Best use of 3 drives

[Timothy Daniels]

To me the difference in speed was phenomenal.
I didn't need any benchmark programs for this.

I've lost track of what it was that you did.
What did you do that was so effective?

*TimDaniels*

 

[J. Clarke]

AMD XP2600+ CPU
ASUS A7N8X Deluxe board
1GB PC3200 ram (512MB Crucial, 512MB Corsair)


Windows 2000 and also Windows XP Pro


Adobe Photoshop 7 (it's all I needed it for)

Are you talking about the Windows swap file or the Photoshop swap file?

and the

With numbers? If a person needs numbers then the difference isn't
enough. To me the difference in speed was phenomenal. I didn't need
any benchmark programs for this.

One man's "phenomenal" is another man's "tiny difference".

I see it differently. Other posters have quoted a number of varying
scenarios using different numbers. See previous posts in this thread.
Those kicking up dust have never tried it and appear to show no notion
of even trying it.
Windows' memory management is crap; trying to draw parallels between
Windows' memory management and placing a swapfile on a ram disk is a
waste of time - chalk and cheese.

You are also sitting in the same camp as those who aren't prepared to
try it. Like I said, stop being so narrow-minded. Applies to you, too.

Why should anyone go to the effort required on your say-so just because you
claim a "phenomenal improvement"? You haven't provided enough information
to inspire anyone to make the effort.

Try it and then come back with your argument. If you need the software
to try it on, let me know and I'll email it to anyone who wants it.

You'll send anybody who asks a copy of photoshop? Or did you mean something
else?

Until then, I rest my case.

The criminals of the world would be happy to have you as a prosecutor then.

 

[Al Dykes]

AMD XP2600+ CPU
ASUS A7N8X Deluxe board
1GB PC3200 ram (512MB Crucial, 512MB Corsair)


Windows 2000 and also Windows XP Pro


Adobe Photoshop 7 (it's all I needed it for)



and the

With numbers? If a person needs numbers then the difference isn't
enough. To me the difference in speed was phenomenal. I didn't need
any benchmark programs for this.



I see it differently. Other posters have quoted a number of varying
scenarios using different numbers. See previous posts in this thread.
Those kicking up dust have never tried it and appear to show no notion
of even trying it.
Windows' memory management is crap; trying to draw parallels between
Windows' memory management and placing a swapfile on a ram disk is a
waste of time - chalk and cheese.

What applications, Odie ?

I'd like to point out that not swapping doesn't turn off "windows
memory management". It's still a paged, segmented system. If you
turn of memory management you're running like as an intel 8080.

So far nobody else has come up with information that supports your
position, one person reports contrary results.

 

[Al Dykes]

Are you talking about the Windows swap file or the Photoshop swap file?


One man's "phenomenal" is another man's "tiny difference".


Why should anyone go to the effort required on your say-so just because you
claim a "phenomenal improvement"? You haven't provided enough information
to inspire anyone to make the effort.


You'll send anybody who asks a copy of photoshop? Or did you mean something
else?


The criminals of the world would be happy to have you as a prosecutor then.

Anyone can download a free 30day copy of PS.

I may have missed photoshop as Odie's appliction
in my prior post. My mistake.

 

[Marc de Vries]

Also if the swapfile were in the most-used partition of
the least-used drive. If a drive were used primarily for
backup, for instance, part of it could be used for a swapfile.

Since it will not be used in that case at the same time as the
swapfile you could indeed use a special partition.
(Although I would still not use a special partition, because that
gives me more flexibility for the swapfile size)

Yes, if your motherboard and budget will allow it.
(Mine won't - <sob>).

And did the location of the swapfile matter much?

It's probably the difference between very bad performance and a little
bit worse performance.

Marc

 

[Marc de Vries]

AMD XP2600+ CPU
ASUS A7N8X Deluxe board
1GB PC3200 ram (512MB Crucial, 512MB Corsair)


Windows 2000 and also Windows XP Pro


Adobe Photoshop 7 (it's all I needed it for)

Which settings in photoshop? Photoshop does a lot of things on it's
own where other programs would leave it all to windows.
What memory and disk settings in photoshop?

It's likely not winows, but photoshop settings which are the problem
in your case. (with which we can only try to help you, when you give
more detailed information on what you did)

and the

With numbers? If a person needs numbers then the difference isn't
enough. To me the difference in speed was phenomenal. I didn't need
any benchmark programs for this.

If you want anyone to believe your claims which go againt all logic,
then you need to provide numbers. Simply because there are a lot of
trolls in newsgroups and we would like to know if you are one of them.

I see it differently. Other posters have quoted a number of varying
scenarios using different numbers.

Other people have told you why logic dictates that your beliefs are
incorrect.

See previous posts in this thread.
Those kicking up dust have never tried it and appear to show no notion
of even trying it.

I have 1GB ram at home because I run some applications that can easily
use that amount of virtual memory. I've even run out of virtual memory
a couple of times. (>2GB)

Apart from that I manage several servers at work with 4GB memory.

If putting swapfiles in memory was effective I would already
experienced that and use it both at home and on my servers at work.
Hell, if it was effective everybody in this ng would already know
about it and would have been doing it for years. (Especially several
years ago when memory was expensive and swapfiles were used a lot)

Windows' memory management is crap; trying to draw parallels between
Windows' memory management and placing a swapfile on a ram disk is a
waste of time - chalk and cheese.

