Sign on Options
Theme: [Light Selected] To Dark»
ForumsComputer Hardware Discussion › Virtual Ramdisk

The Computer Hardware forum is the place to discuss hardware. Important! Asking for Windows keys or circumventing the copy-protect to accommodate multiple installs can lead to a moderation with revoked community permissions.

Virtual Ramdisk

Forum Actions
  • Level 25
    Defias Brotherhood
    Posts: 914
    Jan 21, 2013 12:00 pm GMT

    I have an I7 with 12Gb Ram installed. Whenever I check the usage of my RAM, I notice that not even half of that space is used; not even when I do some "heavy" mutlitasking. I can easily run photoshop, word, excel, firefox and a game like Skyrim and still there's plenty of RAM left. In the past I used Amiga which has a virtual ramdisk built in its OS. One thing led to another so I started searching for virtual disks in Windows. I came across this freeware program that I've been testing for two weeks now on an older Win 7 x86 laptop. I created a virtual disk of 512 Mb out of a total of 3 Gb, just to try it out. This seems to work really well and stable and now I'm tempted to install this to my gaming rig (i7), but I'm hesitant.

    Do any of you have an opinion on using virtual ramdisks, pros and cons. And if you use (or have used) it yourself, what are your experiences?

    Edited on Jan 21, 2013 12:02 pm GMT

    I have an I7 with 12Gb Ram installed. Whenever I check the usage of my RAM, I notice that not even half of that space is used; not even when I do some "heavy" mutlitasking. I can easily run photoshop, word, excel, firefox and a game like Skyrim and still there's plenty of RAM left. In the past I used Amiga which has a virtual ramdisk built in its OS. One thing led to another so I started searching for virtual disks in Windows. I came across this freeware program that I've been testing for two weeks now on an older Win 7 x86 laptop. I created a virtual disk of 512 Mb out of a total of 3 Gb, just to try it out. This seems to work really well and stable and now I'm tempted to install this to my gaming rig (i7), but I'm hesitant.

    Do any of you have an opinion on using virtual ramdisks, pros and cons. And if you use (or have used) it yourself, what are your experiences?

  • Level 44
    Violence Fight
    Posts: 22427
    User is Online
    Jan 21, 2013 12:04 pm GMT
    what's the point on a desktop
    it's volatile

    3dslice.netis my home.Check mySHAFTout.

    what's the point on a desktop it's volatile
  • Level 25
    Defias Brotherhood
    Posts: 914
    Jan 21, 2013 12:08 pm GMT
    JigglyWiggly_ wrote:
    what's the point on a desktop
    it's volatile

    That's the whole point. Think about winrar for example, or decompressing large files. And what about the speed?
    [QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]what's the point on a desktop it's volatile[/QUOTE] That's the whole point. Think about winrar for example, or decompressing large files. And what about the speed?
  • Level 44
    Violence Fight
    Posts: 22427
    User is Online
    Jan 21, 2013 1:05 pm GMT
    That's assuming said saved file is on your ram disk.

    Also any big archives are like 10 gigs and they take about 30 minutes to extract provided there aren't hundreds of thousands of files in it.

    3dslice.netis my home.Check mySHAFTout.

    That's assuming said saved file is on your ram disk. Also any big archives are like 10 gigs and they take about 30 minutes to extract provided there aren't hundreds of thousands of files in it.
  • Level 25
    Defias Brotherhood
    Posts: 914
    Jan 21, 2013 1:47 pm GMT

    Example:

    What if I download a 2 GB Rar file to my RAM disc (which I do quite often) and from there I extract the file to where ever I need it. Once the Rar file is extracted, I have no need for it anymore; RAM clears itself on start-up so it saves me the trouble deleting temporary files. Another reason why I it like is that in creative processes (photoshop, acid, etc.) I use a lot of in between saves that immediately become obsolete once I quite editing and save my WIP into one file for that session.

    Example:

    What if I download a 2 GB Rar file to my RAM disc (which I do quite often) and from there I extract the file to where ever I need it. Once the Rar file is extracted, I have no need for it anymore; RAM clears itself on start-up so it saves me the trouble deleting temporary files. Another reason why I it like is that in creative processes (photoshop, acid, etc.) I use a lot of in between saves that immediately become obsolete once I quite editing and save my WIP into one file for that session.

