Primo Cache's cache on a RAMdisk?

[Mradr]

S.o. "blah blah look at me, i explain terms, I'm so intelligentm, and other people are fool, I try to avoid arguing blahblah, said nothing in the matter"
guess it-'s just your 2 brain cells commuicating.....

Means you don't understand what you are talking about and is just trying to get people mad so you can have your way... I reported this and will quote what you said so you can't change ^^ (I have to deal people like you all the time x.X It gets annoying after a while sadly. I just hope those that fail to understand will change their ways in the future instead of trying to attack people.)

[Incriminated]

There is nothing to understand in your words. You not presented a single simple fact or proof of your claims.
I showed you, that your consideration for the right configuration of my system would slow down my workload.

Thats fact. I tested it here.

You try to flexure my usecase to make it fit in your world of right and wrong, and you failed in convincing me with facts and arguments.

Simple as that.

Nobody else even reads this thread or your non-factual claims. I dont care the support beeing mad at me because i discovered you only have 2 brain cells. 1 for talking glibbirish and the other one for acting up like somewhat masterbrain, what leaves bland impression my friend.

If you want me to accept you having more brain cells, try to tell me how PrimoCache can accelearate my application when I first access them (no i not mean boot with first), because you didn't, your explanation was to "define 1st read" as where the RAM-drive is loaded... disgusting! Your recommendation is to shut the only software off, that gives me full accleration when i first access the data... dont you try?

Or you can just accept that a Cache/RAM-disk dual-system can be benefiting at all.

Because this is what your problem really is: You claim that there is NO-CASE in which using both is beneficial. That is simply wrong.

My case is a legit example and there are dozens of users that have enough ram and do not care about little slower boot/shutdown and that do reboot there system several times a day... and so on and so on..


But man... i know... you know it all!

[InquiringMind]

Already said that... waste of line of text xD (btw, these are the comments that make what you say less trusting to read =/ Please read 100%...

At this point, I'm going to have to assume that English isn't your first language since you are contradicting yourself.

Specifically:

• You state that a UPS is necessary, I stated it wasn't.
• I stated that backups are necessary - you never even mentioned them.

So no, I was not repeating your post.

Witch you would if you are going to LOAD files up into the ramdisk... duh... and you still run into lines 1-5 either way, so no... I already covered that xD So no, the example by Incriminated is a very poor example on how to use it right.

If you use a ramdisk to store the browser cache you don't need to use an image file since that data can be discarded. So no need for an image file - a similar situation applies with every other program that creates temporary data. Incriminated's example may not suit everyone (some may want their browser cache preserved across reboots) but it is certainly valid.

As for your points 1-5, let's go over them in detail:

1) Both uses ram to load up a ram disk, this takes time and creates a block space in ram that can't be used by the system on startup or in the middle of run.

As Incriminated has noted, PrimoCache doesn't need to create a disk and unless you are using L2, doesn't require perceptible extra startup time. Of course, every program running on startup takes some time and some resources, but with PrimoCache (without L2) and Primo Ramdisk (without an image file) these aren't perceptible (and yes, I've timed them).

Your statement about them using RAM that can't be used by the system also does not apply when invisible memory is used (anything above the 3.25GB on a 32-bit system or above the licensed limit on a 64-bit system).

Even in cases where L2 and image files are used, the increase in startup or shutdown time is not an adequate one to dismiss usage, and your argument in this respect seems to be saying "Don't use either - or anything else that runs on startup".

2) Because both uses ram, they require sometime to load their data into ram at startup or at load. This creates a longer startup and shutdown as they both have to save out (if def-write is enable or when the system may want to use that ram to do last min processing on close).

Effectively repeating point 1, same counter-argument applies.

3) RAM Disk are limited, so you can actually run into issues if the program grows larger than the given ram disk size.

Which is why Ramdisk configuration is important - it is up to the user to identify how best to use their Ramdisk and how to size it. PrimoCache is undoubtedly easier to set up here, but it doesn't need much effort to decide on a suitable ramdisk size. In cases of unpredictable ramdisk usage, a hybrid ramdisk may be an option. As Incriminated has noted, limits apply to PrimoCache also.

4) Programs are poorly written that it requires a RamDisk.

I don't know of any program that requires a ramdisk so this point seems superfluous. There are a number of programs that can benefit from a ramdisk for temporary data, but it is totally arbitrary to call them "poorly written" (WinRAR, Internet Explorer and virtually all program installers fall into this category since they all create temporary files).

