| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Analysis: Vista's Ready Boost is no match for RAM | |
|
||
| Time: 00:14 EST/05:14 GMT | News Source: TG Daily | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
Chicago (IL) - There's a new way to enhance your cache in Vista - simply plug in your Flash memory stick. But how much performance gain can you really expect? TG Daily ran an average PC through a benchmark parcours and discovered that the old rules still apply: There is no substitute for an adequate amount of system memory. Period. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 302 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:28:56 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 5444 (76.185.20.77) at 2/9/2007 1:27:01 AM |
| and they actually thought that was going to be different, Ready Boost uses a Faster flash system, but is still significantly a slower system than system ram. but it is faster than HD storage. I don't get why that was even a question. |
| #2 By 65179 (221.128.147.172) at 2/9/2007 2:32:33 AM |
|
Yeah but on a 32-bit system, 4 GB (actually 3.xx GB) is the maximum usable memory. So max memory + ReadyBoost = goodness for Vista's hunger. This post was edited by consumer4beta on Friday, February 09, 2007 at 02:34. |
| #3 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/9/2007 2:41:31 AM |
| Analysis: straw man no match for "well, duh." |
| #4 By 18033 (194.106.62.200) at 2/9/2007 5:57:58 AM |
| Readyboost is simply a better alternative than swapping to the page file on a hard disk. That's all I ever saw in it... Its a kind of attractive idea to reclaim that HDD space and speed up page operations.. Still, Im not keen on having something sticking out the side of my laptop on a permanent basis assuming thats all I'd use it for.. |
| #5 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 2/9/2007 7:10:18 AM |
|
There is a lot of incomplete information out there about ReadyBoost in Windows Vista. Little is understood about how it works. For me, this is very frustrating - the confusion and incompete reviews surrounding Vista's performance and memory management technologies.
The first thing to note is that there is a comprehensive strategy around improving the performance of computers and the user experience in Vista. The second thing to note is that the strategy includes many technologies that are all designed to work together to address specific challenges, or take on choke points that have traditionally slowed systems performance. ReadyBoost is only one of them. Vista's ReadyBoost allows the new operating system to service random reads ten times faster than a hard drive. Long sequential reads are still faster from a hard drive, so ReadyBoost's technology is designed to recognize large sequential requests, which shunts these to the drive. ReadyBoost isn't designed to replace systems RAM. ReadyBoost has a role within a larger performance enhancement and memory management strategy. Caching, for example, includes all disk content, and not just the page file contents, or systems DLL's. As ReadyBoost technologies evolve, it will be able to use RAM that is not in use, or networked resources that are not in use - like RAM on machines that is idle. Back to my point... In practical terms, ReadyBoost improves access to pages that are not stored in RAM by caching them and making them accessible at speeds which are 8 - 10 times faster than random reads from a disk drive. Long sequential reads from a disk are still faster, so ReadyBoost does not service these. Comparing RAM as we understand it to flash memory as used by ReadyBoost, is inappropriate - in Vista, they are doing different things for different reasons. ReadyBoost, in the context of performance enhancements in Vista has to be, and deserves to be recognized as part of the comprehensive strategy designed to improve how people use computers and what they experience as they do. It cannot be looked at in isolation, but rather as one method that both users and developers can access to improve how computers perform and "feel" in every day use. While there isn't room here to explore all of the technologies, much less how they relate to one another, I would encourage people to read as much as they can about Vista's I/O management, system performance and API's that expose these technologies to developers - there is a lot there and using them can enable systems builders and developers to build tools for people that are pretty amazing. Finally, there is a lot to Windows Vista - a ton under the hood - the best part being that in so many ways, it is like a hot-rod tuner's dream - so many ways to make it run amazingly well. |
| #6 By 61 (72.64.142.151) at 2/9/2007 8:05:14 AM |
|
Flash drives are not faster than harddrives, the top performing flash drive reads at 30MB/sec and writes significantly slower (10-15), harddrives read and write at about 60-80MB/sec.