  • Level 51
    Alien Hominid
    Posts: 29700
    User is Online
    Jan 21, 2013 1:51 pm GMT
    geitenvla wrote:

    Example:

    What if I download a 2 GB Rar file to my RAM disc (which I do quite often) and from there I extract the file to where ever I need it. Once the Rar file is extracted, I have no need for it anymore; RAM clears itself on start-up so it saves me the trouble deleting temporary files. Another reason why I it like is that in creative processes (photoshop, acid, etc.) I use a lot of in between saves that immediately become obsolete once I quite editing and save my WIP into one file for that session.

    does it dump to spinning disk on shutdown? what if you're not paying attention and save your final stuff to the ram instead of the the disk? is it lost?

    "everything is amazing right now, and nobody's happy" -louis c.k.

    [QUOTE="geitenvla"]

    Example:

    What if I download a 2 GB Rar file to my RAM disc (which I do quite often) and from there I extract the file to where ever I need it. Once the Rar file is extracted, I have no need for it anymore; RAM clears itself on start-up so it saves me the trouble deleting temporary files. Another reason why I it like is that in creative processes (photoshop, acid, etc.) I use a lot of in between saves that immediately become obsolete once I quite editing and save my WIP into one file for that session.

    [/QUOTE] does it dump to spinning disk on shutdown? what if you're not paying attention and save your final stuff to the ram instead of the the disk? is it lost?
  • Level 25
    Defias Brotherhood
    Posts: 914
    Jan 21, 2013 1:56 pm GMT

    comp_atkins wrote:
    geitenvla wrote:

    Example:

    What if I download a 2 GB Rar file to my RAM disc (which I do quite often) and from there I extract the file to where ever I need it. Once the Rar file is extracted, I have no need for it anymore; RAM clears itself on start-up so it saves me the trouble deleting temporary files. Another reason why I it like is that in creative processes (photoshop, acid, etc.) I use a lot of in between saves that immediately become obsolete once I quite editing and save my WIP into one file for that session.

    does it dump to spinning disk on shutdown? what if you're not paying attention and save your final stuff to the ram instead of the the disk? is it lost?

    Using a RAMdisk requires some experience, but the same logic applies to shift+delete (I never use the trashcan). If you don't trust yourself, there is an option to dump it to spinning disk and reload it into RAM on the next startup.

    [QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="geitenvla"]

    Example:

    What if I download a 2 GB Rar file to my RAM disc (which I do quite often) and from there I extract the file to where ever I need it. Once the Rar file is extracted, I have no need for it anymore; RAM clears itself on start-up so it saves me the trouble deleting temporary files. Another reason why I it like is that in creative processes (photoshop, acid, etc.) I use a lot of in between saves that immediately become obsolete once I quite editing and save my WIP into one file for that session.

    [/QUOTE] does it dump to spinning disk on shutdown? what if you're not paying attention and save your final stuff to the ram instead of the the disk? is it lost?[/QUOTE]

    Using a RAMdisk requires some experience, but the same logic applies to shift+delete (I never use the trashcan). If you don't trust yourself, there is an option to dump it to spinning disk and reload it into RAM on the next startup.

  • Level 51
    Alien Hominid
    Posts: 29700
    User is Online
    Jan 21, 2013 2:06 pm GMT
    geitenvla wrote:

    comp_atkins wrote:
    geitenvla wrote:

    Example:

    What if I download a 2 GB Rar file to my RAM disc (which I do quite often) and from there I extract the file to where ever I need it. Once the Rar file is extracted, I have no need for it anymore; RAM clears itself on start-up so it saves me the trouble deleting temporary files. Another reason why I it like is that in creative processes (photoshop, acid, etc.) I use a lot of in between saves that immediately become obsolete once I quite editing and save my WIP into one file for that session.

    does it dump to spinning disk on shutdown? what if you're not paying attention and save your final stuff to the ram instead of the the disk? is it lost?

