hi sigi,
Thank you very much.
Then after readyboost was created on that ramdisk, do you still see 50% cpu issue frequently during normal time?
Invisible Memory
Re: Invisible Memory
Yes, unfortunately.
An additional observation:
Again, with no loaded program doing anything, "System – NT Kernel & System" uses well above 50% of the CPUs.
I stop the ReadyBoost function, and the CPU usage immediately goes to zero.
An additional observation:
Again, with no loaded program doing anything, "System – NT Kernel & System" uses well above 50% of the CPUs.
I stop the ReadyBoost function, and the CPU usage immediately goes to zero.
Re: Invisible Memory
Hi sigi,
I really appreciate your kind support!
I think one of the reason why we see the different cpu utilization between NTFS and FAT32 is that NTFS normally requires extra I/Os while FAT32 not. For eg. it is possible that NTFS issues a write IO even when it just needs to read. That's why we prefer FAT32 on flash memory such as USB drive to avoid aging too quickly. (becase flash memory is limited by maximum erase/re-write cycles)
But currently I can't work out that why there are so many readyboost activities on your site. If possible you may use ProcMon (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysi ... 96645.aspx) to monitor the file activities. (monitor file system activity only and select "Tools"->File Summary" to view the summary of the file activities after runing some time)
I really appreciate your kind support!
I think one of the reason why we see the different cpu utilization between NTFS and FAT32 is that NTFS normally requires extra I/Os while FAT32 not. For eg. it is possible that NTFS issues a write IO even when it just needs to read. That's why we prefer FAT32 on flash memory such as USB drive to avoid aging too quickly. (becase flash memory is limited by maximum erase/re-write cycles)
But currently I can't work out that why there are so many readyboost activities on your site. If possible you may use ProcMon (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysi ... 96645.aspx) to monitor the file activities. (monitor file system activity only and select "Tools"->File Summary" to view the summary of the file activities after runing some time)
Re: Invisible Memory
Hello,
Please let me know when you find the cause of the ReadyBoost problem, I will try again at that time.
In the meantime, I will create a 1024MB Direct I/O FAT32 ramdisk, place the temp files there, and also a pagefile.sys.
Any comment on that?
Would you happen to know how I can tell Vista to use this page file first, before using the one I have on a HDD?
Where do I find more information about the different resource utilization between NTFS and FAT32?
Because if what you say is correct, maybe I should use FAT32 on my HDDs as well?
Thanks for trying, and best regards.
Please let me know when you find the cause of the ReadyBoost problem, I will try again at that time.
In the meantime, I will create a 1024MB Direct I/O FAT32 ramdisk, place the temp files there, and also a pagefile.sys.
Any comment on that?
Would you happen to know how I can tell Vista to use this page file first, before using the one I have on a HDD?
Where do I find more information about the different resource utilization between NTFS and FAT32?
Because if what you say is correct, maybe I should use FAT32 on my HDDs as well?
Thanks for trying, and best regards.
Re: Invisible Memory
Can't remember the exact website comparising NTFS with FAT32. perhaps you may search the internet. here is one of the webpage from microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/usin ... ber01.mspxsigi wrote:Where do I find more information about the different resource utilization between NTFS and FAT32?
Because if what you say is correct, maybe I should use FAT32 on my HDDs as well?
NTFS introduces a lot of great features, improving the efficiency, security and disk space utilization. And the maximum size of a single file is 64GB on NTFS while 4GB only on FAT32. So you dont need to convert to FAT32 on HDD because HDD normally is NOT made of FLASH MEMORY.
sorry, i didn't trace this case. will trace it later when i have time. some guys said it depends on the access speed of the disks on which pagefiles are placed. Not very sure.sigi wrote:Would you happen to know how I can tell Vista to use this page file first, before using the one I have on a HDD?
Re: Invisible Memory
I have created two ramdisks, the first one for the temp and the Firefox temp files.
On the other, I put a page file with the initial size of 16MB and a maximum size of 830MB.
I disabled the one I had on an HDD.
It turned out however that Vista is not using this page file at all under (for me) normal working conditions.
Only when I deliberately start simultaneously twenty applications did the page file grow to about 200MB.
I therefore consider that I am wasting 830MB of RAM for a page file that is not being used and I still think that ReadyBoost would make much better use of that RAM.
I have not upgraded to V4.3.4127.1603.
