Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
In search of ... RAMdisk opinions
barney:
P.S. If I had a dollar each time a critical backup (made using standard "enterprise grade" backup software) ended up being corrupted (and sometimes not recoverable) I'd have enough money to take a not overly modest vacation on the Continent.
-40hz (September 24, 2012, 03:39 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yea, verily! Religiously backing up in obeisance to a god that we later discover does not exist or was naught but a false prophet.
f0dder:
Wrong :down:. Well, presumptive.-barney (September 24, 2012, 04:13 PM)
--- End quote ---
No, right :-) *tongue-in-cheek*. Keep in mind that I'm referring to the "put pagefile on ramdisk" as insanity, not general use of ramdisks!
So, isn't that 1.5G RAM wasted? It's not being used by system or software.-barney (September 24, 2012, 04:13 PM)
--- End quote ---
Well, depending on OS and the memory reporting gadget, the 1.5gig of ram could be used as filesystem cache, which is reported as 'free memory' since the caches can be dropped/flushed as need be. Just a thing to keep in mind!
So why not make that a RAMdisk as mentioned previously, thus decreasing writes to HDD or SSD, thus decreasing wear & tear?-barney (September 24, 2012, 04:13 PM)
--- End quote ---
Sure thing, I'm all for that - and doing it myself. Just don't put the pagefile on ramdisk, as mentioned previously - it's better disabling it altogether if you got that kind of memory.
barney:
Sure thing, I'm all for that - and doing it myself. Just don't put the pagefile on ramdisk, as mentioned previously - it's better disabling it altogether if you got that kind of memory.
-f0dder (September 24, 2012, 04:29 PM)
--- End quote ---
OK, that's been expressed a few times now, but I do not see the difference between running the pagefile in memory or on a RAMdisk. Only difference I discern is the operating software for the RAMdisk. Is there something else that makes this untenable?
f0dder:
Sure thing, I'm all for that - and doing it myself. Just don't put the pagefile on ramdisk, as mentioned previously - it's better disabling it altogether if you got that kind of memory.
-f0dder (September 24, 2012, 04:29 PM)
--- End quote ---
OK, that's been expressed a few times now, but I do not see the difference between running the pagefile in memory or on a RAMdisk.-barney (September 24, 2012, 04:38 PM)
--- End quote ---
If you disable the pagefile (System Properties -> 'Advanced' tab -> 'settings' button in 'Performance' group -> 'Advanced' tab -> 'Advanced' tab -> 'change' button in 'Virtual memory' group -> set to 'no paging file' for all partitions), you aren't "running the pagefile in memory", you're disabling it entirely.
Not swapping at all is even faster than swapping to memory... and since you're not using memory for a pagefile ramdisk, you have more memory to allocate from before swapping would be necessary. It really should be common sense :-)
Do note that you shouldn't disable the pagefile unless you always have enough free physical memory, even under high load, or you at least know the implications of what turning off the pagefile means. Windows doesn't really like running out of memory (but at least it doesn't go about OOM-killing processes like Linux does by default).
40hz:
P.S. If I had a dollar each time a critical backup (made using standard "enterprise grade" backup software) ended up being corrupted (and sometimes not recoverable) I'd have enough money to take a not overly modest vacation on the Continent.
-40hz (September 24, 2012, 03:39 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yea, verily! Religiously backing up in obeisance to a god that we later discover does not exist or was naught but a false prophet.
-barney (September 24, 2012, 04:28 PM)
--- End quote ---
LOL! I see you've dealt with MS Exchange backups too! 8) :Thmbsup:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version