Second Life Forums Archive - (poor man's) Readyboost for SL

Gummi Richthofen

Fetish's Frasier Crane!

Join date: 3 Oct 2006

Posts: 605

02-10-2008 13:10

In a spirit of hacking about, I put a U3 USB storage key on the back of the Mac Pro here, formatted it for mac only and told the SL client to put it's cache on the USB key. Not entirely sure yet how much faster it really is, but initial indications are very promising.

shiney Sprocket

Registered User

Join date: 24 Jan 2006

Posts: 254

02-10-2008 13:23

From: Gummi Richthofen

In a spirit of hacking about, I put a U3 USB storage key on the back of the Mac Pro here, formatted it for mac only and told the SL client to put it's cache on the USB key. Not entirely sure yet how much faster it really is, but initial indications are very promising.

Do you know the specs for that USB storage key?

I wonder because I still think most average USB keys are slower then hard drives. But if you are low on ram, then it could still help as the page file would slow access time to the disk.

From wikipedia:
Hard Disk: "The data transfer rate at the inner zone ranges from 44.2 MB/s to 74.5 MB/s, while the transfer rate at the outer zone ranges from 74.0 MB/s to 111.4 MB/s. An HDD's random access time ranges from 5 ms to 15 ms."

Flash Drive: "Typical overall file transfer speeds are about 3 MB/s. The highest current overall file transfer speeds are about 10-30 MB/s. Older, "full speed" 12 Mbit/s devices are limited to a maximum of about 1 MB/s."

Also, keep in mind USB Keys have shorter lives with high usage like this then a disk drive.

Gummi Richthofen

Fetish's Frasier Crane!

Join date: 3 Oct 2006

Posts: 605

02-10-2008 14:33

I don't think any of that matters. It's not the transfer speed that is the issue; it is that your disk is ALREADY BUSY with something else, and the key acts as a secondary channel. Also, the other fact about USB keys is, they seek very very quickly, even if they move data very slowly: and you can't really fragment them. Fragmentation of the disk with the SL cache on it is still a problem...

But not on a device with a very low seek time, small capacity - and nothing else on it.

Dana Hickman

Leather & Lace™

Join date: 10 Oct 2006

Posts: 1,515

02-10-2008 15:21

From: Gummi Richthofen

I don't think any of that matters. It's not the transfer speed that is the issue; it is that your disk is ALREADY BUSY with something else, and the key acts as a secondary channel.

Is true, but be carefull because a USB key, or any flash storage drive doesn't have the typical 8mb cache that a harddrive does. What you write is in real time and it eats up extra higher-priority CPU cycles to do that. Also, if you have a lot of USB devices and a fast-polling usb gaming mouse you can oversaturate the usb bus and cause other errors.
USB2.0 effective data rate is 320Mbit/sec, which is ~40MB a second. A good flash drive can handle 30MB a second. Add on a Logitech G5 or Razer Copperhead gaming mouse and possibly a usb keyboard and your usb bus is now a performance-limiting bottleneck.

Anya Ristow

Vengeance Studio

Join date: 21 Sep 2006

Posts: 1,243

02-10-2008 17:45

I just upgraded my machine and now have 3.5G RAM available (out of 4G), which is 1.5G more than I used to have, so I decided to use 1G of it for an SL cache using this...

http://www.cenatek.com/product_page_ramdisk.php

If you have a Mac Pro or other machine with a 64-bit OS you should be able to add lots of RAM and use some of it for cache. Under Linux (and probably Mac) you don't even need any special software. A RAMDisk should outperform a USB memory stick by far.

Here's another option I've considered, which wouldn't use up any of my system RAM:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480

I just wish everything worked with 64-bit Windows so I could just load my machine up with another 4G.

Cascadius Fizgig

Back from the future

Join date: 7 Apr 2007

Posts: 28

02-10-2008 21:33

Ready boost is
a) The stupidest way to caching anything.
b) The one of smartest (miss)-marketing campaigns associated with Vista.

Flash memory can only be written to a limited amount of times before is begins to fail. Under normal use (saving files etc) it is unlikely that the total number of possible write cycles will every be reached. However if using flash memory as any form of cache, the lifetime of the flash memory will be exceeded very quickly. MS Vista supposedly takes this into account when writing to a Flash device, but trying to emulate this behaviour in another OS is not practical. The only real solution to RAM deficiencies is to install more RAM (and that's inclusive of Vista).