Did you do anything that makes it likely that this new version now works with ReadyBoost?
Please keep me posted.
On the other, I put a page file with the initial size of 16MB and a maximum size of 830MB.
I disabled the one I had on an HDD.
It turned out however that Vista is not using this page file at all under (for me) normal working conditions.
Only when I deliberately start simultaneously twenty applications did the page file grow to about 200MB.
I therefore consider that I am wasting 830MB of RAM for a page file that is not being used and I still think that ReadyBoost would make much better use of that RAM.
I have not upgraded to V4.3.4127.1603.
Did you do anything that makes it likely that this new version now works with ReadyBoost?
Please keep me posted.
Re: Invisible Memory
Hi sigi,
The latest release is mainly to fix the bug related to IM Hibernation feature and to fix other possible BSODs. You may refer to the Change History http://www.romexsoftware.com/main/produ ... y.html#std
I am sorry that the temporary solution to your issue of ReadyBoost is to use FAT32 file system. We have tested the issue on our platforms for a long time, but we still can't reproduce the problem...
Regarding the paging files, here are some articles from Microsoft. Although these articles don't intend for Vista, some points still be helpful.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/
it says
Let us know if you have any problem.
Thank you & Best Regards.
The latest release is mainly to fix the bug related to IM Hibernation feature and to fix other possible BSODs. You may refer to the Change History http://www.romexsoftware.com/main/produ ... y.html#std
I am sorry that the temporary solution to your issue of ReadyBoost is to use FAT32 file system. We have tested the issue on our platforms for a long time, but we still can't reproduce the problem...
Regarding the paging files, here are some articles from Microsoft. Although these articles don't intend for Vista, some points still be helpful.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/
it says
The range of paging file setting varies among users. Users may monitor the %Usage Peak counter in the System Monitor tool (The peak usage of the Pagefile instance in percent). For me, I set up the paging file with the initial size of 300MB and a maximum size of 600MB, because I normally open a lot of webistes and run some development tools at the same time.By design, Windows uses the paging file on the less frequently accessed partition over the paging file on the more heavily accessed boot partition. An internal algorithm is used to determine which paging file to use for virtual memory management.
Let us know if you have any problem.
Thank you & Best Regards.
Re: Invisible Memory
Good news:
I upgraded to W7 and Vsuite Ramdisk V 4.3.4127.1603 and created a 1024MB FAT32 SCSI ramdisk using OS Invisible Memory.
When I directed W7 to use 768MB for ReadyBoost, the NT Kernel & System task used around 10% CPU for about 60 seconds, all 60 seconds accompagnied by disk activity.
Does this match what you are experiencing in your tests?
Afterwards, I did not observe the bursts of CPU activity by the NT Kernel & System task as I had earlier.
Any comment?
I upgraded to W7 and Vsuite Ramdisk V 4.3.4127.1603 and created a 1024MB FAT32 SCSI ramdisk using OS Invisible Memory.
When I directed W7 to use 768MB for ReadyBoost, the NT Kernel & System task used around 10% CPU for about 60 seconds, all 60 seconds accompagnied by disk activity.
Does this match what you are experiencing in your tests?
Afterwards, I did not observe the bursts of CPU activity by the NT Kernel & System task as I had earlier.
Any comment?
Re: Invisible Memory
Great!
Thank you very much for your test!
We are still trying to improve our software.
Happy New Year!
Thank you very much for your test!
We are still trying to improve our software.
Happy New Year!
Re: Invisible Memory
I have a Gigabyte GA-MA7900GP motherboard with 4GB of ram, AMD Phenom II X2 550, with XP SP3. I have been using VSuite Ramdisk 1.11.1722 free edition for about a year, and it has been working flawlessly, with 764 MB of invisible memory which I am using as a ramdisk for my XP user profile (300MB) and temporary files location (400MB). This systems has been rock solid.
I needed to use a larger ramdisk for temp files, and added 2GB of RAM. I then recreated the ramdisk for temp files to 2GB using invisible memory. This made the system unstable, with random reboots at least once a day. No BSOD, just stone-cold reboot.
Any suggestions?
I needed to use a larger ramdisk for temp files, and added 2GB of RAM. I then recreated the ramdisk for temp files to 2GB using invisible memory. This made the system unstable, with random reboots at least once a day. No BSOD, just stone-cold reboot.
Any suggestions?