    Using a RAMdisk requires some experience, but the same logic applies to shift+delete (I never use the trashcan). If you don't trust yourself, there is an option to dump it to spinning disk and reload it into RAM on the next startup.

    never heard of this.. since usually in your hierarchy ram is at a premium not nv storage. interesting.

    "everything is amazing right now, and nobody's happy" -louis c.k.

    [QUOTE="geitenvla"]

    [QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="geitenvla"]

    Example:

    What if I download a 2 GB Rar file to my RAM disc (which I do quite often) and from there I extract the file to where ever I need it. Once the Rar file is extracted, I have no need for it anymore; RAM clears itself on start-up so it saves me the trouble deleting temporary files. Another reason why I it like is that in creative processes (photoshop, acid, etc.) I use a lot of in between saves that immediately become obsolete once I quite editing and save my WIP into one file for that session.

    [/QUOTE] does it dump to spinning disk on shutdown? what if you're not paying attention and save your final stuff to the ram instead of the the disk? is it lost?[/QUOTE]

    Using a RAMdisk requires some experience, but the same logic applies to shift+delete (I never use the trashcan). If you don't trust yourself, there is an option to dump it to spinning disk and reload it into RAM on the next startup.

    [/QUOTE] never heard of this.. since usually in your hierarchy ram is at a premium not nv storage. interesting.
  • Level 25
    Defias Brotherhood
    Posts: 914
    Jan 21, 2013 2:13 pm GMT

    comp_atkins wrote:
    geitenvla wrote:

    comp_atkins wrote:
    does it dump to spinning disk on shutdown? what if you're not paying attention and save your final stuff to the ram instead of the the disk? is it lost?

    Using a RAMdisk requires some experience, but the same logic applies to shift+delete (I never use the trashcan). If you don't trust yourself, there is an option to dump it to spinning disk and reload it into RAM on the next startup.

    never heard of this.. since usually in your hierarchy ram is at a premium not nv storage. interesting.

    I just installed it on my Win 7 x64. I created a disc of 4 Gb (the maximum that is allowed by the freeware edition); so now I've to see how much of a performance hit it's gonna give. I expect none, since most of the RAM itself is never actually in use.

    It's really useful for temporary files.

    [QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="geitenvla"]

    [QUOTE="comp_atkins"] does it dump to spinning disk on shutdown? what if you're not paying attention and save your final stuff to the ram instead of the the disk? is it lost?[/QUOTE]

    Using a RAMdisk requires some experience, but the same logic applies to shift+delete (I never use the trashcan). If you don't trust yourself, there is an option to dump it to spinning disk and reload it into RAM on the next startup.

    [/QUOTE] never heard of this.. since usually in your hierarchy ram is at a premium not nv storage. interesting. [/QUOTE]

    I just installed it on my Win 7 x64. I created a disc of 4 Gb (the maximum that is allowed by the freeware edition); so now I've to see how much of a performance hit it's gonna give. I expect none, since most of the RAM itself is never actually in use.

    It's really useful for temporary files.

  • Level 51
    Alien Hominid
    Posts: 29700
    User is Online
    Jan 21, 2013 2:23 pm GMT
    geitenvla wrote:

    comp_atkins wrote:
    geitenvla wrote:

    Using a RAMdisk requires some experience, but the same logic applies to shift+delete (I never use the trashcan). If you don't trust yourself, there is an option to dump it to spinning disk and reload it into RAM on the next startup.

    never heard of this.. since usually in your hierarchy ram is at a premium not nv storage. interesting.

    I just installed it on my Win 7 x64. I created a disc of 4 Gb (the maximum that is allowed by the freeware edition); so now I've to see how much of a performance hit it's gonna give. I expect none, since most of the RAM itself is never actually in use.

    It's really useful for temporary files.

    does win7 pre-cache stuff into ram for like recently used programs and stuff? i remember vista used to do that to speed up loading for things you hit often? if so you may want to keep the ram avail to the os for that kidna stuff..

    "everything is amazing right now, and nobody's happy" -louis c.k.