5) Partitions and Physical Disk are not the same thing. When a partition gets IO request to do anything it slows the physical disk down and that means other partitions on that disk.

Incorrect if PrimoCache is running, since it redirects partition reads/writes to RAM where possible. Irrelevant otherwise.

Show some benchmark? Because I already tested both.

See Benchmarking PrimoCache.

As well, Primo will be limited compare to the flexibly of a cache weould give in return. Not saying they can't work together either.. I already said what will happen if you use both and how to use both.

Then you are really agreeing with Incriminated and myself - that both products can be used together and both provide different benefits (Primo Ramdisk offering more performance benefits, but limited to specific applications and requiring more setup; Primo Cache offering less of a performance boost, but spread over the whole system and with no need for complex configuration).

The topic of this thread was whether one product could be used to boost the other, and we three can presumably agree that they cannot work well in this fashion. They have to run separately, each using its own allocation of RAM.

[Incriminated]

Hey inquiring mind:

If you use a ramdisk to store the browser cache you don't need to use an image file since that data can be discarded. So no need for an image file - a similar situation applies with every other program that creates temporary data. Incriminated's example may not suit everyone (some may want their browser cache preserved across reboots) but it is certainly valid.

But not using any disk-file will not give me accelearation right from the start, It would have to fill the browser-cache from scratch via the web and every write and 2nd read can be accelerated by PrimoCache. In that case, he is right and PrimoCache can do the job all alone. I just think, that RAM-disk only comes in handy when you want to improve 1st read.

Lets imagine it is no browser-cache but heavy-I/O workload for 4gb that you want to access once and search something in it... 4 GiB mega-textfile whatever, need to do it every day again... so, i boot the pc. when it is finished, lets say i need 3 minutes to check my mail, check whos online in messenger or simple me going to get some coffee after i press the startup-button. Without RAM-disk loading up this file while me beeing busy with "minor" tasks, i start the work with reading the file from harddisk. ... RAM-disk could have load the 4 GiB plenty of times within the 3 minutes (SSD 10-20seconds) so i start the work with reading the file from RAM (1-2 seconds). With HDD i had to wait minutes and even with SSD like above 10-20seconds. So as long as Primo-Cache already running with enough RAM-space and you have got enough amount of RAM-Space left for the OS... WHY NOT?

I use a disk-file and like I said, the 1 GiB file is located on a SSD, so when i boot my PC, then I am unable to find a point/moment, where browser is not startable from the very first moment. My boot isn't significant slower, while it takes ~19 seconds with or without RAM-disk. To accomplish that i guess that RAM-disk starts the disk-device relatively early in the boot-process.

The only reason i have that RAM-disk is because those data-blocks of the websites i frequently visit stay in RAM-disk and will be re-loaded into RAM-disk on boot without me even noticing a load process. When I said, that it is no problem to loose data on crash, then I just mean it wouldn't affect me seriously, still I like to have the file-save all my browser cache before reboot.

With RAM-Disk and PrimoCache i can boot my PC, and while it plays the Login-Sound all my cached websites are ready to be load by the browser at RAM-Speed. Sure i can click "reload all tabs" with only PrimoCache experiencing the same speed... but seriously, it's the first access that counts, since normaly I don't click reload-all-tabs but to fire up the next different cached browser-tab-session.

I go from tab-session to tab-session, not reloading anything a second times. PrimoCache cannot accelerate that, even if the blocks of the RAM-DIsk-image-file is located on the cached-partition, when anything request browser-cache-data from drive R:\ there is no way PrimoCache could read that blocks for C:\, it doesn't even know that the data on R:\ is the same data then in the image-file.

What do i need more to say than:
6 GiB L1-R/W for C: and D:,
1 GiB RAM-Disk R: holding browser cache, load on boot, save on shutdown.
19 seconds boot, not a single second faster without any romex-product.
5 seconds shutdown, not a single second faste without any romex-product.
Website-rendering, applying user-scripts and adblock occurs siginificantly faster than before.
No bluescreen, not lost data once.

I must be stupid to stop RAM-disk and I don't know any place where to put the 1/16 of my RAM instead to have any other good benefit. Only option would be to increase L1 but it is already 6 GiB... and i have no mediocre daily task to get that one filled already.

