| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SamtheDog
Singularity.
Talon Alliance
   |
Posted - 2008.01.26 14:58:00 -
[1]
I've been contemplating purchasing a RAM disk with 8GB of DDR2 ram. I was wondering which would provide the greatest performance benefit.
Install windows on a pure RAM disk where windows loads in literally 3 seconds from on boot to desktop
or
Install EVE on a RAM disk for maximum performance.
The unit is specifically listed here http://techreport.com/articles.x/9312/1
I can get 2GB ram for roughly $35 each. My main question would be, would it be beneficial to play eve on a RAM disk, if so, would it be better to run windows vista or EVE off the ram disk alone?
Sam
"Never underestimate greed or stupidity...you can always see it emerge in the end" |
Hermosa Diosas
The-Secret-Service
Retribution.
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 15:00:00 -
[2]
RAM disk is BY FAR the fastest way you will access any data, so for clientside work it is very beneficial, however it wont stop the lag
|
Malken
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 15:08:00 -
[3]
isnt the I-Ram max 4Gb and not 8Gb ?
|
SamtheDog
Singularity.
Talon Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 15:13:00 -
[4]
The i-ram is compatible with 2GB memory sticks. 8GB is very possible currently.
Question remains, should I install vista on it or just eve?
Sam
"Never underestimate greed or stupidity...you can always see it emerge in the end" |
Malken
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 15:16:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: SamtheDog
The i-ram is compatible with 2GB memory sticks. 8GB is very possible currently.
Question remains, should I install vista on it or just eve?
Sam
first... vista sucks.
second 8gb is abit low for todays OS's
id put the swapfile there and eve.
|
Andrest Disch
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 15:25:00 -
[6]
Quote:
first... vista sucks.
second 8gb is abit low for todays OS's
id put the swapfile there and eve.
8 gigabytes of RAM is sucky?
I knew technology moves on fast, but..
Am I missing something?
|
RaTTuS
BIG
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 15:26:00 -
[7]
just make it hold the eve-cache files
--
BIG Lottery, BIG Deal, InEve [Now Verified] & Recruiting
|
McAltyalty
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 15:30:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Andrest Disch
Quote:
first... vista sucks.
second 8gb is abit low for todays OS's
id put the swapfile there and eve.
8 gigabytes of RAM is sucky?
I knew technology moves on fast, but..
Am I missing something?
He's talking about the GB size of the OS.
|
Kaar
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 15:30:00 -
[9]
That card has a 4gb max, Id wait for the newer version with sata-2 (if it hasnt been scrapped)
Or didnt I read about a pci-x ramdisk?
---
---
|
z0rb4
f-EVE-r
Endless Horizon
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 17:38:00 -
[10]
Edited by: z0rb4 on 26/01/2008 17:38:19
My next experiment will be to move EVE cache to a REAL ramdrive (resident in system memory, purely logic, easily attainable on windows with free/open-source tools over the internet, native on linux and mac).
Ofc it requires a lot of RAM, a bit scriptwork on every reboot, and disabling the swap (or using an unswappable solution) may be a good idea, but the performances should skyrocket.
Tested it with other multimedia applications. It worked. I think it can't be beaten.
Having the speed of DDRs behind SCSI/ATA/SATA or simply PCI/PCI-EXPRESS/PCI-X bottlenecks is rather stupid.
Very cheap, very effective but not hassle-free.
o/
EDIT: misconcept corrected
Regards
z0rb4
|
|
|
Aem
White-Noise
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 18:12:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Aem on 26/01/2008 18:13:24
SSD/RAM Drives: Sure, you boot in 2-5seconds, and applications load amazingly fast. It boasts no seek, read times but.... there is still a delay in write speed.
Only performance increase is loading applications, good for games where huge scenese and maps have to be loaded, pretty crap for EvE writing cache files, window logs, other logs and caching user pictures. However 2 x i-Ram's in RAID0 and you may be onto something.
SAS is the way forward, no if's or buts.
ALSO, READ QUOTE:
Quote:
For example, the memory controller doesn't support ECC memory or 2GB DIMMs, both of which would be useful. And then there's the Serial ATA controller's lack of support for 300MB/s transfer rates, which will probably be the card's most serious performance impediment.
What we doing tonight Brain? Same thing we do everynight Pinky. Trying to NERF Eve.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 18:59:00 -
[12]
This might help.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
SirMolly
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 19:10:00 -
[13]
check this out: Linkage 
------------------------------------------------
|
SamtheDog
Singularity.
Talon Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 00:50:00 -
[14]
Thanks for the links. It seems to me that no matter what I'll do I'll still get a bottleneck of speed due to the small size of the i-ram (8GB config).
I started looking at Raptor drives in RAID 0 config. This would encompass a huge improvement over my std SATA 500GB drive (7200rpm). I'm just curious to see how viable the performance difference of say loading another system would be after you jump from a standard drive to a very high speed one.