    [QUOTE="geitenvla"]

    [QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="geitenvla"]

    Using a RAMdisk requires some experience, but the same logic applies to shift+delete (I never use the trashcan). If you don't trust yourself, there is an option to dump it to spinning disk and reload it into RAM on the next startup.

    [/QUOTE] never heard of this.. since usually in your hierarchy ram is at a premium not nv storage. interesting. [/QUOTE]

    I just installed it on my Win 7 x64. I created a disc of 4 Gb (the maximum that is allowed by the freeware edition); so now I've to see how much of a performance hit it's gonna give. I expect none, since most of the RAM itself is never actually in use.

    It's really useful for temporary files.

    [/QUOTE] does win7 pre-cache stuff into ram for like recently used programs and stuff? i remember vista used to do that to speed up loading for things you hit often? if so you may want to keep the ram avail to the os for that kidna stuff..
  • Level 25
    Defias Brotherhood
    Posts: 914
    Jan 21, 2013 2:28 pm GMT

    comp_atkins wrote:
    geitenvla wrote:

    comp_atkins wrote:
    never heard of this.. since usually in your hierarchy ram is at a premium not nv storage. interesting.

    I just installed it on my Win 7 x64. I created a disc of 4 Gb (the maximum that is allowed by the freeware edition); so now I've to see how much of a performance hit it's gonna give. I expect none, since most of the RAM itself is never actually in use.

    It's really useful for temporary files.

    does win7 pre-cache stuff into ram for like recently used programs and stuff? i remember vista used to do that to speed up loading for things you hit often? if so you may want to keep the ram avail to the os for that kidna stuff..

    That's called superfetch and works quite well as opposed to Vista, where it horribly slows down start up. But Windows 7 runs perfectly fine using 6 to 8 Gb of RAM. You never seem to need any more than that. So, I thought, since I paid for the space, why not make use of it?

    [QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="geitenvla"]

    [QUOTE="comp_atkins"] never heard of this.. since usually in your hierarchy ram is at a premium not nv storage. interesting. [/QUOTE]

    I just installed it on my Win 7 x64. I created a disc of 4 Gb (the maximum that is allowed by the freeware edition); so now I've to see how much of a performance hit it's gonna give. I expect none, since most of the RAM itself is never actually in use.

    It's really useful for temporary files.

    [/QUOTE] does win7 pre-cache stuff into ram for like recently used programs and stuff? i remember vista used to do that to speed up loading for things you hit often? if so you may want to keep the ram avail to the os for that kidna stuff.. [/QUOTE]

    That's called superfetch and works quite well as opposed to Vista, where it horribly slows down start up. But Windows 7 runs perfectly fine using 6 to 8 Gb of RAM. You never seem to need any more than that. So, I thought, since I paid for the space, why not make use of it?

  • Level 44
    Violence Fight
    Posts: 22427
    User is Online
    Jan 21, 2013 3:26 pm GMT
    geitenvla wrote:

    Example:

    What if I download a 2 GB Rar file to my RAM disc (which I do quite often) and from there I extract the file to where ever I need it. Once the Rar file is extracted, I have no need for it anymore; RAM clears itself on start-up so it saves me the trouble deleting temporary files. Another reason why I it like is that in creative processes (photoshop, acid, etc.) I use a lot of in between saves that immediately become obsolete once I quite editing and save my WIP into one file for that session.


    pointless
    copying 2gb from disk when extracting takes no time at all

    3dslice.netis my home.Check mySHAFTout.

    [QUOTE="geitenvla"]

    Example:

    What if I download a 2 GB Rar file to my RAM disc (which I do quite often) and from there I extract the file to where ever I need it. Once the Rar file is extracted, I have no need for it anymore; RAM clears itself on start-up so it saves me the trouble deleting temporary files. Another reason why I it like is that in creative processes (photoshop, acid, etc.) I use a lot of in between saves that immediately become obsolete once I quite editing and save my WIP into one file for that session.

    [/QUOTE] pointless copying 2gb from disk when extracting takes no time at all
  • Level 25
    Defias Brotherhood
    Posts: 914
    Jan 21, 2013 3:36 pm GMT

    JigglyWiggly_ wrote:
    geitenvla wrote:

    Example:

    What if I download a 2 GB Rar file to my RAM disc (which I do quite often) and from there I extract the file to where ever I need it. Once the Rar file is extracted, I have no need for it anymore; RAM clears itself on start-up so it saves me the trouble deleting temporary files. Another reason why I it like is that in creative processes (photoshop, acid, etc.) I use a lot of in between saves that immediately become obsolete once I quite editing and save my WIP into one file for that session.

    pointless copying 2gb from disk when extracting takes no time at all

    It's not really about the time it takes to extract (given I extract to spinning disc), but about another way of managing temporary files. Example: I've redirected my browser cache to my RAM drive. Not only does this have a noticeable effect on the chache speed, my spinning disc has a lot less to do and I don't have to manually clear my cache each and every time. (speaks for itself that I keep my cookies, prefs etc. on my C:\ )

    [QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"][QUOTE="geitenvla"]

    Example:

    What if I download a 2 GB Rar file to my RAM disc (which I do quite often) and from there I extract the file to where ever I need it. Once the Rar file is extracted, I have no need for it anymore; RAM clears itself on start-up so it saves me the trouble deleting temporary files. Another reason why I it like is that in creative processes (photoshop, acid, etc.) I use a lot of in between saves that immediately become obsolete once I quite editing and save my WIP into one file for that session.

    [/QUOTE] pointless copying 2gb from disk when extracting takes no time at all[/QUOTE]

    It's not really about the time it takes to extract (given I extract to spinning disc), but about another way of managing temporary files. Example: I've redirected my browser cache to my RAM drive. Not only does this have a noticeable effect on the chache speed, my spinning disc has a lot less to do and I don't have to manually clear my cache each and every time. (speaks for itself that I keep my cookies, prefs etc. on my C:\ )

  • Level 44
    Violence Fight
    Posts: 22427
    User is Online
    Jan 21, 2013 4:35 pm GMT
    why would you clean your browser cache?
    you really think it takes any time to read files less than a few meagbytes from disk?

    Your browser will load the whole cache to ram anyway from disk and it should be very quick

    this is completely pointless

    there are times when this could be useful if say you are hosting a server and there's a bunch of files people have to download and you have like a 10 gigabit connection, you might want to just store all those files to ram. I think you can configure apache to do that anyway automatically.

    3dslice.netis my home.Check mySHAFTout.

    why would you clean your browser cache? you really think it takes any time to read files less than a few meagbytes from disk? Your browser will load the whole cache to ram anyway from disk and it should be very quick this is completely pointless there are times when this could be useful if say you are hosting a server and there's a bunch of files people have to download and you have like a 10 gigabit connection, you might want to just store all those files to ram. I think you can configure apache to do that anyway automatically.
  • Level 47
    Jaquio
    Posts: 11186
    User is Online
    Jan 22, 2013 11:05 am GMT

    You do realise you can set firefox to cache to ram anyway in about:config right?

    You do realise you can set firefox to cache to ram anyway in about:config right?

  • Level 45
    Mishima Zaibatsu
    Posts: 22075
    Site Greeter
    User is Online
    Jan 22, 2013 2:51 pm GMT
    kraken2109 wrote:

    You do realise you can set firefox to cache to ram anyway in about:config right?



    http://lifehacker.com/5687850/speed-up-firefox-by-moving-your-cache-to-ram-no-ram-disk-required

    Intel i7 3770 | Asus Sabertooth | 32GB 1600Mhz DDR3 RAM | 240GB SSD | GTX680 4GB

    [QUOTE="kraken2109"]

    You do realise you can set firefox to cache to ram anyway in about:config right?

    [/QUOTE] [url]http://lifehacker.com/5687850/speed-up-firefox-by-moving-your-cache-to-ram-no-ram-disk-required[/url]
  • Level 25
    Defias Brotherhood
    Posts: 914
    Jan 22, 2013 3:14 pm GMT
    FelipeInside wrote:
    kraken2109 wrote:

    You do realise you can set firefox to cache to ram anyway in about:config right?



    http://lifehacker.com/5687850/speed-up-firefox-by-moving-your-cache-to-ram-no-ram-disk-required

    Nope, I didn't know that. But this article basically proves I was right about noticing a speed increase. I still stick to my virtual RAMdisk though, since I use it for fast file transfer as well.
    [QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="kraken2109"]

    You do realise you can set firefox to cache to ram anyway in about:config right?