Anyways thank you for not letting me alone with this monster... i was getting tired

[InquiringMind]

But not using any disk-file will not give me accelearation right from the start, It would have to fill the browser-cache from scratch via the web and every write and 2nd read can be accelerated by PrimoCache. In that case, he is right and PrimoCache can do the job all alone. I just think, that RAM-disk only comes in handy when you want to improve 1st read.

Yes, that's why I said such a setup wasn't for everyone. It has a privacy benefit (ensuring your browsing history is never stored) but any Ramdisk gain will be outweighed initially by the extra network traffic involved. And yes, PrimoCache would likely do as well with less setup.

Lets imagine it is no browser-cache but heavy-I/O workload for 4gb that you want to access once...

One good example - another is manipulating a large solid RAR archive (where the whole thing has to be extracted to see any data). Copy it to Ramdisk and you can almost treat it like a normal RAR archive, picking out individual items without having to wait on the full extract on every operation.

... i was getting tired

To be fair, I think we all may be talking at cross purposes. It may be that Mradr was thinking that we were using PrimoCache on a ramdisk (which would be pointless, and the opposite scenario from the original post which was using a ramdisk on PrimoCache). If so, then I can see where his posts are coming from, but they would be a case of barking up the wrong tree.

Wonder if Darkquark is still following this thread?

[Mradr]

Already said that... waste of line of text xD (btw, these are the comments that make what you say less trusting to read =/ Please read 100%...

At this point, I'm going to have to assume that English isn't your first language since you are contradicting yourself.

Specifically:

• You state that a UPS is necessary, I stated it wasn't.
• I stated that backups are necessary - you never even mentioned them.

So no, I was not repeating your post.

Or that you miss the point? How can you backup if your newer data isn't being saved from a crash (aka, power outage)? No matter how short your save time might be, it still exist that any unsaved data will be at risk. My point still stands, any data that you want to keep, or any data that is useful must be imaged at the end. The only way out of this is to a) never have useful information in there or b) have a copy of it somewhere. I never said this was a bad thing, but I don't recommend putting a browser in there when you could lose that data at any point from a power outage or a random error.

1) Both uses ram to load up a ram disk, this takes time and creates a block space in ram that can't be used by the system on startup or in the middle of run.

As Incriminated has noted, PrimoCache doesn't need to create a disk and unless you are using L2, doesn't require perceptible extra startup time. Of course, every program running on startup takes some time and some resources, but with PrimoCache (without L2) and Primo Ramdisk (without an image file) these aren't perceptible (and yes, I've timed them).

As I pointed out it does. It has to create a locations in the memory other wise you would run into memory leaks along the way (maybe not in full text, but any programmer/tech would know that). By creating these locations you use up any free ram the system could've used on startup for other applications with in the same time period (because windows loads drivers first at startup). This can result in a slow down as programs now have to fight for resources. Yes, you do make a point if they have nothing to load, but Incriminated DOES want to load something into it... so yes there will be something to load witch means it takes that much more time now because that data has to pull from the hard drive and IO blocking other programs from having access to the drive bandwidth. Once in memory, it's stored there until use. The correct way to use a ram disk is NOT to have anything in there at load up anyways xD you use it at run time and not at startup.

Your statement about them using RAM that can't be used by the system also does not apply when invisible memory is used (anything above the 3.25GB on a 32-bit system or above the licensed limit on a 64-bit system).

True, but your statement also counts on them not loading anything at start up as well. Any image from a ramdisk is going to slow down loading as it has to read off the hard drive. As Incriminated has pointed out... he DOES want something to load at startup... Even more so, the CPU DOES have to process this information to even move it... so you are still using up resources at startup.

Even in cases where L2 and image files are used, the increase in startup or shutdown time is not an adequate one to dismiss usage, and your argument in this respect seems to be saying "Don't use either - or anything else that runs on startup".

No, I said right off, "You are better off using one or the other really." I also go on and said, I recommend using cache over a ramdisk for a few x reasons. "is not an adequate one to dismiss usage," That really depends on your system, your disk speed, and a few other factors xD The big one is how much are you loading at startup. If you are talking gigs, yes it's fast, but it still takes time no matter how you really want to look at it. Cache doesn't load anything, so first read are a bit slow but you don't get any slow down from startup. This means you will have more free ram in startup and run time to load your program and only cache - cache vs loading full data into ram. After that...it's user perspective that it's running faster, but over all, it did take time and space to complete this once you count in startup -> load your data into cache-> run time -> program. vs a more stream line startup -> run time -> run program.