Sam
"Never underestimate greed or stupidity...you can always see it emerge in the end" |
Cys Root
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 01:21:00 -
[15]
I run EVE on a western digital 36G 10k rpm raptor drive and notice a slight performance increased when compared to your normal 7.2k hdds which i also run on a seperate PC side by side, so the loading times are easily comparable to me. A RAM disk is an altogether different approach though and i have no doubt the loading times are insane compared to regular hard drives, whichever rpm they may be.
|
Herz Ing
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 03:39:00 -
[16]
Originally by: SamtheDog
I've been contemplating purchasing a RAM disk with 8GB of DDR2 ram. I was wondering which would provide the greatest performance benefit.
Install windows on a pure RAM disk where windows loads in literally 3 seconds from on boot to desktop
or
Install EVE on a RAM disk for maximum performance.
The unit is specifically listed here http://techreport.com/articles.x/9312/1
I can get 2GB ram for roughly $35 each. My main question would be, would it be beneficial to play eve on a RAM disk, if so, would it be better to run windows vista or EVE off the ram disk alone?
Sam
Ok, here's the straight dope ( haha, seriously though... )
I have the i-Ram with 4gb installed. I also have a WD Raptor 150gb. I also have a watercooled e6850, sli 8800 blah blah blah. You get the idea.
In my personal experience, the i-Ram will give you extremely fast load times while playing eve - when jumping or docking/undocking your client will load almost instantaneously. There is a catch, however, the eve servers can't keep up. When playing with the iRam installed I found myself staring at a fully loaded client background/station waiting for my ship and the rest of the universe to materialize. You don't need that kind of performance - a Raptor, or any ordinary 7200 rpm drive is more than enough.
Now - here is something else to consider.
While using the iRam I found that my EVE install got corrupted on average once a week. Let me repeat that: the iRam has problems with data loss. I will admit that this may be a problem that is exclusive to me ( and for the record I'm using Kingston ram sticks ). However, in my experience you will not be able to run any kind of OS from the iRam and if you chose to run EVE from it then you will be backing up your iRam on a nightly basis ( at least the backup is quick, eh? ).
Anywhoo, to sum up: I've tried using the iRam with Eve. It's nice, but it has problems. You don't need it and I personally removed mine in order to make room for an Sli setup.
Hope this helps. I haven't revised what I wrote and I'm sure it's incomprehensible. Sorry. :-( ./end rant
|
McAltyalty
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 04:00:00 -
[17]
Edited by: McAltyalty on 27/01/2008 04:00:32
Don't both getting a raptor, for the same price you can get pretty sizeable 7200 HDD's and put them in a raid 0 setup for a performance that comes pretty frickin close to a 10,000 rpm HDD.
So you have a choice, 100gb (or less) 10,000 HDD or a 500gb (or more) 7,200 HDD.
|
Caligulus
Legion of Lost Souls
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 04:14:00 -
[18]
Originally by: McAltyalty
Edited by: McAltyalty on 27/01/2008 04:00:32
Don't both getting a raptor, for the same price you can get pretty sizeable 7200 HDD's and put them in a raid 0 setup for a performance that comes pretty frickin close to a 10,000 rpm HDD.
So you have a choice, 100gb (or less) 10,000 HDD or a 500gb (or more) 7,200 HDD.
Yes, but you halve your HD reliabilty as there is a 50% increase in chance of disk failure. Your drive stability is dependent upon 2 drives instead of one. RAID 0 is an extremely cheap way to get that extra boost in speed. It is however, cheap. Meaning subject to failure if not treated with respect (HD coolers and proper ventilation is a must).
-------------------------------------------------
**** You're out of your mind!
**** Well that's between me and my mind. |
Herz Ing
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 04:14:00 -
[19]
Originally by: McAltyalty
Edited by: McAltyalty on 27/01/2008 04:00:32
Don't both getting a raptor, for the same price you can get pretty sizeable 7200 HDD's and put them in a raid 0 setup for a performance that comes pretty frickin close to a 10,000 rpm HDD.
So you have a choice, 100gb (or less) 10,000 HDD or a 500gb (or more) 7,200 HDD.
Raptor 150gb for sale
The raptor will still have better access times than the 7200rpm raid.
If you're talking about getting an i-Ram, money is not an issue here. Lol  Hell, you could buy the Raptor and a brick to store all your **** on for that kind of money.
|
SamtheDog
Singularity.
Talon Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 06:27:00 -
[20]
Thanks for the comments today. I purchased 2 x 150GB raptors today (with the clear window).
I've read & heard nothing but good things about them. Also, considering my internet lines in my home are a true & unmetered 96.4Mbit lines (Korea rocks for net speeds) I'm sure the game won't make me wait as much when I play in the new drives.
Also, Samsung drives suck.