As suggested by Anya, the best way to speed up the SL cache is to create a RAM disk.

Gummi Richthofen

Fetish's Frasier Crane!

Join date: 3 Oct 2006

Posts: 605

02-11-2008 05:41

From: Cascadius Fizgig

Ready boost is
a) The stupidest way to caching anything.
b) The one of smartest (miss)-marketing campaigns associated with Vista.

Flash memory can only be written to a limited amount of times before is begins to fail. Under normal use (saving files etc) it is unlikely that the total number of possible write cycles will every be reached. However if using flash memory as any form of cache, the lifetime of the flash memory will be exceeded very quickly. MS Vista supposedly takes this into account when writing to a Flash device, but trying to emulate this behaviour in another OS is not practical. The only real solution to RAM deficiencies is to install more RAM (and that's inclusive of Vista).

As suggested by Anya, the best way to speed up the SL cache is to create a RAM disk.

Ok, I'm irritated now. So much advice based on zero research: I didn't SAY I was using Readyboost; in fact if you read the root message you might just notice I said I was using a MAC... which doesn't HAVE readyboost. What's more, you don't back up your assertion about the rewritability of flash with any actual cases - I have yet to hear, or see, any flash memory device actually cease to function for this reason. Hard disks have limited rewritability too, but that doesn't stop us using them.

And the issue of RAMdisks and indedd, RAM cache is an entirely moot point - those WOULD be good *IF* they were actually used - I recall the same kind of loud, confident and wrong approach being taken by people when Windows started doing RAID5 in software - brilliant solution, they crowed, far superior to hardware RAID, look at hte resources it has... of course, it ran like a dog.

Please, a) READ what you are commenting to and b) TRY stuff before you pundit about it.

As for the mac - specific stuff here: moving the mac /temp folders is not a trivial matter. I suspect they are a major performance bottleneck once one is not just a home user on an 80Gb disk, but Apple really didn't intend them to be moved around...

Void Singer

Int vSelf = Sing(void);

Join date: 24 Sep 2005

Posts: 6,973

02-11-2008 07:12

the circumstances under which usb 2.0 would work better or fater than your local HD have more to do with memory fragmentation, and excessive disk activity more than anything else...

if your HD is thrashed, slower reads
if your HD is being constantly accessed by other background apps, slower reads

I'd love help more, but I've no clue how to optimize a Mac.

one thing that MIGHT help, is to limit the sl cache to a drive that is NOT the one being used by the OS. assuming you have more than one.

I've actually run SL in it's entirety from a flash drive, on a library computer (to get around installation limits) but I don't reccomend it.

_____________________

|
| . "Cat-Like Typing Detected"
| . This post may contain errors in logic, spelling, and
| . grammar known to the SL populace to cause confusion
|
| - Please Use PHP tags when posting scripts/code, Thanks.
| - Can't See PHP or URL Tags Correctly? Check Out This Link...
| -

Cascadius Fizgig

Back from the future

Join date: 7 Apr 2007

Posts: 28

02-11-2008 17:18

From: Gummi Richthofen

Ok, I'm irritated now. So much advice based on zero research: I didn't SAY I was using Readyboost; in fact if you read the root message you might just notice I said I was using a MAC... .

Perhaps you should re-read my post. The comments were directed towards using flash memory as a cache like device. I take it your glass house is laminated as you, yourself titled the tread "Poor Mans Ready Boost". Am well aware that your talking about a MAC... I commented on duplicating the functions of Readyboost on other OS's as not being a good idea. That would seem to address your MAC issue, would it not?

From: Gummi Richthofen

I have yet to hear, or see, any flash memory device actually cease to function for this reason. Hard disks have limited rewritability too, but that doesn't stop us using them.

I suggest having a good read of... oh lets say the "San Disk" website, and take note of the specifications listed against there flash products. Then run your own comparison against similar specs listed by a hard drive manufacturer of your choice.

From: Gummi Richthofen

Please, a) READ what you are commenting to and b) TRY stuff before you pundit about it.

a) stop being a condescending twat when people are offering advice.
b) Feel free to run your own flash drive experiment, I am quite happy with my own flash devices and I really don't fancy trashing them just to prove a point.