3) RAM Disk are limited, so you can actually run into issues if the program grows larger than the given ram disk size.

Which is why Ramdisk configuration is important - it is up to the user to identify how best to use their Ramdisk and how to size it. PrimoCache is undoubtedly easier to set up here, but it doesn't need much effort to decide on a suitable ramdisk size. In cases of unpredictable ramdisk usage, a hybrid ramdisk may be an option. As Incriminated has noted, limits apply to PrimoCache also.

Yes, but the unpredictable is handled at the program level instead of the user level. Over all, less issues can come from this. It's really no different when a user has two disk, a HDD and a SSD, but they forget to move their apps over from the SSD to the HDD and only keeping the OS and apps that want to use fast on the SSD. People make more mistakes than a computer will. It's best to protect them NOW than to tell them sorry later. With PrimoCache, a user doesn't have to care if the ramdisk becomes full as it'll either stop filling up or simply make room for it. A ramdisk will not do either or. Incase of a web bowsers, you can never be 100% sure. You can only calculate what you think you will be using. This means you will either come up short or a bit too much. With a cache, if you come up too short, nothing bad happens really. If you have too much, just make it smaller or just leave it. The cache will fill it later if it has room for other programs that you are using in the background for example. With a ramdisk, if you come up too short, you run into disk space issues or a program crashing, if too much, it waste some ram space as that space will never be filled up if the program never uses it.

4) Programs are poorly written that it requires a RamDisk.

I don't know of any program that requires a ramdisk so this point seems superfluous. There are a number of programs that can benefit from a ramdisk for temporary data, but it is totally arbitrary to call them "poorly written" (WinRAR, Internet Explorer and virtually all program installers fall into this category since they all create temporary files).

There are a lot... simply because it doesn't "seem" like it ... they are still there. Running 32bit code on a 64bit cpu/os is a great example of this. Lots of ram can be use for it, but it only sees 3.5? That seems really funny xD, but a limitation of the time that bit code was in use. Aka, it's fine, but we're moving forward still, so code does become out of date over time. It's pretty normal. At that point, you can use a program like ramdisk to help allow it to use both unseen and seen memory for it to run faster/benefit from all the hardware advancements that have come along the way. Does it require it? No, I did make a mistake saying it does, but is it using all the resources that a pc does provide? No... so in the end it does require a bit of help to see the full benefit on a more stronger system.

I also want to comment, THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO USE A RAMDISK!!! WOOT SOMEONE KNOWS HOW TO ACTULLY USE ONE!!! *crys*, but I always knew you knew. It's just the other guy I am really questioning here >.>

5) Partitions and Physical Disk are not the same thing. When a partition gets IO request to do anything it slows the physical disk down and that means other partitions on that disk.

Incorrect if PrimoCache is running, since it redirects partition reads/writes to RAM where possible. Irrelevant otherwise.

Now you are being poky. It's correct, but I mean for more on startup and shutdown more than anything here with this line, but it does require something to be saved out at the end. You also are skipping over the fact that when cache does hits the write limit it does save that data out... so first reads will hurt a bit if it's doing that a lot or "spike" if it saves out a large chunk at once.

Show some benchmark? Because I already tested both.

See Benchmarking PrimoCache.

These benchmark are not really showing one is faster than the other tho? Or am I missing something. Because they are reading from RAM, they are just as fast as they are from reading ram... witch was my point in the first place.

As well, Primo will be limited compare to the flexibly of a cache would give in return. Not saying they can't work together either.. I already said what will happen if you use both and how to use both.

Then you are really agreeing with Incriminated and myself - that both products can be used together and both provide different benefits (Primo Ramdisk offering more performance benefits, but limited to specific applications and requiring more setup; Primo Cache offering less of a performance boost, but spread over the whole system and with no need for complex configuration).

[/quote] Yup ^^ I said this a few times as well xD, but the use case that he was using was just really silly and would slow you down. The only thing I would change though is that... A Ram disk wouldn't really give you a performance benefit vs Cache because they both read/write from ram. Now I will say is this: A ramdisk will give a poorly written app the ability to use a temp space in ram so it doesn't have to hit the drive system as much while a cache will only speed up already process data (aka, wont help opening up a zip as fast for example).