The difference comes in the fact that there is virtually no access time for flash memory. This makes it better for random reads, and also just cuts down on sucking up your bandwidth for your harddrive that could be put to better use.. What I did was I put my swap file on a separate harddrive so when the system is swapping it's not absolutely killing my performance, and then I also bought a 2 4GB flash drives off of woot.com the other day ($54 total), gonna pop one in there for ReadyBoost. |
| #7 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 2/9/2007 8:49:52 AM |
| #6, Great config. I'd use the SanDisk 2 GB Cruzer Micro. It is optimized for ReadyBoost and has equal speed across the entire memory space - many drives, while compatible, may not be equally fast - being mixed speed drives. It is also tiny - so you can fab a mount and install it internally - as a semi-permanent ReadyBoost drive. Others we've used are ToughDrive's which are really fast, but a little on the big side given their rubber casing. |
| #8 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 2/9/2007 9:41:30 AM |
|
Most 'flash' devices have a maximum read/write life cycle. We've never exposed them to this sort of continuous usage before.
I wonder how they will hold up? |
| #9 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 2/9/2007 10:44:00 AM |
|
#8, TL, Actually, there have been a lot of tests and engineering examples published where the reliability of a memory card can be measured by the following parameters:
Cell Endurance/Write and Erase Cycles for older memory: Cell endurance is characterised by how many times data can be written and erased from a memory card. A Multi-Level Cell memory card has in general, at least 10 000 write and erase cycles. A Single-Level Cell memory card has in general at least 100 000 Write and Erase Cycles. Some memory card manufactures are claiming up to 250 000 write and erase cycles. 10 000 write and erase cycles can also be translated to that you can write and erase the entire content of the memory card once per day for 27 years. Data Retention Time: The time a memory card can retain data, even called for the memory card’s operational life time. Under normal circumstances and normal use the data retention time for a memory card is at least 10 years. Some memory card manufactures are claiming up to 100 years of usage life. As characterizes modern flash memory that is ReadyBoost enhanced: While all flash memory has a finite number of erase-write cycles (most commercially available flash products are guaranteed to withstand 1 million programming cycles). This effect is partially offset by some chip firmware or file system drivers by counting the writes and dynamically remapping the blocks in order to spread the write operations between the sectors. This technique is called wear leveling. Another mechanism is to perform write verification and remapping to spare sectors in case of write failure, which is named Bad Block Management (BBM). Ehanced memory will use wear leveling and sustain equal speeds across the entire memory space. However, since a) ReadyBoost is truly non-volatile and ripping one out, or it failing will not result in the loss of data, and b) it is encrypted, so its loss after a failure would not readily hazard any remaining stored data, one could simply toss the dead memory after a few years and it wouldn't cost too much. There is some good material here, http://www.onfi.org/presentations/IDF_F06_MEMS002_100p.pdf |
| #10 By 5444 (76.185.20.77) at 2/9/2007 12:02:49 PM |
|
cpuguy, faster is a realative term. flash drives for random access are generally faster then to a hard drive because of the significant lower seek times. now if the data is continuous then a hard drive will be faster in the move rate.
El |
| #11 By 61 (72.64.142.151) at 2/9/2007 12:55:23 PM |
| eldoen, right, so exactly what I said :) |
| #12 By 73550 (76.2.3.234) at 2/10/2007 3:46:37 AM |
|
Actually Vista has to be ready for you to pull that stick out at any moment, so it cant store swapped memory pages as is being stated. It stores small commonly accessed files and memory snapshots of when a program first loads. This way rather that read all the little dlls and other files the program needs it either loads a memory image and is done, or it reads some files off the hard drive and others off the stick, and if you pull the stick out, no problem it just goes back to the disk.
A flash drive will be faster for lots of small files, hard drives faster for big ones (assuming standard fragmentation), but pulling from two drives (flash and hard) at the same time will be faster that either one by itself. This post was edited by oseamus on Saturday, February 10, 2007 at 03:52. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 302 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:28:56 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
