About RAMDisk Usage

apisorder

n00b
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
22
I remember when SSDs weren't so relatively inexpensive, people used to talk about the benefit of RAMDisk, especially under Windows 7 (or if they use Photoshop.)
I have never done it myself, but I was wondering if RAMDisk is still so useful if we only use SSDs and in Windows 10?
Are there any adverse effects to using RAMDisk?
Thanks.
 
I would think with the commonality oif 64bit windows and the ability to cheaply buy 64gb+ memory you really shouldnt need a ramdisk except for in some minor use cases.

The only time I could see it being effective today would be if you are editing video footage. Ramdisk are also used in places where you do not want to see alot of writes to solid state, such as a pfsense router updating logs to a usb stick. You can turn on a small ramdisk for those logs.

With that said, nothing is stopping you from installing 64gb and giving half to a ramdisk utility in windows. As for adverse effects? You should have a good reason to do it or you are restricting half your memory from windows.
 
Are there any adverse effects to using RAMDisk?

The need to fill the ramdisk when booting and write the data back to storage when shutting down. Obviously you lose your changes if the power goes out. Then there is fact that unless you have a server its not like you can create a 256GB ramdisk.
 
Last edited:
I like to use ramdisks as primary storage for virtual machines. Also for testing transfer speeds of networks and file servers.
 
I like to use ramdisks as primary storage for virtual machines. Also for testing transfer speeds of networks and file servers.
So if I have no needs for any of these, I don't need one, right? Thanks.
 
I would not recommend ram disk in general. You have to realize that if you are using a software solution, you are taking away ram that could be used as a disk cache which is essential a dynamic ram disk that tries to fill it up with relevant data constantly.

I do have a small 256mb ram disk myself. I sometimes use it for massive brute force compression. since its the samme small amount of data getting read/write constantlly and i want to make sure the writes are not hitting my SSD
 
I have 128GB in my workstation now, and I typically allocate 80GB to a RAM disk when I am working on photo editing. I keep the Adobe Lightroom catalog and imported files on the RAM disk and this significantly improves the usability with things like generating previews in real time.
 
I have 128GB in my workstation now, and I typically allocate 80GB to a RAM disk when I am working on photo editing. I keep the Adobe Lightroom catalog and imported files on the RAM disk and this significantly improves the usability with things like generating previews in real time.
Thanks, but it's a lot of ram to buy in your scenario and it's very expensive.
 
it depends. if you have a mobo that can support a huge amount of dimms its pretty easy to get a cheap ramdisk. if you never turn your computer on and off you will only see the plus of having it. i nomaly have a few programs in a 20 gig ramdisk. and i have a 256 gig one in my server that i use for vms
 
I'd invest in real PCI-e flash vs ramdisk...

Ramdisk is pretty inefficient in that the CPU has to do all reads and writes twice for every operation. Data must be read out of ramdisk, pushed into main memory, then read, then written/changed back to memory, then written back to block storage in the ramdisk...

That's a lot of unneeded context switching.
 
The best NVMe/PCI-E based SSDs are pretty much left standing still by a RAMdisk, that fact is just not going to change anytime soon nor really be any grounds for an argument or debate on it ever. ;)

Even with the minor performance hit with a RAMdisk based on it using some CPU time, the sheer fact that a) the speed is still leaps and bounds beyond any other type of storage, b) it doesn't wear out so you can use it for practical purposes forever, and c) SSDs do actually wear out (even the best of them using the newest technologies) I'd still use a RAMdisk for scratch disk purposes any day and twice on a Sunday over any SSD available now or for years to come. But that's just me I guess, been using RAMdisks for many things since the early 1980s and have always known what they're capable of when used properly.

And by properly I don't just mean "I'm gonna install this RAMdisk software and it'll make my machine fast!" because it's a bit more complex than that overall.

I've always recommended to people to buy as much RAM as your machine can support as long as you can afford it - that doesn't mean sacrifice everything for that aspect because not everyone needs or even makes use of such vast amounts of RAM but, when it's used properly - as that one poster above stated with 128GB of system RAM with 80GB dedicated to photographic work, he/she (sorry) knows how to properly make use of it and more than likely does, might even be using that machine for earning a living I don't know.

But again, when it's used properly it can make a far bigger difference in system performance than the fastest SSD technology out there in terms of actual productivity and usage and I clarified that because obviously we can't boot computers from a RAMdisk like I'd love to do and was doing with an Amiga 500 in 1984. Seriously, you could set it up so it booted from RAM after a warm reboot (cold meaning a full system reset, warm meaning from an already powered on state). I had 2MB of RAM in my A500 and I set it up to use a 512K RAMdisk that it would boot from without issues, was some awesome stuff to see and damned sure faster than the floppies. ;)

Yes RAM is volatile but, with a fast SSD in the system you can have most of the better RAMdisk software "image" the RAMdisk at regular intervals so not much is lost in case of a potential issue/software crash.
 
