Ramdisk

MindYerBeak · Post by **MindYerBeak** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:45 pm

Does anyone know anything about Ramdisks? If I were to load Everchron into it would I be able to save games? I understand a Ramdisk runs much faster than off a hard drive.

Post by **Marvin** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:53 pm

Since the game is saved to your pilot profile and your profile is normally in the main game folder on your C: drive, where is the save when running the game from a ram stick? (Is that the same thing as a thumb drive?)

MindYerBeak · Post by **MindYerBeak** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:23 pm

So a Ramdisk would save my files to the C:\\ drive rather than the Ramdisk? It would seem logical.

I was thinking that games would run faster using a Ramdisk as opposed to HDD, which is far slower than memory.

Post by **Marvin** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:30 pm

Originally posted by Eclipse

The ramdisk software I've been testing is free (not trial or demo) and can save/load disk images.

Oh ... that kind of ram disk. Isn't that just an advanced version of "preloading textures" ... or not?

Ohsirus · Post by **Ohsirus** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:55 pm

Isn't Legends memory foot print a little under a gig? I never even notice any hard-drive activity when playing. Depending on your specs it might not even matter using a ramdisk. What exactly are you trying improve using one? fps, gameloading?

[Edited on 8-12-2010 by Ohsirus]

MindYerBeak · Post by **MindYerBeak** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:25 pm

I was hoping to improve both with games. Or even use it to load Windoze faster.

NewPlayer · Post by **NewPlayer** » Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:39 am

Originally posted by MindYerBeak
I was hoping to improve both with games. Or even use it to load Windoze faster.

Well alternatively, why don't you just use an SSD?

Everything loads up and runs much, much quicker - windows, applications, games the lot, and you don't need extra third party software.

I use the Intel flavour and it's excellent. Wouldn't go back to a mechanical drive again.

MindYerBeak · Post by **MindYerBeak** » Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:32 pm

I'll look into those. I've been out of the circuit for a while and haven't been keeping up. SATA and SSD are all new to me. Thanks for all the info, folks.

GORF · Post by **GORF** » Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:55 pm

WD Raptors have dropped a bunch in price,more space for the $ and thet are very fast ,esp. when run in pairs in raid .

tk7223 · Post by **tk7223** » Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:35 pm

If you look at actual random file access times per $....10,000 rpm raptors are much better. I looked into doing an SSD for my OS and I just couldn't justify the cost. I think in a few years it will become much more affordable and systems will be demanding faster file transfers. ....(throws his two cents down)...

MindYerBeak · Post by **MindYerBeak** » Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:34 pm

Cor blimey, guv, I thought 7,200 rpm was fast. Now we're up to 10,000. SSD appears to be even faster. Thanks for the advice. I'm currently building a new rig and will be needing a new HDD. SSD appears to be even faster. SSD is expensive, though, due to the new technology. I need to do some research to decide between a Velociraptor or an SSD.

Maarschalk · Post by **Maarschalk** » Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:40 pm

LOL........10,000rpms have been out for a while......and now that SSD is on the market the prices for the 10,000rpms are coming down.....

:P:P:P:P

verbosity · Post by **verbosity** » Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:48 pm

Originally posted by MindYerBeakSSD appears to be even faster. SSD is expensive, though,

yup, SSD also has a (potentially ) shorter lifespan, having a limited amount of read/writes that can be accomplished.

Seriously, a bunch of 7,200's in raid will give you better performance than your machine will ever need ( the bottlenecks are mostly elsewhere ). go for a faster disk speed if you need, but SSD's ( atm ) are for situations where normal HDD's are likely to fail quickly ( atm mobile devices mostly )