http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/tags/performance Beta Testers Forum en-US Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:36:55 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/search.php http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/i-just-tried-it-on-my-thinkpad-t400#post-1390 Thu, 23 Dec 2010 08:15:39 +0000 ruanqizhen 1390@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>The OS is Windows7 64bit<br /> I create the cache on my 2G Intel Turbo Memory<br /> It takes 50 seconds to start up before using eBoostr.<br /> And 40 seconds after using eBoostr.</p> <p>The data is an approximate one. Why don't eBoostr provides a tool to count the start time? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/low-performance-ram-cache#post-1389 Thu, 09 Dec 2010 08:43:30 +0000 jollyn 1389@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Hi guys</p> <p>I've got the same problem, seemingly. Uncached speed is, on my SSD, about 200MB/s. RAM cached speed (using, only, unallocated memory on 32-bit XP): about 40MB/s! (And I have the same problem when I add some 'unhidden' RAM to the cache.) </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1076 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:13:06 +0000 jujdred 1076@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Killed superfetch weeks ago, and it seems everything is running just fine. In fact, my Dragon Age Origins performance on single core CPU with 2 gigs of RAM has increased significantly. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1073 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:10:46 +0000 Spathi 1073@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>HDD is a lot slower because of seek. </p> <p>If you tell eboostr to load lots into memory it will do so, but it will slow down the boot by 1 second for every XXXmb/s your disk goes, pf might be faster because it loads less, but in my case it was 10 seconds slower. You are loading 1.5 gig off the disk during boot so you need allow for that. If you have a harddisk then use USB as well, just make sure your USB stick is fast and the USB2 hub is not gimped.</p> <p>If you have a really good SSD then it is pretty pointless to run USB caches. Even the memory cache is overkill, but we like overkill ;oP </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1062 Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:26:17 +0000 zPedro 1062@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>It seems Prefetch doesn't work if Superfetch is deactivated. One nice possibility is to deactivate Superfetch when playing games. I stil don't think Windows and programs are faster opening only with eBoostr (without Superfetch). Perhaps Chooky should try his tests with HDD and not only SSD. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1060 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:01:41 +0000 zPedro 1060@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I had to repair prefetch restoring layout.ini. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1059 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:00:24 +0000 zPedro 1059@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <br /> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1058 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:59:41 +0000 zPedro 1058@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <blockquote><p><cite>zPedro <a href="http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1058">wrote</a>:</cite><br /> Another thing: Against every advise, I've tried to clean and deactivate Windows prefetch folder, just to see my laptop behavior without ReadyBoost, Superfetch and Prefetch. Only eBoostr working. It seems that deactivating Prefetch is not the best idea of all. However, after reactivating it, I can see no files in there, except a folder named ReadyBoot with a 20 MB file named ReadyBoot.etl. It seems that Windows is not using Prefetch but ReadyBoost does even if it has been deactivated. A quick search on the internet gave me the following information that I prefer to paste here. It's in <a href="http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354-0.html?forumID=1&amp;threadID=47786&amp;messageID=895626&amp;start=0" rel="nofollow">http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354-0.html?forumID=1&amp;threadID=47786&amp;messageID=895626&amp;start=0</a>.<br /> "For anyone who's going to disable ReadyBoost it's also a good idea to disable the related but different ReadyBoot. (...)<br /> Here's how to disable ReadyBoot. Launch the "Reliability and Performance Monitor" program (under "System Tools" inside "Computer Management"; or via any of the other routes to launch this program). Then on the lefthand side of your screen click "Data Collector Sets", and underneath that heading click "Startup Event Trace Sessions". Now on your righthand side you'll see a list that includes ReadyBoot, and you'll see the word 'enabled' beside the word 'Readyboot'. Double clicking the list item brings up the ReadyBoot Properties dialog. This dialog has a number of tabs. Pick the "Trace Session" tab. Finally, uncheck the "Enabled" checkbox on that tab."<br /> As I'm not using ReadyBoost I followed this recomendation and, as matter of fact, I notice that inicial activity slowed down a lot.</p> </blockquote> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1057 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:00:44 +0000 zPedro 1057@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I agree with you, mradr. I tried eBoostr unmanaged memory (1GB) on (+ 500 MB NVCache) and Superfetch off playing Fifa 10 with my nephew and it ran quite well in my laptop. As you advised before, I don't exclude anything from eBoostr cache. I let it choose. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1054 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:41:19 +0000 mradr 1054@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Thats why you should turn it off when running eboostr. SuperFe only helps with start up while eboostr helps with start up and running the software. The only big differents is that SuperFe will give up its ram for a program and eboostr wont just yet, but if you have more than 4gb and a 32 bit system, then you are set with one gig for eboostr and 3 gigs for the game. This would work for even 64 bit. -Most- programs don't really use more than 3 gigs anyways. </p> <p>Thats why I'm going to say its ok to disable superfetch when running eboostr or keep it on when not using eboostr. