1. 

   David Gardiner
   Member

   I'm running a AMD 3500+ with 1GB RAM and a fast SATA disk for my main HDD.

   The 1GB RAM does not give me much spare for caching so I have settled for a 4GB "ReadyBoost" certified flash drive.

   Previously eBoostr 3.00 speed tests averaged 1.25 with a 4GB flash-cache (25% faster loads)

   Experiments to date with version 4 beta have the 4GB flash-cache averaging 1.07 on the speed tests (7% faster loads).

   Rebuilding the flash-cache to 2GB averaged 1.1 on the speed tests (10% faster loads).

   Rebuilding the flash-cache to 1GB averaged 1.2 on the speed tests (20% faster loads).

   Has anyone else found version 4 beta to be slower than version 3?

   It seems possible that the Seagate SATA HDD (with built-in disk cache) will gain less from eBoostr than a slower PATA drive but is there any logical reason why I am getter better results from smaller cache sizes?

   David G

   Posted 2 years ago #
2. 

   mradr
   Member

   Yes. Smaller means less the flash/system has to read to find your data while larger sizes have to read though more to find your data. USB flash has a really slugish latency when it comes to this (aka dum). This is one of the problems of todays SSD. Actully you'll see more speed from a HDD when it comes to really big files then you would from a usb of the same size. Reason? Its caused by usb just putting things in what ever spot that was open (random read and write), making it have to skip around to find thos missing bits. They do this to help with write speeds... while a HDD will try to keep everything in a "line" (aka defrag) while you could defrag a usb/ssd, you would not get the speed boost from this and could causes your usb/sdd to die even faster (like 1 year faster per defrag)... you'll have to look up why but it has to do with how HDD drives read and stors its data.

   SATA drives are perty fast now adays, for like $80 you can get some that are like thos 10k raptors for half the price. It's also true the more disk cache you have (up to 32mb I think) the faster the drive "burst" speed will get. So yea eboostr will not shine for them as much as the old PATA would but even the fastest SATA drive sucks at small random reads then a flash drive, so you'll see a impovement some what when it comes to thos type of files sizes. + Anything in rad 0 always faster (usally) then something thats not.

   Also if you check around theres a post on v3 vs v4 for speed and I have done some test and found v3 to be faster. I have not done this with the new build they just released yet but you can look at that page for more information on the speed differents I got and a few others got.
   http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/v4-slightly-slower-than-v3-minor-bug

   Posted 2 years ago #
3. 

   chooky
   Beta Veteran

   What would be cheaper and more effective is to buy 4GB of RAM for that PC, should be under $100. If you then used a 2GB cache you find 90% of your OS and programs cached 100%. When a program is cached 100% in memory it will open about 90% faster on the first load after a reboot. This is what really makes a PC feel fast. This means programs you use all the time actually load faster than if you were using an expensive SSD! This is not theory this is what I have measured on my PC with Passmark Apptimer and this is how fast my 2x30GB Vertex SSD's are.

   

   Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.