When placing the swapfile on a ramdisk you haven't changed windows
memory management. You are still using exactly the same memory
management, but you have just made things more difficult for windows
and thus slowed it down.

Your logic is flawed.

You are also sitting in the same camp as those who aren't prepared to
try it. Like I said, stop being so narrow-minded. Applies to you, too.

Typical response of a troll.

Try it and then come back with your argument. If you need the software
to try it on, let me know and I'll email it to anyone who wants it.

Until then, I rest my case.

You have no case.

How about you try to explain why your configuration would be more
effective?

Marc

 

[Odie Ferrous]

Much snipped - all getting a little tedious.

When placing the swapfile on a ramdisk you haven't changed windows
memory management. You are still using exactly the same memory
management, but you have just made things more difficult for windows
and thus slowed it down.

Your logic is flawed.

I am afraid your paragraph above is flawed.

For goodness' sake, why don't you just try it? You would do yourself a
favour and perhaps save a little of everyone's time.

I'm currently running with only 768MB of system RAM and yesterday set up
my ramdisk, configured it to 256MB and have been using that as the
swapfile. (As a rule I don't even use a swapfile these days - I no
longer use Photoshop or any programs that specifically need it. And
before you twist my words, "specifically" means "will not run without
the swapfile." For example, various Photoshop packages.)

Overall performance with the above settings is noticeably quicker. I
have NOT been using any demanding packages, but as I said, overall
performance is noticeably improved.

I have long maintained that Windows NT and above have crap memory
management and I stand by that.

Windows for Workgroups was far better in that respect - it could be
tweaked far more effectively than NT.

For all your accusations of my being a troll, you're being pretty
pathetic by not even trying what I am saying. And if that is not
narrow-minded (or bloody-minded?) then I just don't know.

Odie

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I'm currently running with only 768MB of system RAM
and yesterday set up my ramdisk, configured it to 256MB
and have been using that as the swapfile.

[.....]

Overall performance with the above settings is noticeably
quicker.

Could it be possible that memory set aside for RAMdisk
and used by memory management as a swapfile, is NOT
memory that would otherwise be available for application
usage as a tempfile area? If true, that would account for
RAMdisk working better than free memory. Maybe
Photoshop doesn't get to use as much memory as is free
and available to the system.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Marc de Vries]

I'm currently running with only 768MB of system RAM
and yesterday set up my ramdisk, configured it to 256MB
and have been using that as the swapfile.

[.....]

Overall performance with the above settings is noticeably
quicker.

Could it be possible that memory set aside for RAMdisk
and used by memory management as a swapfile, is NOT
memory that would otherwise be available for application
usage as a tempfile area? If true, that would account for
RAMdisk working better than free memory. Maybe
Photoshop doesn't get to use as much memory as is free
and available to the system.

IIRC there are some settings in photoshop to tell it to use all
available memory, or to use part of that.
If that setting is not correct, then you can get unexpected results.

That's why I asked him for details on his configuration, but as you
can see, he refuses to do that.

 

[Marc de Vries]

Much snipped - all getting a little tedious.

Especially the bit asking you for more detailed information on your
setup so we can explain what you did wrong...

Very tedious when people with more knowledge than you don't want to
take your beliefs for granted.

I am afraid your paragraph above is flawed.

Well, then show me where the flaw is!

For goodness' sake, why don't you just try it? You would do yourself a
favour and perhaps save a little of everyone's time.

I can tell you that your computer runs a lot faster if you format your
harddisk. Why don't you just try it? You would do yourself a favour
and perhaps save a little of everyone's time.

Marc

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I can tell you that your computer runs a lot faster if you format your
harddisk. Why don't you just try it?

Do you really mean "format"? Maybe "defrag"?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Especially the bit asking you for more detailed information on your
setup so we can explain what you did wrong...

Very tedious when people with more knowledge than you don't want to
take your beliefs for granted.


Well, then show me where the flaw is!


I can tell you that your computer runs a lot faster if you format your
harddisk. Why don't you just try it? You would do yourself a favour
and perhaps save a little of everyone's time.

And that likes to accuse others of being a troll.
Here isn the pot that calls the kettle black.

 

[John Turco]

Do you really mean "format"? Maybe "defrag"?

*TimDaniels*

Hello, Tim:

I believe that Marc was merely making a joke...i.e., a HDD will, indeed,
run "a lot faster," if it doesn't have an operating system (or any nasty
application files) slowing it down! <G>


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

 

[Eric Gisin]

Absolutely clueless. Sue your parents for naming you after a stupid dog.

 

[Al Dykes]

Absolutely clueless. Sue your parents for naming you after a stupid dog.

This sounds like Odie, let le check. yup.

Lets just say that we have not heard of anyone that reproduces
Odie's claim that a ramdisk produces restults better than
letting the OS manage all the memory, for any general purpose
PC use.

 

[Odie Ferrous]

This sounds like Odie, let le check. yup.

Lets just say that we have not heard of anyone that reproduces
Odie's claim that a ramdisk produces restults better than
letting the OS manage all the memory, for any general purpose
PC use.

Simple.

I have yet to meet someone with my experience of performance testing.

Witty replies welcomed.


Odie