Radeon Ramdisk License Key 11
Hercules Montero
This software is for personal use only. If you would like to use this software for business/commercial use (or any purpose other than personal use), a commercial license fee and appropriate commercial license is required. The registration and payment of the commercial license fee is supported and made available through our website at -and-services/software/ramdisk by selecting the option for "Commercial Licenses" or by emailing ramdis...@dataram.com.
So, I have an MSI motherboard with Ryzen 5 2600. I have multiple drives in my gaming pc, 2x m.2 SSD, 2x HDD and 1x 2,5inch SSD. I installed StoreMI and I am using it for Data drives only (not bootable). A 2TB HDD combined with a 120GB Sandisk 2.5inch sata SSD with the 2GB RAM cache enabled. The benchmark CrystalDiskMark showed higher speeds, but when I load a game, its just a little faster then the other HDD (3TB). Even file transfers seems to be slowed down, but I am really sure if that is the case.
If you don't can reply with some respect and with an serious answer about my question: i don't want your reply. I ignore people like you. Don't get me wrong, it's only with people who don't take me serious and don't know what respect really is. But you can and you know that, right?
Yeah I get it, but StoreMi (webpage) says it's up to xX faster. And you say that if I combine a HDD with SSD is does not get much faster? While webpage says it does? Sorry, it's unclear. And sorry for my bad English.
Faster hardware means faster performance. AMD's benchmarks used Samsung Pro SSDs and WD Black SSDs. If you're using bargain basement components, then you're still going to be slow. Also, just because you have an NVMe drive doesn't mean you have NVMe performance, a Samsung 960 Pro and a WD Blue NVMe perform quite differently, for example.
To quote AMD's StoreMI webpage, "As you add more and faster drives to your PC, AMD StoreMI technology automatically pairs your most-used files with the fastest storage for peak performance. You can also use up to 2GB of RAM as a last-level cache for ultra-fast data." So yes, it works exactly like an SSHD, over time your most used files are moved to the SSD while the rest remain on the slow HDD, meaning it takes much longer to access those files.
High performance 2.5" SSD's are very inexpensive these days, 1TB drives can be found easily under $150, and that's what you need to have your games on, and high performance NVMe drives are also dropping quite quickly, a 512GB can also be found under $150, and that's what you should have your OS on. Bulk storage HDDs, that's for your media files.
Yeah for StoreMI. StoreMI can use 2GB of ram and no more then that. I just want to use more then 2GB for StoreMI because I have 32GB, but it has the 2GB limit. I just don't know why. I think it should be possible to enable more, like 4GB instead of the 2GB
The mindset of using C as boot only is a legacy more than 10years old. This is due to Windows Crashing and Blue Screen. Since Windows 7, the OS rarely crash till unrecoverable especially with restore point.
I don't asked the thing you said. Don't get me wrong, it's not very logical for me. Maybe it's logical for everyone, but not for me. The 120GB sata 2.5inch ssd + 2TB is more to test it first, to see the performace. For now I leave it as it is (my choice), maybe later a diffrent setup.
You may want to look at this:
I am using ROG RamDisk 2.0 and ROG RamCache II on ROG Crosshair Hero VII motherboard and it makes a difference for sure.
I am not too happy about all of the warnings with AMD StoreMI so there is no way I am going to use it for a main boot disk.
I will be testing it though.
Bye.
FuseDrive Basic is the lowest performance offering.
StoreMI is like FuseDrive Basic but supports 256GB Fast Tier SSD.
FuseDrive Plus looks like the one you are interested in. More "FuzeRam" - 4GB and largser Fast Tier SSD,
but if you want it you have to pony up sixty greenbacks for it.
(3). RE: Yeah, RAM is much faster, but I don't want a ramdisk.
OK if you use the "FuzeRAM" you are using part of your RAM as highspeed Ramdisk as part of the overall StoreMI / FuzeDrive solution.
StoreMI / FuzeDrive will allow Machine Intelligent solution to optimize most frequently used files on the "FuzeDrive" first then on the "Fast Tier SSD" then on the big slow hard drive. The technology is very similar to that used on SSHD's.
So FuzeRam is a small ramdisk? Didn't know that, kind of. Don't know wht but I thought you meant RamDisk, something like FuzeRAM with StoreMI (3 things), but is more like 2 thing? RamDisk (fuzeram) + StoreMI (for combining 2 drives).
Hi,
If you want something similar but cheaper you can try Download PrimoCache.