    [/QUOTE] [url]http://lifehacker.com/5687850/speed-up-firefox-by-moving-your-cache-to-ram-no-ram-disk-required[/url][/QUOTE] Nope, I didn't know that. But this article basically proves I was right about noticing a speed increase. I still stick to my virtual RAMdisk though, since I use it for fast file transfer as well.
  • Level 44
    Violence Fight
    Posts: 22427
    User is Online
    Jan 22, 2013 4:09 pm GMT
    :
    The disk cache, unlike the memory cache, persists across restarts. This means that you trade off slower startup (due to none of your restored tabs being in cache) and slower initial visits to all sites for slightly faster repeat visits to sites, as long as you didn't visit too much stuff in between.

    yeah it's pointless
    just get a SSD lol
    rockin two 120gb vertex 3's myself
    https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/nqYLKTsOAbs/Fh7XO2PVUn0J

    3dslice.netis my home.Check mySHAFTout.

    [quote]The disk cache, unlike the memory cache, persists across restarts. This means that you trade off slower startup (due to none of your restored tabs being in cache) and slower initial visits to all sites for slightly faster repeat visits to sites, as long as you didn't visit too much stuff in between.[/quote] yeah it's pointless just get a SSD lol rockin two 120gb vertex 3's myself [url]https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/nqYLKTsOAbs/Fh7XO2PVUn0J[/url]
  • Level 56
    Mr. X
    Posts: 13212
    Jan 22, 2013 7:55 pm GMT

    I agree it's much better to use an SSD since it's non-volatile. A ramdisk was useful in the old days when hard drives were slow or non-existent. I used the ramdisk on the Amiga as well (MS-DOS also had it but not enabled by default) at a time when most PCs had just 640k of RAM and the Amiga can take up to 9mb. I think there was even a battery-driven gizmo that allowed the ramdisk to remain intact even when the Amiga was turned off.

    AMD 4.0 Ghz FX-8350/ASUS M5A78L-M/GTX 560 Ti and PS3 + Eagle Eye Combo

    I agree it's much better to use an SSD since it's non-volatile. A ramdisk was useful in the old days when hard drives were slow or non-existent. I used the ramdisk on the Amiga as well (MS-DOS also had it but not enabled by default) at a time when most PCs had just 640k of RAM and the Amiga can take up to 9mb. I think there was even a battery-driven gizmo that allowed the ramdisk to remain intact even when the Amiga was turned off.

  • Level 45
    Mishima Zaibatsu
    Posts: 22075
    Site Greeter
    User is Online
    Jan 22, 2013 7:59 pm GMT
    jun_aka_pekto wrote:

    I agree it's much better to use an SSD since it's non-volatile. A ramdisk was useful in the old days when hard drives were slow or non-existent. I used the ramdisk on the Amiga as well (MS-DOS also had it but not enabled by default) at a time when most PCs had just 640k of RAM and the Amiga can take up to 9mb. I think there was even a battery-driven gizmo that allowed the ramdisk to remain intact even when the Amiga was turned off.



    YES, I remember that Battery Gizmo thingy.

    I was going to buy it but it's was too expensive at the time.

    Intel i7 3770 | Asus Sabertooth | 32GB 1600Mhz DDR3 RAM | 240GB SSD | GTX680 4GB

    [QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

    I agree it's much better to use an SSD since it's non-volatile. A ramdisk was useful in the old days when hard drives were slow or non-existent. I used the ramdisk on the Amiga as well (MS-DOS also had it but not enabled by default) at a time when most PCs had just 640k of RAM and the Amiga can take up to 9mb. I think there was even a battery-driven gizmo that allowed the ramdisk to remain intact even when the Amiga was turned off.

    [/QUOTE] YES, I remember that Battery Gizmo thingy. I was going to buy it but it's was too expensive at the time.
Forum Actions
ForumsComputer Hardware Discussion › Virtual Ramdisk