[Incriminated]

No matter how short your save time might be, it still exist that any unsaved data will be at risk. My point still stands, any data that you want to keep, or any data that is useful must be imaged at the end. The only way out of this is to a) never have useful information in there or b) have a copy of it somewhere. I never said this was a bad thing, but I don't recommend putting a browser in there when you could lose that data at any point from a power outage or a random error.

But that is not right for my browser user-case and most users browsers' use-case. As I already that, that I have a fixed cache, meaning that the "unsaved-changes" between now and before 10 seconds as same 1 day would be irrelevant, because all websites data probably would not change at that time, and there main-pool of data slowly changes over long-time-duration, like one website might change entire website, but in that case still great amount of cache for all of the other website will be good. It is important to have a more or less actual "copy" of the hole thing in scales of weeks is enough.

As I already stated a power outage doesn't matter without a UPS for me having PrimoCache and PrimoRAM-Disk both in use.

As I pointed out it does. It has to create a locations in the memory other wise you would run into memory leaks along the way (maybe not in full text, but any programmer/tech would know that). By creating these locations you use up any free ram the system could've used on startup for other applications with in the same time period (because windows loads drivers first at startup). This can result in a slow down as programs now have to fight for resources. Yes, you do make a point if they have nothing to load, but Incriminated DOES want to load something into it... so yes there will be something to load witch means it takes that much more time now because that data has to pull from the hard drive and IO blocking other programs from having access to the drive bandwidth. Once in memory, it's stored there until use. The correct way to use a ram disk is NOT to have anything in there at load up anyways xD you use it at run time and not at startup.

You resist to leave your fantasy world, I already stated, that for me with a SSD and only 1GiB-RAM-Disk there no significant impact on boot-time. I tried both. There is no difference! Your hole point is wrong, if loading Data into RAM-Disk would the incorrect way of using RAM-Disk, then all the Tools out there including "Primo Ultimate RAM-DIsk" having the "load-function" from "saved-state" would be incorrect from your point of view. All the world seeing it different, you see it right. You know it all.

True, but your statement also counts on them not loading anything at start up as well. Any image from a ramdisk is going to slow down loading as it has to read off the hard drive. As Incriminated has pointed out... he DOES want something to load at startup... Even more so, the CPU DOES have to process this information to even move it... so you are still using up resources at startup.

You might didn't know it but, the in nowadays systems the processor doesn't need to move data to read/write from a hard drime in means of bandwith since the existense of DMA. Reasons he might seeing this so is because that is true for FirmWare-RAID-solutions xD, on nowadays system neither CPU nor SSD-Speeds are the limiting factor, but latency propriety drivers create. As far as I can tell this for both Primos' they are preaty fast, since i can't measure a time difference between having them off or on. You are talking about things that can and might, but seem not to recognise that when good programmed they don't even matter anymore. It is exactly what I want, when telling Primo RAM-Disk to always load the ~850mb from my SSD after login. This data will be exluded from Primo permanently, and i want them always ready when i fire up-tab-sessions, because i can measure a huge difference.

Yup ^^ I said this a few times as well xD, but the use case that he was using was just really silly and would slow you down. The only thing I would change though is that... A Ram disk wouldn't really give you a performance benefit vs Cache because they both read/write from ram. Now I will say is this: A ramdisk will give a poorly written app the ability to use a temp space in ram so it doesn't have to hit the drive system as much while a cache will only speed up already process data (aka, wont help opening up a zip as fast for example).

It is not silly to load explicit data into RAM-drive at boot, you are silly telling so, as stated in fat and underlined you calling everyone silly who uses such feature or programmed such feature.

Loading winrar-temp into RAM-drive is probably at high risk since it most likely will cause disfunction because of full state for one single task..

[Support]

Hi guys,

I'm sorry that these days I'm on holiday and didn't reply immediately. I just followed this thread, taking a lot of time...
I would like to lock this thread and make a detailed article about this topic in two or three days (sorry that currently I have no time to complete it ). Thanks all for the discussion. I hope everyone can just discuss without talking personality.

[InquiringMind]

Or that you miss the point? How can you backup if your newer data isn't being saved from a crash (aka, power outage)?

And conversely, how can a UPS prevent a crash? It can't - which is why backups should be recommended rather than a UPS.