One final suggestion. go to the nearest window, open it and scream "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore". There, I hope that made you feel better.

(poor man's) Readyboost for SL
Gummi Richthofen Fetish's Frasier Crane! Join date: 3 Oct 2006 Posts: 605	02-10-2008 13:10 In a spirit of hacking about, I put a U3 USB storage key on the back of the Mac Pro here, formatted it for mac only and told the SL client to put it's cache on the USB key. Not entirely sure yet how much faster it really is, but initial indications are very promising.
shiney Sprocket Registered User Join date: 24 Jan 2006 Posts: 254	02-10-2008 13:23 From: Gummi Richthofen In a spirit of hacking about, I put a U3 USB storage key on the back of the Mac Pro here, formatted it for mac only and told the SL client to put it's cache on the USB key. Not entirely sure yet how much faster it really is, but initial indications are very promising. Do you know the specs for that USB storage key? I wonder because I still think most average USB keys are slower then hard drives. But if you are low on ram, then it could still help as the page file would slow access time to the disk. From wikipedia: Hard Disk: "The data transfer rate at the inner zone ranges from 44.2 MB/s to 74.5 MB/s, while the transfer rate at the outer zone ranges from 74.0 MB/s to 111.4 MB/s. An HDD's random access time ranges from 5 ms to 15 ms." Flash Drive: "Typical overall file transfer speeds are about 3 MB/s. The highest current overall file transfer speeds are about 10-30 MB/s. Older, "full speed" 12 Mbit/s devices are limited to a maximum of about 1 MB/s." Also, keep in mind USB Keys have shorter lives with high usage like this then a disk drive.
Gummi Richthofen Fetish's Frasier Crane! Join date: 3 Oct 2006 Posts: 605	02-10-2008 14:33 I don't think any of that matters. It's not the transfer speed that is the issue; it is that your disk is ALREADY BUSY with something else, and the key acts as a secondary channel. Also, the other fact about USB keys is, they seek very very quickly, even if they move data very slowly: and you can't really fragment them. Fragmentation of the disk with the SL cache on it is still a problem... But not on a device with a very low seek time, small capacity - and nothing else on it.
Dana Hickman Leather & Lace™ Join date: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 1,515	02-10-2008 15:21 From: Gummi Richthofen I don't think any of that matters. It's not the transfer speed that is the issue; it is that your disk is ALREADY BUSY with something else, and the key acts as a secondary channel. Is true, but be carefull because a USB key, or any flash storage drive doesn't have the typical 8mb cache that a harddrive does. What you write is in real time and it eats up extra higher-priority CPU cycles to do that. Also, if you have a lot of USB devices and a fast-polling usb gaming mouse you can oversaturate the usb bus and cause other errors. USB2.0 effective data rate is 320Mbit/sec, which is ~40MB a second. A good flash drive can handle 30MB a second. Add on a Logitech G5 or Razer Copperhead gaming mouse and possibly a usb keyboard and your usb bus is now a performance-limiting bottleneck.
Anya Ristow Vengeance Studio Join date: 21 Sep 2006 Posts: 1,243	02-10-2008 17:45 I just upgraded my machine and now have 3.5G RAM available (out of 4G), which is 1.5G more than I used to have, so I decided to use 1G of it for an SL cache using this... http://www.cenatek.com/product_page_ramdisk.php If you have a Mac Pro or other machine with a 64-bit OS you should be able to add lots of RAM and use some of it for cache. Under Linux (and probably Mac) you don't even need any special software. A RAMDisk should outperform a USB memory stick by far. Here's another option I've considered, which wouldn't use up any of my system RAM: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480 I just wish everything worked with 64-bit Windows so I could just load my machine up with another 4G.
Cascadius Fizgig Back from the future Join date: 7 Apr 2007 Posts: 28	02-10-2008 21:33 Ready boost is a) The stupidest way to caching anything. b) The one of smartest (miss)-marketing campaigns associated with Vista. Flash memory can only be written to a limited amount of times before is begins to fail. Under normal use (saving files etc) it is unlikely that the total number of possible write cycles will every be reached. However if using flash memory as any form of cache, the lifetime of the flash memory will be exceeded very quickly. MS Vista supposedly takes this into account when writing to a Flash device, but trying to emulate this behaviour in another OS is not practical. The only real solution to RAM deficiencies is to install more RAM (and that's inclusive of Vista). As suggested by Anya, the best way to speed up the SL cache is to create a RAM disk.
