Hi there,
Would it be better to use 2 x 4gig USB sticks than using 1 x 8gig USB stick? Would there be a performance/speed difference?
quick question about using multiple usb sticks
(9 posts) (6 voices)-
chooky
Beta VeteranDepending on how much ram you have it may be more effective to add a GB or 2!
Posted 2 years ago # -
SScurlock
MemberI tried it with both an 8 GB and two 4 GB on four systems. I am sticking with the two 4GB with extensive exclusions. It appears to work better on all the computers. Not sure why.
On another note If you are wondering how well the program works, remove it and work or game on your system. After 6 weeks of using eboostr, there is a real differents, at least on mine. They all seem extremely slow without eboostr.
Posted 2 years ago # -
mradr
MemberDepending how fast your USB read, it's better to use two USB ves one big one. Reason being is you'r maxing out your bandwidth.
For example, one big usb may only transmit 15mb a sec while two usb combind can transmit over 30MB (max bandwidth).
Bigger does not always mean better---
Posted 2 years ago # -
byteboss
Memberjsamson wrote:
Would it be better to use 2 x 4gig USB sticks than using 1 x 8gig USB stick? Would there be a performance/speed difference?I also think two 4 GB Sticks would be better than one 8 GB stick. Although, it's hard for me to imagine that you need more than a 4 GB cache. In fact, I would be surprised if having more than a 1 GB Cache gains you very much anyway. Additionally, I suspect that there is an optimum cache size, beyond which you may even see performance to degrade somewhat. The eBoostr development team would know better than anyone about this though. Perhaps they would care to comment on the subject. If you do use multiple USB sticks, I would try not to put them both on the same USB controller or hub to maximize performance.
Posted 2 years ago # -
mradr
Memberbyteboss wrote:
I also think two 4 GB Sticks would be better than one 8 GB stick. Although, it's hard for me to imagine that you need more than a 4 GB cache. In fact, I would be surprised if having more than a 1 GB Cache gains you very much anyway. Additionally, I suspect that there is an optimum cache size, beyond which you may even see performance to degrade somewhat. The eBoostr development team would know better than anyone about this though. Perhaps they would care to comment on the subject. If you do use multiple USB sticks, I would try not to put them both on the same USB controller or hub to maximize performance.Yes and no. There is a optimum cache size in whitch after you hit it there is no performance gain-ish, but there is no degrade after hitting this limit. This is due to the nature of soild state while HDD do have this limit and will actully degrade over this limit due to having to find the information. Aka this is called latency or time it takes to get the desired information. Actully, it comes down to this: it depends on the size of the cache. HDD can read bigger chunks of data faster than a USB can due to USB limited read and banwith while USB read faster smaller chunks then a HDD ever can.
but to make a long story short... there is no limit and will always see a grain just some more than others.
Posted 2 years ago # -
byteboss
Membermradr wrote:
HDD can read bigger chunks of data faster than a USB can due to USB limited read and banwith while USB read faster smaller chunks then a HDD ever can.but to make a long story short... there is no limit and will always see a grain just some more than others.
I still fail to see the point of using USB Flash Drives to cache thousands of seldom used files. It seems foolish to me in light of the fact that a Flash Drive is only good for a limited number of "write cycles". Why wear a drive out prematurely by caching thousands of extra files that won't likely be needed, or give little benefit? So as a Cache Storage device, I don't feel bigger Flash Drives are always better.
I understand that being able to use USB Sticks as cache storage devices is a selling point for eboostr, but lets face it; using Flash Memory devices that have a limited number of "write cycles" is not the ideal solution for large caches. Adding more system memory for use by eboostr is a much smarter way to go.
Unfortunately, many older systems don't support a lot of system memory. In fact, I have several older systems that only support up to 512 MB of system memory, so on them I'm pretty much stuck with having to use USB Flash Memory Sticks for eboostr. Even on those machines, 1 GB memory sticks are more than adequate. But then, I follow a more realistic and practical approach then some....
Posted 2 years ago # -
mradr
MemberIt seems foolish to me in light of the fact that a Flash Drive is only good for a limited number of "write cycles". Why wear a drive out prematurely by caching thousands of extra files that won't likely be needed, or give little benefit? So as a Cache Storage device, I don't feel bigger Flash Drives are always better.
Not really. eboostr at maxs is only writing a few writes a day give or take, so that number will end in 5-15 years... idk about you, but I really don't need a flash drive for 5 years. With flash tech becomming even more write better, that number increaes to 20 years with in a few months from now.
Just FYI, I been using eboostr for a few years now; my main flash drive hasn't even hicup once about being writen to so many times.People worry about this "write cycles", but yet I havent seen a non-programmer ever really hit that mark in writes. Also you have to remember that more space you have the more writes that you can have, so as usb tech becomes faster, so can the size.
As for limits, eboostr does let you change the size of the cache... so I mean if you feel its not needed, then dont set it so high.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.