http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/tags/ram Beta Testers Forum en-US Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:30:48 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/search.php 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/wanted-profiles#post-1215 Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:43:59 +0000 Colonel ONeill 1215@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I agree with Andrey; having profile switching would likely incur lots of cache building every time a cache is altered.</p> <p>I do work with virtual machines sometimes, and all I have to do is disable the System Memory cache; trying to run a 512MB VM with a 512MB eBoostr Cache on 2GB of RAM isn't too great, considering I have a 5400RPM anyway.</p> <p>Nevertheless, it is simply we advanced users that have demanding applications, and as such, we should be able to mess with the Control Panel occasionally to fit our needs.</p> <p>Still wouldn't mind having an include list, though :) </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/wanted-profiles#post-1213 Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:37:25 +0000 Andrey Zarudnev 1213@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Yes, we thought of such an idea. However the time needed to completely build cache (in case of USB flash) is usually too long making profile switching a very time consuming task :) </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/wanted-profiles#post-1211 Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:48:47 +0000 interfasys 1211@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I'd love to be able to have eBoostr profiles.</p> <p>Let's say I have plenty of memory, so I assign a good chunk to eBoostr, but later that day I want to do some tests on an OS in Virtualbox.<br /> Right now, I have to reconfigure eBoostr to use less RAM, but with profiles, I could click on a VB profile that frees RAM. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/cleanmem#post-1143 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:56:15 +0000 Ribeiro 1143@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>What do you think about using CleanMem (<a href="http://www.pcwintech.com/cleanmem" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcwintech.com/cleanmem</a>) with eBoostr? Is it advisable or not? I have it installed but I don't know if it is a good idea as I am afraid that it shall clean eBoostr cache if using ram. I would appreciate an answer if you please. Thank you!<br /> My old Windows XP laptop has 2 GB Ram and I'm using 500 MB as eBoostr memory cache. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/advanced-memory-cache-stopped-working-1#post-998 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:55:10 +0000 mradr 998@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I maybe wrong, but I think Kaspersky has a problem with letting USB be control by eboostr. You'll have to look for the look around. I think it has to do with a setting with the USB like... wait till I ask to go into the drive before letting programs do or something like that... I don't remember anymore lol. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/priorisation-of-caches#post-996 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:51:29 +0000 mradr 996@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Prioritizing is controled by the random speed a deivce can go. Also, eboostr only uses 4 devices at anyone time. Far as I know, it works with the safe remove function for deivces that can be unplug like a usb. Usally hard drives are internal not external, so it could be just that the programmers haven't gotton that far or been ask to redo the code to allow external hard drives to be encrypted. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/priorisation-of-caches#post-974 Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:47:16 +0000 Yeti 974@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Id would be a great improvement if eboostr could prioritize witch caches to use, if there are many aviable. there should be no limitation of maximum supported caches or it should be so high, that everything is possible. I have 6 caches, but eboostr is using only 4 of them in an unpractical way: all hard disks, some usb, but no ram. I´ve had to exclude two drives and put them to vista ready boost. This is the only way I´ve got my ram cache to work. eboostr should use always the best cache. Does eboostr internally decide according to drive type where what type of data goes or are all devices handled equally? Does eboostr react to the safe remove function of windows? Why couldn´t the cache on External USB hard drives be encrypted? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/advanced-memory-cache-stopped-working-1#post-973 Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:02:39 +0000 Yeti 973@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>The Advanced memory Cache is always labeled with a yellow warning sign, but my other 4 devices are marked as working. This has nothing to do with the unmanaged ram, because even if its disabled it wont work. I´m using build 545 on a Windows Vista Home Premium 32 Bit (German) with 4 GB Ram, 3 USB Flash Drives and one external 1TB hard drive. The AV Software is Kaspersky Internet Security 9.0.0.736. The system is a HP Pavilion dv6810eg Notebook. what should i do to solve this issue? Id had worked before and I don´t want to throw away 863MB of unmanaged Ram. </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/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/low-performance-ram-cache#post-315 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:52:40 +0000 Andrey Zarudnev 315@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <blockquote><p><cite>Zeioth <a href="http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/low-performance-ram-cache#post-276">wrote</a>:</cite><br /> Thankyou guys, now speed test worked correctly and RAM ratio is 3.56. </p></blockquote> <p>Actually RAM ratio should be much more...</p> <p>Here is the result from my work desktop:</p> <p>---------------------------<br /> eBoostr : Control Panel<br /> ---------------------------<br /> Direct access speed: 12.209034 MB/s</p> <p>Cache enabled access speed: 498.228821 MB/s</p> <p>Ratio: 40.808208<br /> ---------------------------<br /> OK<br /> --------------------------- </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/low-performance-ram-cache#post-276 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:43:10 +0000 Zeioth 276@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Thankyou guys, now speed test worked correctly and RAM ratio is 3.56. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/low-performance-ram-cache#post-272 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:30:09 +0000 Andrey Zarudnev 272@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>That's right, chooky, thank you.</p> <p>@Zeioth, there is no need to remove them, you can just "Disable" them temporary. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/low-performance-ram-cache#post-271 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:22:11 +0000 chooky 271@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>The cached speed is an average of all your caches not just memory. If you removed the disk and USB caches which are slower your cahed speed would increase and your ratio would be better. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/low-performance-ram-cache#post-270 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:47:16 +0000 Zeioth 270@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>My Ram is DDR3 1600 model corsair cl9 dhx, and my problem is that eboostr 3/4.0(536) show a 1.4 ration when ram memory should be arround ratio 4, (i seen screenshots). even my hard disk have better ratio (1.7) i'm not sure what's wrong, may be this ram model have problems in eboostr? thanks for your ideas/comments.</p> <p><img src="http://i34.tinypic.com/10iigee.jpg"> </p>