Gummi Richthofen Fetish's Frasier Crane! Join date: 3 Oct 2006 Posts: 605	02-11-2008 05:41 From: Cascadius Fizgig Ready boost is a) The stupidest way to caching anything. b) The one of smartest (miss)-marketing campaigns associated with Vista. Flash memory can only be written to a limited amount of times before is begins to fail. Under normal use (saving files etc) it is unlikely that the total number of possible write cycles will every be reached. However if using flash memory as any form of cache, the lifetime of the flash memory will be exceeded very quickly. MS Vista supposedly takes this into account when writing to a Flash device, but trying to emulate this behaviour in another OS is not practical. The only real solution to RAM deficiencies is to install more RAM (and that's inclusive of Vista). As suggested by Anya, the best way to speed up the SL cache is to create a RAM disk. Ok, I'm irritated now. So much advice based on zero research: I didn't SAY I was using Readyboost; in fact if you read the root message you might just notice I said I was using a MAC... which doesn't HAVE readyboost. What's more, you don't back up your assertion about the rewritability of flash with any actual cases - I have yet to hear, or see, any flash memory device actually cease to function for this reason. Hard disks have limited rewritability too, but that doesn't stop us using them. And the issue of RAMdisks and indedd, RAM cache is an entirely moot point - those WOULD be good IF they were actually used - I recall the same kind of loud, confident and wrong approach being taken by people when Windows started doing RAID5 in software - brilliant solution, they crowed, far superior to hardware RAID, look at hte resources it has... of course, it ran like a dog. Please, a) READ what you are commenting to and b) TRY stuff before you pundit about it. As for the mac - specific stuff here: moving the mac /temp folders is not a trivial matter. I suspect they are a major performance bottleneck once one is not just a home user on an 80Gb disk, but Apple really didn't intend them to be moved around...
Void Singer Int vSelf = Sing(void); Join date: 24 Sep 2005 Posts: 6,973	02-11-2008 07:12 the circumstances under which usb 2.0 would work better or fater than your local HD have more to do with memory fragmentation, and excessive disk activity more than anything else... if your HD is thrashed, slower reads if your HD is being constantly accessed by other background apps, slower reads I'd love help more, but I've no clue how to optimize a Mac. one thing that MIGHT help, is to limit the sl cache to a drive that is NOT the one being used by the OS. assuming you have more than one. I've actually run SL in it's entirety from a flash drive, on a library computer (to get around installation limits) but I don't reccomend it. _____________________ \| \| . "Cat-Like Typing Detected" \| . This post may contain errors in logic, spelling, and \| . grammar known to the SL populace to cause confusion \| \| - Please Use PHP tags when posting scripts/code, Thanks. \| - Can't See PHP or URL Tags Correctly? Check Out This Link... \| -
Cascadius Fizgig Back from the future Join date: 7 Apr 2007 Posts: 28	02-11-2008 17:18 From: Gummi Richthofen Ok, I'm irritated now. So much advice based on zero research: I didn't SAY I was using Readyboost; in fact if you read the root message you might just notice I said I was using a MAC... . Perhaps you should re-read my post. The comments were directed towards using flash memory as a cache like device. I take it your glass house is laminated as you, yourself titled the tread "Poor Mans Ready Boost". Am well aware that your talking about a MAC... I commented on duplicating the functions of Readyboost on other OS's as not being a good idea. That would seem to address your MAC issue, would it not? From: Gummi Richthofen I have yet to hear, or see, any flash memory device actually cease to function for this reason. Hard disks have limited rewritability too, but that doesn't stop us using them. I suggest having a good read of... oh lets say the "San Disk" website, and take note of the specifications listed against there flash products. Then run your own comparison against similar specs listed by a hard drive manufacturer of your choice. From: Gummi Richthofen Please, a) READ what you are commenting to and b) TRY stuff before you pundit about it. a) stop being a condescending twat when people are offering advice. b) Feel free to run your own flash drive experiment, I am quite happy with my own flash devices and I really don't fancy trashing them just to prove a point. One final suggestion. go to the nearest window, open it and scream "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore". There, I hope that made you feel better.

Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

(poor man's) Readyboost for SL