Mradr wrote: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.
Mradr wrote: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.
Mradr wrote: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.
Mradr wrote: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 >.>
Mradr wrote: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.
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.
Mradr wrote: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).
). Thanks all for the discussion. I hope everyone can just discuss without talking personality.