Sammy
"Never underestimate greed or stupidity...you can always see it emerge in the end" |
|
|
MysticNZ
Solstice Systems Development Concourse
The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 08:38:00 -
[21]
Edited by: MysticNZ on 27/01/2008 08:38:51
I have 2x73gb raptors in raid0. They have been running now for about 3-4yrs... can't remember... anyway, loading is FAST. Oh yeah, 5yr warranty 4tw... cares if they die. Who runs raid 1 on a machine at home? I bet ~1. Backups people :P
|
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 09:24:00 -
[22]
I have 4GB of RAM (3.25 useable) and I find that after half an hour Eve stops using the harddisk anyway.
--
(Battle hardened industrialist)
[Brackley, UK]
My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned. |
smenkhare
Esoteric Industries
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 22:14:00 -
[23]
uhm.
can't windows only address a maximum of 4Gb of RAM?
|
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Hooligans Of War
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 22:19:00 -
[24]
Originally by: smenkhare
uhm.
can't windows only address a maximum of 4Gb of RAM?
32-bit Windows yes, but XP 64bit as well as Vista 64bit can handle a lot more.
|
McAltyalty
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 23:31:00 -
[25]
Edited by: McAltyalty on 27/01/2008 23:35:39
Originally by: Caligulus
Yes, but you halve your HD reliabilty as there is a 50% increase in chance of disk failure. Your drive stability is dependent upon 2 drives instead of one. RAID 0 is an extremely cheap way to get that extra boost in speed. It is however, cheap. Meaning subject to failure if not treated with respect (HD coolers and proper ventilation is a must).
Originally by: Herz Ing
Raptor 150gb for sale
The raptor will still have better access times than the 7200rpm raid.
If you're talking about getting an i-Ram, money is not an issue here. Lol Hell, you could buy the Raptor and a brick to store all your **** on for that kind of money.
Well yes it is more unstable, but if you have sensitive data you should have that backed up anyway. Proper cooling for your HDD's is a must anyway, but to be honest it doesn't take much to properly cool an HDD. But if you are worried about stability you could always run a raid 5.
Yeah for the price of that 150gb raptor I have a 500gb 7200 raid 0, yes the raptor is faster but its not noticeable. I could post a comparison video for you using my old 30gb raptor but to be honest the boot time difference is less than a second.
The price for performance ratio goes like this
Raid 0
Raptor
Ram drive
I also considered going for a raptor, but I was convinced otherwise. As it is I have 440gb's full and no money to get another hard drive, if I would have went with the Raptor I wouldn't be able to have this nice collection of tv shows and movies, which is nice because I don't have tv.
|
Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 00:50:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Soulita on 28/01/2008 00:52:48
Besides i-Ram there is also a Ram drive from HyperOS called "HyperDrive III" on the market.
This is interesting because this one can use up to 16GB of RAM.
Tom`s Hardware compared I/O (read/write) performance of the Raptor, a SCSI Raid 0, Hyperdrive, i-Ram and i-Ram Raid 0.
Results (for the FileServer Benchmark) in I/Os per sec:
1) ~17000 I/O -> i-RAM RAID 0 (2*2GB and 2*3GB)
2) ~10000 I/O -> i-RAM (4 GB)
3) ~6000 I/O -> Hyperdrive III (6 GB)
4) below 1000 I/O -> SCSI Raid 0, Raptor
Linky to charts and test.
|
McAltyalty
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 01:34:00 -
[27]
A 16gb ram drive? I think I'm in love.
|
Leyla Peace
Caldari
Big Guns Inc.
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 12:45:00 -
[28]
this
pretty expensive, and not yet available but damn i want it
|
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 13:14:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Andrue on 28/01/2008 13:14:19
Originally by: smenkhare
uhm.
can't windows only address a maximum of 4Gb of RAM?
All 32-bit operating systems (yes even precious Linux  ) are limited to 4GB of address space. That doesn't just cover RAM though. It covers ROM, some I/O devices and RAM on external cards that is mapped into the CPU address space (graphics RAM being the biggest issue there).
By default under 32-bit Windows the most RAM you are likely to be able to use is 4GB-(Video RAM)-256kB although the 256kB might vary according to the motherboard design. The remainder of the RAM is still active but because it has been pushed out of the way above 4GB Windows cannot normally get at it.
Both Linux and Windows have ways to get at it but for Windows at least the method (adding /PAE) to boot.ini has some performance and device compatibility issues.
A further twist in all this is that although every running process gets its own 4GB virtual address space Windows normally only allows the first 2GB to be used for application data and code. The upper 2GB is reserved for the OS code and data that needs to visible to each process. You can increase the 2GB figure to 3GB by using the /3GB switch. I suspect that /3GB might also incur a slight performance cost though presumably offset by the advantage of the increase in RAM addresses.
Of course 64-bit versions of Windows and Linux can both go waaaaaaay above 4GB so the RAM issue is non-existant for all practical purposes today (don't quote me in ten years time though, please). The /3GB switch is probably even more useful for legacy 32-bit applications though. Given that a lot of people go for Win64 because of the extra RAM it is more likely that you'd want to extend the 32-bit address space that way.
--
(Battle hardened industrialist)
[Brackley, UK]
My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |