I would not install software in volatile ram that goes away and must be recreated with every restart
What that could be used for is the Windows page/swap file or PPro temporary file areas... again, nothing you want to KEEP, and that goes away with a restart
I'm thinking getting a nice UPS so I do not loose my work in case of power outage.
I was reading the info from the software and it seems like you can backup the contents for everyboot in a hardrive
then upon boot it will put it back again in the ramdrive.I have not tried but something I'll experiment on. Let's see.
You will have better performance from more available memory than from a RAM disk. If you have 12 GB of RAM, but take away part of that for a RAM disk, you effectively lower available memory and the performance hit will be noticeable. Memory management in CS5 is sufficiently advanced to avoid using a page file to a very large degree, so the advise is to not use a RAM disk.
Thanks Harm for the response.
I'll be trying to upgrade to 24GB total memory and reserve the 4GB or 8GB for Ramdisk.
What is the best thing to put on the Ramdisk?
What is the read/write bottleneck for CS5?
Here is my current setup for CS5 (This is purely CS5 editing machine):
1 SSD = 80 GB Intel X25 Gen2 => C:\
3 WD Blue 650 = Raid 0 => D:\
4 GB or 8GB of Ramdisk => E:\
What do you think of this setup above?
The good thing about the ramdisk software above is it has an automatic save feature so
everytime you reboot it saves it in the background to the harddisk you specify and reload it automatically when
windows restarts. I tried this and it worked and it put back the data so you can think it as if it is a regular harddrive.
1 Samsung F3 ( not sure how to use this )
Good story about RamDisk. Real applications for ramdisk put into use.
The cost of the devices + the cost of populating them becomes absolutely ridiculous. Grab two Velociraptors and have fun... or even a handful of SSD drives and RAID 'em together. The overall price-to-performance ratio will blow these iRAM devices clear off the planet surface...
Sad, really, because I've been a proponent of actual RAMdisks for decades now. Hell, I used to boot my Amiga 500 off a RAMdisk, so I've seen pretty much every attempt at making such devices as the iRAM that have appeared, and they all suck, period. They just can't do the job adequately and keep the price-to-performance ratio anywhere near a reasonable level.
I built a RAID 0 box for a small image studio 2 weeks ago, a new startup here in Vegas that is making waves. They wanted a "demo" workstation to see what's possible for processing as they don't want to create a massive server-type situation in the office, but 3-4 workstations that are equal in performance and then just using simple file sharing as required. Very simple setup in terms of the network, but the workstation I built used 2 300GB Velociraptors (tried to sell 'em on SSD but the amount of data they're dealing with wouldn't be practical - again, a price-to-performance and ROI issue).
The hard part was getting them to spring for 16GB of RAM because of the cost, but a few weeks ago I saw that sale for 4 4GB sticks of RAM for about $450 and made a few phone calls and snagged a similar deal.
I set up Photoshop CS3 for 'em (their legit retail copy) on Vista Business x64. They started messing around with it, loading some rather large TIFF files in excess of 150MB a pop, several at a time, performing some basic scripted actions on 'em, blurs, filters, etc. Using the Velociraptors in RAID 0 meant very snappy and consistent performance, as well as having 16GB of RAM too. Also, it's a Q6600 based machine running rock solid at 3 GHz.
They were very pleased with the performance at that point, but I had a surprise for 'em.
I asked if I could have 20 mins 'alone' with the workstation to "rewire it" as Tim Allen might say. That consisted of grabbing a trial version of SuperSpeed Software's RamDisk Plus 9 and installing it, doing the simple configuration, and then creating a 10GB RAMdisk and told Photoshop "Ok, you want a scratch disk? Here, try this on for size."
After I did some tests of my own using the same scripts they'd done earlier, boy... I tell ya. You haven't lived till you see 225MB TIFF files literally snap onscreen in the blink of an eye, multiple huge TIFFs with resolutions like 5000x5000 and even higher. That's what's possible with RAMdisks, because even Velociraptors in RAID 0 pumping out something like 280MB/s sustained pales to the close to 5GB a second in bandwidth of that RAMdisk.
I told 'em to come back in and rerun their test scripts.
Jaws hit the floor, folks. Well, not quite but figuratively speaking, at least.
They asked what I'd done, I told them I put the scratch disk in RAM where it should be if you have the RAM to make it happen, and they bought 4 licenses of RamDisk Plus 10 mins later, and I got a signed contract to construct 3 more workstations identical to that one top to bottom and also be their "geek" if any issues come up.
It was a very good week...
For PS and large stills, I believe you, but not for PR, AE and EN when using only 12 GB. It will be different when you talk about 48 GB of RAM, of which 16 GB for a RAM disk.
With PS, the TMP file is created using the Scratch Disk location(s), and when the program is closed, that file is removed. This is totally different, than how the Scratch Disks work in PrPro, as Harm points out.
A RAMDisk will work fine for PS, so long as it's large enough to accommodate that TMP file.