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1051 Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:20:23 +0000 zPedro 1051@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Thank you jujdred! Don't you think that for gamers, who need every ram that it's possible to get, unabling superfetch and using unmanaged memory with eBoostr could be a nice way to upgrade their systems (at least in laptops)? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1046 Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:25:42 +0000 jujdred 1046@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>This is for Vista.<br /> Superfetch is different from XP's PREFETCH. Prefetch was a mistake, but it was necessary to get where we are now. It really is an amazingly "smart" piece of tech.<br /> I would highly suggest you leave it ON. If you really feel the "itch" to turn it off, at least know what it does first. However, there is a catch. Many Vista users (or people who have never used Vista) complain that the operating system uses too much RAM. They look at the performance monitor and see there is a lot less available RAM – when compared to Windows XP. The extra use of RAM in Vista is partly due to a performance enhancement called SuperFetch. Having low free memory in Vista shows this is working.<br /> Please note: I wrote a guide on disabling Superfetch. In this guide I tell you to let Superfetch run. My advice is to disable Superfetch if you have less than 2GB of RAM (this is a generalized number as all systems are different.) If you have more than 2GB of RAM, Superfetch will work to your advantage. XP treats RAM as a resource to be used only when needed while Vista treats RAM as a cache and uses almost all of it as soon as it becomes available.<br /> Also keep in mind, Superfetch ONLY increases the performance of OPENING a program, not running the program. Big difference. That is another world of it's own comprised of pagefiles and RAMDisks etc.</p> <p>Windows 7 is basically Vista, but "fixed" and "enhanced". </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1032 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:21:47 +0000 zPedro 1032@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Thank you, mradr! I'll read chooky tests carefully and try again. It seems chooky made a great job. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1031 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:42:27 +0000 mradr 1031@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Yes you are due to you being 1 year old for the account. Now, Chooky has done some test that says otherwise. <a href="http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/eboostr-and-superfetch" rel="nofollow">http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/eboostr-and-superfetch</a></p> <p>I have to agree with Chooky test results. I get about the same times and speeds boost too turning it off. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1030 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:11:23 +0000 zPedro 1030@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I tried it myself and I think it slowed down my system. Vista 32 bit, 3GB ram + 1GB unmanaged memory + 500MB NVCACHE.<br /> P.S.: WOW!!! I see now I'm a "Beta Veteran"! I'm feeling flattered! :D </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1029 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:19:08 +0000 zPedro 1029@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Did anybody try to disable superfetch? If so what were the results? Do you think it's advisable? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/low-performance-ram-cache#post-755 Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:29:25 +0000 Zeioth 755@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>In eboostr 4 build 539 i don't have this problem. When i test just with memory, can reach 21-27 ratio. Thanks for your great job team. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/how-to-measure-performance-boost-up#post-735 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:35:09 +0000 Art 735@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Hi, in my opinion this is a very controversial topic.<br /> The best performance depends on a particular job and (to me) the principal is the stability of the system.<br /> A fast boot does not mean that the system will be faster. On my desktop I use temporary files in the ramdrive and eBoostr ram and that makes the boot very slow. The eBoostr I use only for some applications and I’m amazed at how the system became more stable with eBoostr.<br /> EBoostr have a speed tool to measure the opening times, but I use a traditional way: my father’s watch an "eterna-matic". To give you an idea in my old computer the Dream-CS4 is opening in 3 s, work all day and the computer does not crash or froze.<br /> Att<br /> Art </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/how-to-measure-performance-boost-up#post-734 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:31:06 +0000 lukechoi 734@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I am curious that how we can measure eboostr performance boost up result?</p> <p>booting time? Application loading time? How we can set up test environment to get maximum boost up preformance result???</p> <p>welcome for any idea on this.... </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/focus-on-ram-performance-compatibility#post-600 Fri, 16 Oct 2009 04:43:55 +0000 mikei 600@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Do not worry much about Check speed numbers. </p> <p>Actually, check speed makes real activity simulation by doing multithread random reads with random size and positions for files listed in cache. </p> <p>So the overall numbers are very dependent on many factors:<br /> 1. Number of cache devices you have in eBoostr<br /> 2. Average file size for cached files<br /> 3. Total cached files number<br /> 4. Disk activity at check time<br /> 5. Number of file marked for deletion in cache.<br /> 6. Type of OS.<br /> 7. And so on.</p> <p>So check speed numbers are mostly for your computer speed up estimate rather than for PC to PC comparing. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/focus-on-ram-performance-compatibility#post-590 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:45:21 +0000 mradr 590@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Andrey Zarudnev said it should be way higher then what it should be, so theres something really going on here. Um, I guess check to make sure your DDR3 is really running at its rated speed and I'm not sure, but could it be limited by the new design on how the DDR3 works (this was a note for more advance users on the fourm)? Anything "new" about your pc; for example, the new I Core 7s or the new three channel support on the ram? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/focus-on-ram-performance-compatibility#post-584 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:50:41 +0000 Zeioth 584@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>DDR3 1600 in my PC reach 100 mb/s while people with ddr2 can reach 400 mb/s in cache speed. This may be a compatibility problem.</p> <p>More info: <a href="http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/low-performance-ram-cache#post-583" rel="nofollow">http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/low-performance-ram-cache#post-583</a><br /> If someone more have the same problem can post it here. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/low-performance-ram-cache#post-583 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:23:35 +0000 Zeioth 583@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>sorry andrey i didn't noticed your answer, how it's this possible?<br /> my direct access speed it's 28<br /> my cache access speed it's 101<br /> my ratio 3,59</p> <p>your Cache access speed: 498.228821 MB/s it's a lot!<br /> where's the trick?</p> <blockquote><p><cite>PangOS <a href="http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/eboostr-and-superfetch/page/2#post-312">wrote</a>:</cite><br /> Oops, had the usb disabled in eBoostr with those numbers. Let me retest.<br /> #1<br /> ***************************************************************<br /> Cached access with the usb eBoostr (4GB) ReadyBoost (10GB) 92.62 MB/sec<br /> Ratio 3.43.<br /> ---------------------------------------------------------------<br /> #2<br /> ***************************************************************<br /> -- Assigned 2048MB RAM Cache in eBoostr -- Disabled USB for eBoostr -- Disabled ReadyBoost --<br /> Direct: 15.11 MB/sec<br /> Cached: 31.93 MB/sec<br /> Ratio: 2.11<br /> ---------------------------------------------------------------<br /> #3<br /> ***************************************************************<br /> -- Assigned 2048MB RAM Cache in eBoostr -- USB enabled eBoostr (4GB) -- Disabled ReadyBoost --<br /> Direct: 14.86 MB/sec<br /> Cached: 26.26 MB/sec<br /> Ratio: 1.77<br /> ---------------------------------------------------------------<br /> #4<br /> ***************************************************************<br /> -- Assigned 2048MB RAM Cache in eBoostr -- Disabled USB for eBoostr -- USB &amp; SD ReadyBoost (10GB)--<br /> Direct: 30.05 MB/sec<br /> Cached: 353.45 MB/sec<br /> Ratio: 11.75<br /> ---------------------------------------------------------------</p> </blockquote> <p>Seems that more people have low performance on ram cache. could be a compatibility problem with certain kind of ram memories? a bug?<br /> Tips? As ever, thank you for your time.<br /> (if you post some screen of your eboostr or your ram model, i'll thank you)</p> <p><img src="http://i33.tinypic.com/2woiys1.jpg"> </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/speed-measure-tool-only-118-ratio#post-547 Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:11:07 +0000 mradr 547@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>By using the eBoostr Speed Measure Tool located in start-&gt;programs-&gt;eboostr-&gt;eBoostr Speed Measure Tool. Then have it start up a program that you use so see how much that program getting. It'll do all the math for you. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/speed-measure-tool-only-118-ratio#post-545 Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:04:44 +0000 chris 545@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>hi, short question. how do you measure the cache hit rate? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/speed-measure-tool-only-118-ratio#post-541 Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:46:48 +0000 mradr 541@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>David Gardiner,</p> <p>I think he means the lower results, aka the ram enabled, are better; witch it is true. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/speed-measure-tool-only-118-ratio#post-537 Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:54:27 +0000 David Gardiner 537@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>No Zeioth,</p> <p>A HIGHER ratio is better.</p> <p>But don't forget that a ratio of 1.62 means 60% faster.</p> <p>David G </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/speed-measure-tool-only-118-ratio#post-534 Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:13:31 +0000 Zeioth 534@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I did this test using 512 ram memory:</p> <p>Photoshop cs 4 portable (5 runs)<br /> -----------------------<br /> eboostr ram disabled: direct access 25, cache access 25, cache hits 0%, ratio 1<br /> eboostr ram enabled: direct access 18, cache access 18. cache hits 32%, ratio 1</p> <p>Google Earth (5 runs)<br /> -----------------------<br /> eboostr ram disabled: direct access 55, cache access 48, cache hits 0%, ratio 1.15<br /> eboostr ram enabled: direct access 56, cache access 35. cache hits 58%, ratio 1.62</p> <p>Lower result's are better true? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/post-up-your-results#post-392 Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:35:12 +0000 chris 392@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>eBoostr version: 536<br /> OS: Windows XP SP3<br /> CPU: Celeron 530 @ 1.73GHz<br /> PC RAM: 4GB<br /> C: Drive: 120GB 2,5" SATA-HDD (Western Digital)<br /> eBoostr cache: 896MB unmanaged RAM<br /> Readyboost: none<br /> Superfetch: none<br /> Speed check:<br /> ---------------------------<br /> eBoostr : Control Panel<br /> ---------------------------<br /> Direct access speed: 6.903372 MB/s</p> <p>Cache enabled access speed: 101.640556 MB/s</p> <p>Ratio: 14.723321 </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/speed-measure-tool-only-118-ratio#post-373 Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:15:16 +0000 chooky 373@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I think the problem was the low cache fill. eBoostr can only make applications and parts of the OS faster if they are in the cache. Try deleting the C:\ProgramData\eboostr folder, C:\eboostr and C:\Program Files (x86)\eBoostr if they exist before reinstalling eBoostr. Give eBoostr a couple of days to build up statistics. </p>