speed of 4300 MB/sec !!

Russ