|
|
Post by cynical1 on Jan 11, 2010 15:04:36 GMT -5
A while ago, back when chrisK used to stop by, we started an off topic ramble about using RAMDISK for virtual memory to improve the speed and performance of the digital recording process. For those of you unfamiliar with what RAMDISK is, check this link out.Well, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, (read this as grabbing the entire retiring surplus I could from work...the only advantage to working in IT) I have found a trick. Taking the RAM a Windows 32 bit operating systems doesn’t see and grabbing it for a RAMDSIK to run a virtual hard drive on. To preface, unless you're running a 64 bit OS anything over 3 GB of RAM is just fluff, as you old 32 bit operating system doesn't see it. If your motherboard supports 4GB or more of RAM then there is a way to access this resource without updating your OS. It’s a little application called VSuite Ramdisk. It has the designed function of grabbing this unseen RAM and using it for a virtual RAMDISK. There is an upgrade version you can pay for, but the free version simulates a virtual SCSI drive, up to 4 GB, that you can locate your VM. Long and short of it is that with your VM in RAMDISK the access time is about 1/10th of what it is going to your hard drive. There are several programs out there that allow you to setup RAMDISKS, and some research is warranted on your part if you choose to go this direction. I just thought I’d throw this out with just enough information to confuse everyone… Happy Trails Cynical One |
|
|
|
Post by ux4484 on Jan 11, 2010 17:16:43 GMT -5
A PC only solution methinks  good if your recording app lets you specify the cache location (many "lite" versions do not). I think using a ramdisk for cache could be more benificial than anything. Even then the translation and ramdisk software might negate any useful performance gain. I had been playing with all that stuff to improve recording performance before I got my toneport Ux1, but now that stuff doesn't matter any more. |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jan 13, 2010 1:53:00 GMT -5
ux, I was gonna stay outta this, I've long since left the argumentive world of computers to the those have the time to invest in beating their heads against the wall, aka attempting to "convert" an acolyte of another faith. But your non-Intel response leads me to.... I could be mistaken, but I'm under the impression that Motorola processors have always had an untranslated address space. More over, from my early days of using OS9 and other such OS'es, the more RAM in a system, the more the OS could see and use - no limits whatsoever. Or at least that's my recollection. (Tech Note: Intel processors, ever since the 8085, use a translated address space. That's why you see address:offset, usually something like 0xAA40:2048. This results in some limitations in memory space, which are dependent on the size of the processor's arithmetic unit. Old 8 bit CPU's... oh wait, this isn't the Dr. Dobbs Journal, is it? Never mind. ) Now I'm not one to tell you how to use your "extra" RAM (because as far as I'm concerned, it's not extra, it's just currently unused), but aside from a RAMdisk driver (and I know they exist for non-Intel, non-Windows platforms), I think you'll find that the argument has gone around the circle (hell, around the whole bleeping globe by now) as to which is better, to use the 'extra' RAM as a cache, or as a disk-emulator to hold things that need the quickest possible access times, or to let the OS control that memory for its own uses (presumably to the best benefit for the user). I can state with authority that each case will be different. Not can be, but will be, different. IOW, what works best for you may be so much horse-patootie for the next guy down the line. I ask that you keep that in mind as/when you make recommendations of any sort, but most especially where it concerns the operation of the new-fangled computamathingies. That way, folks won't think less of you when they try it your way, and it perchance comes to pass that what you said was not what they got.    ;D HTH sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by dunkelfalke on Jan 13, 2010 3:04:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Jan 13, 2010 9:29:31 GMT -5
Yes, this is primarily a PC, specifically Windows XP 32 bit solution. The issue may, or may not be the board and CPU in your machine, but more to the point, the way XP 32 bit sees RAM.
While I agree, every machine will utilize this solution differently, and depending on system configuration, hardware and BIOS limitations, the results will vary.
My point in posting this is that for anyone who has installed additional RAM into their good old Windows XP machine, and suddenly realizes the OS doesn't see it, this is a way to reclaim that resource and speed up the general performance of their apps in the bargain.
All I know is I can run more tracks with more plugins and busses faster then I could prior to this little trick being implemented.
As with all computer based solutions, read the directions, know your limitations and if one leg gets shorter then the other...
Happy Trails
Cynical One
|
|
|
|
Post by ux4484 on Jan 13, 2010 16:26:52 GMT -5
gai, Not really an issue for Mac, which is why I said PC only. I wasn't suggesting anyone make a change for the recording cache, only that I felt that is where the most benefit could be had. When you get to the point that you're messing with excess memory to improve performance on a marginal machine, it comes down to your hardware situation which is so diverse for PC's there can be no golden rule for performing such work-arounds with anything Windows XP or beyond .... that said.... The better thing to do would be to check with your MB maker to see if there is a BIOS upgrade that will allow your version of Windows to see above 3 gig if it cannot, before starting a ramdisk project that may or may not help. Back in the DOS and Windows 3.11 days, a ramdisk was something I used regularly (as my machines usually had the max hardware recognized memory installed). In case anyone wants to see, here are the memory limits as prescribed by MS in their developer section. Just to give you an idea, both my daughters and Mrs' computer shipped with 32 bit versions of Vista and 2 gig of Memory. Both were the same Maker (Acer) and were purchased within months of each other, and even had the same Intel MB chipsets (but different processors) and same BIOS provider with verrrry close version numbers. When I popped 4 gig in recently, my daughters machine instantly went to 4 gig recognized by Windows, I had to BIOS upgrade my Mrs' box (which was the newer and faster of the two) in order for Vista to see all 4 gig. But as you point out, be warned when messing with this stuff, a botched BIOS upgrade can be verrrry bad. Make sure you have the EXACT correct version for your Motherboard, and back up your current version to a bootable USB drive so you can restore it if you crash it. Of the two, IMO, a BIOS upgrade should be tried before experimenting with a ramdisk. |
|
|
|
Post by dunkelfalke on Jan 13, 2010 17:03:14 GMT -5
Often you don't even need to update, just to enable the memory remapping option in the BIOS which is disabled by default.
|
|
;D