I use Primo Ramdisk - Powerful Disk Emulator to Create Ultra-Fast RAM-Disks on my Intel PC's and I also use
PrimoCache - Excellent Software Caching Solution to Accelerate Storage on those PC's to speed up large file transfer.
I tried out the GPURamDrive software by prsyahmi on GitHub and I created a 5 GB RAM Drive using my nVidia RTX 2060's GDDR6 RAM. I also later created a 4 GB RAM Drive using AMD's Radeon RamDisk software. Using CrystalDiskMark6, I ran benchmarks on both RAM Drives as well as my main Samsung 850 EVO SSD. The results surprised me, the GPU RamDisk did indeed have blazing fast sequential read/write speed but the Samsung SSD actually outperformed the GPU RamDisk in other tests by quite a bit too. And then compared to a traditional RamDisk using the system's DDR4 memory, it completely blew the GPU RamDisk out of the water.
Isn't GDDR6 and even the older GDDR5 memory used in GPU's supposed to be significantly faster than DDR4 RAM? And for that matter also significantly faster than flash memory? Is it a software issue? Or is there something about GDDR6 RAM than makes it inherently inferior to DRAM when used for RAM Disks?
The problem is that between your CPU and GPU is a (relatively) slow PCIe link and just then negotiate with the GPU for memory access. The CPU memory is connected directly to the CPU, while the GPU memory is intended for high speed access to the GPU.
I acknowledge that the theoretical bandwidth of an x16 PCIe link is of the order of 16GB/s, but that's a theoretical bandwidth and the GPU memory might be mapped into the PC general memory address space, but to actually write to it requires negotiation of at least two busses, one of which is being used already by the device which owns it (the GPU).
The GPU is using that memory to draw the screen, granted it may not be using a significant amount of bandwidth to draw your desktop, but it does mean some level of contention between your RAM disk and the onboard controller.
Then there are protocols involved. A protocol for the PCIe link, a protocol/API for asking the GPU to store something in memory, a protocol/driver on top of that to present a disk interface to the operating system (which probably uses CPU memory to do all the overheads and calculations and GPU memory to store the actual data).
There is also the problem that the particular driver you are using is working via a programming interface and that every time you attempt to read or write to a memory address in the RAM disk it has to be caught by the CPU, passed to the driver, converted to a memory location on the GPU by the driver, then the data transferred to or from the GPU. This would inherently involve a CPU based "memory copy" to go from the read location and be supplied to the driver. Everything in this stage, except for the final "put/gimme this bit of data" is entirely CPU constrained. The actual data transfer might be quite quick, but this is another overhead.
The GPU memory bandwidth should completely trounce your CPU memory bandwidth, but there are several more layers to access that memory. It is most efficient when doing bulk data handling internally rather than being used by a second source.
You are not "just" using the GPU as a ramdisk. There is a lot of CPU involvement in managing every step of the way and you are just using the GPU memory as a backing store via a lot of layers of interfaces.
Using GPU RAM isn't as fast as host main memory, however it is still faster than a regular HDD. ... This merely just a PoC (proof of concept), user who search for this kind of solution is advised to upgrade the RAM or buy a faster storage.
This driver provides support for four kinds of memory backed virtual disks: malloc, preload, vnode, swap. Disks may be created with the next command line tools: mdconfig and mdmfs. An example of how to use these programs follows.[3]
RapidDisk is a free and open source project containing a Linux kernel module and administration utility that functions similar to the Ramdiskadm of the Solaris (operating system). With the rxadm utility, the user is capable of dynamically attaching, removing, and resizing RAM disk volumes and treat them like any other block device.[4]
There are 2 differences between tmpfs and ramfs.[7]
1) the mounted space of ramfs is theorically infinite, as ramfs will grow if needed, which can easily cause system lockup or crash for using up all available memory, or start heavy swapping to free up more memory for the ramfs. For this reason limiting the size of a ramfs area can be recommendable.
2) tmpfs is backed by the computer's swap space
There are also many "wrappers" for the RAM disks for Linux as Profile-sync-daemon (psd) and many others allowing users to utilize RAM disk for desktop application speedup moving intensive IO for caches into RAM.
ImDisk Virtual Disk Driver is a disk image emulator created by Olof Lagerkvist. It is free and open-source software, and is available in 32- and 64-bit variants. It is digitally signed, which makes it compatible with 64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows without having to be run in Test mode. The 64-bit version has no practical limit to the size of RAM disk that may be created.
b37509886e