As I pointed out it does. It has to create a locations in the memory other wise you would run into memory leaks along the way (maybe not in full text, but any programmer/tech would know that). By creating these locations you use up any free ram the system could've used on startup for other applications with in the same time period (because windows loads drivers first at startup). This can result in a slow down as programs now have to fight for resources.

You're now arguing against having almost anything running at startup, full stop. And saying PrimoCache creates a disk when it is implemented as a filter driver....

Any image from a ramdisk is going to slow down loading as it has to read off the hard drive. As Incriminated has pointed out... he DOES want something to load at startup... Even more so, the CPU DOES have to process this information to even move it... so you are still using up resources at startup.

What argument are you trying to make now - that Primo Ramdisk shouldn't be used at all? The startup delay once an image file is involved does become measurable (4-5 seconds when I tried it with a 5GB ramdisk holding a 2GB pagefile) but that's hardly a good reason to avoid it unless you're a BootRacer freak.

No, I said right off, "You are better off using one or the other really." I also go on and said, I recommend using cache over a ramdisk for a few x reasons. "is not an adequate one to dismiss usage," That really depends on your system, your disk speed, and a few other factors xD

Right, now we're getting somewhere - the best choice depends on the user and their system. If the user isn't prepared to put some effort into finding which files/folders are most heavily used and setting up NTFS links and junctions, then Primo Ramdisk is not for them. If they're already using most of their system memory then neither Primo Ramdisk nor PrimoCache is for them.

If a user has memory continually going spare and is non-technical, the Primo Cache (once all the bugs are worked out) is a good choice. If a user is more technical and wants to get maximum performance from specific applications, then Primo Ramdisk is a good choice, either alone or with Primo Cache.

The big one is how much are you loading at startup.

I would agree if PrimoCache or Ramdisk memory usage was in the 50MB+ region. But Primo Ramdisk uses less than 10MB (aside from memory allocated to the disk) and PrimoCache can use a similar amount with a suitable (i.e. large) blocksize.

In comparison, a recent Nvidia Forceware driver release (310) uses more than 50MB.

After that...it's user perspective that it's running faster, but over all, it did take time and space to complete this once you count in startup -> load your data into cache-> run time -> program. vs a more stream line startup -> run time -> run program.

And this highlights the difference between PrimoCache and Ramdisk. The first takes time to give best performance, while the second offers best performance from the start but requires more user setup.

With PrimoCache, a user doesn't have to care if the ramdisk becomes full as it'll either stop filling up or simply make room for it...With a ramdisk, if you come up too short, you run into disk space issues or a program crashing, if too much, it waste some ram space as that space will never be filled up if the program never uses it.

A hybrid ramdisk can get around that problem as noted above (it cannot hold a pagefile though - anyone using a ramdisk in this fashion should consider multiple ramdisks, fixed size for the pagefile and hybrid for everything else).

There are a lot... simply because it doesn't "seem" like it ... they are still there. Running 32bit code on a 64bit cpu/os is a great example of this...Does it require it? No, I did make a mistake saying it does, but is it using all the resources that a pc does provide?

Right - we're now in agreement. No program needs a ramdisk but many can benefit from one used for temporary data.

...the use case that he was using was just really silly and would slow you down.

Both PrimoCache and Primo Ramdisk would offer performance benefits in his case. However Primo Ramdisk would offer more (though perhaps not perceivably so) performance for the following reasons:

• High speed reads regardless of whether the data was cached or not.
• High speed writes (PrimoCache only offers a boost with write defer enabled).
• Dedicated memory space ensuring those speeds are maintained, regardless of other application activity.

The third reason is probably the most significant long-term - a disk-intensive application (backup software, anti-virus scanner, etc) could push other application data out of PrimoCache's L1 cache, resulting in them losing performance. Using a ramdisk ensures that application keeps its data in memory, regardless of other disk I/O.

Thanks all for the discussion. I hope everyone can just discuss without talking personality.

Whoever thought people could get so passionate over ramdisk software and setup?

[Mradr]

Thanks all for the discussion. I hope everyone can just discuss without talking personality.

Whoever thought people could get so passionate over ramdisk software and setup?

I like to continue to talk with you later InquiringMind ^^Maybe we can beat support to some real world test. We're on the same page at least on some parts, so we can put our test against each other and show both the + and - of using both, one, or the other. I just want to point out that Incriminated was sending me threats X.x Wasn't right.