The best NVMe/PCI-E based SSDs are pretty much left standing still by a RAMdisk, that fact is just not going to change anytime soon nor really be any grounds for an argument or debate on it ever. ;)

Even with the minor performance hit with a RAMdisk based on it using some CPU time, the sheer fact that
a) the speed is still leaps and bounds beyond any other type of storage,
b) it doesn't wear out so you can use it for practical purposes forever, and
c) SSDs do actually wear out (even the best of them using the newest technologies)

I'd still use a RAMdisk for scratch disk purposes any day and twice on a Sunday over any SSD available now or for years to come. But that's just me I guess, been using RAMdisks for many things since the early 1980s and have always known what they're capable of when used properly.
You'd think so, but I just spent the last 6 years at Fusion-io building database systems on flash that were cheaper and faster than databases running in ramdisk.
The biggest enterprise issue with running databases in ramdisk is the time to read all that data into DRAM, and then park it out to disk periodically.
When you run the whole thing in flash, you don't have to do that stuff. Not to mention that flash can keep up with any database workload coming in via gig-e or 10Gig-e.

Also, flash is a fraction of the cost of DRAM.

Ramdisk will certainly run circles around some sata SSDs, but I've been putting together flash systems with over 60GB/sec of theoretical throughput to the filesystem (actual single CPU socket can't push more than ~30GB/sec).

At those speeds, there's no point in trying to deal with a ramdisk.

As for your A/B/C points.
A) see above
B/C) good enterprise NAND flash devices will have over 30 petabytes of write longevity per device (ours did)... We never had anyone wear one out, plus you tend to have more than one in a system, spreading out that wear life well beyond 20+ years.

I built one setup around Elastic Search that ingested 30TB/day with an estimated wear-life of 144 years.
 
Thanks, but it's a lot of ram to buy in your scenario and it's very expensive.


True. But this is [H], and sometimes we do things because we can, not necessarily because they are practical or cost effective.

I bought the ram on sale at newegg for about $425, by the way.
 
I'd invest in real PCI-e flash vs ramdisk...

Ramdisk is pretty inefficient in that the CPU has to do all reads and writes twice for every operation. Data must be read out of ramdisk, pushed into main memory, then read, then written/changed back to memory, then written back to block storage in the ramdisk...

That's a lot of unneeded context switching.

I will probably pick up a Samsung 950Pro one of these days. I doubt it will be faster than a ramdisk for my specific application, but it will certainly be a step up for the OS. and other applications I use.
 
The 950s are nice, but still don't have the wear life of an enterprise PCI-e SSD. They just don't have enough flash onboard, nor enough over-provisioning to deal with steady-state write workloads.

They are great for desktop/laptop use though. I have one in my laptop and my desktop. My desktop also has two 1.2TB Fusion-io drives in it amongst some slower sata SSDs as well.
 
You'd think so, but I just spent the last 6 years at Fusion-io ... *snip*

While this is still primarily an enthusiast community (meaning [H]) and I know a lot of members here happen to work in the industry itself - I did, for several decades since the early 1980s, and many other members are currently part of it - so we're still basically using consumer-level hardware overall. Yes there are times where some of us use enterprise-level hardware for a variety of purposes but I seriously doubt anybody around here, except maybe you because of your access and experience with Fusion-io, would have access to such types of hardware with spec like the items you just mentioned.

I know someday we'll all have hardware that can do most anything instantly or at least so fast that measuring the performance timing takes more time than the actual process does making the testing somewhat superfluous but until then a RAMdisk would still be my recommendation for extreme performance in terms of reads/writes for consumer-level hardware even for us enthusiasts that might use the actual dollar cost to determine. You just stated you've got a few Fusion-io drives in your own desktop and I did state that you would probably have access to or even own some of that type of hardware - I'd love to have that kind of high level performance hardware myself but, being retired now means I don't get to jump on the latest and greatest anytime I want. ;)

Anyway, your points are relevant but for most of us, enthusiasts or not, I think a big RAMdisk can still help improve performance above and beyond consumer level high performance SSDs given the state of things which of course is accelerating at a rapid clip itself.
 
You can get lots of used Fusion-io gear on ebay for cheap... I've been picking up 1.2TB ioDrive IIs for $400 ea... that's cheaper than what my internal price was.

As long as the person can provide you the output of the "fio-status -a" command, you can be pretty assured that the devices are good and can see the exact wear life on it.

$400 for 1.2TB of enterprise flash capable of sustaining 1.5GB/sec 24x7 is pretty darn good.
 
Well I do use a ram disk and mainly it's just to keep windows from using my SSD as a temp drive. For the most part it works fine and I allocated 6GB of my 32GB towards it. I notice no real speed advantages in this kind of setup but there are situations where it doesn't work out. For example some installers won't work if your temp drive isn't on C: (for me that is the installer that comes with Directory Opus). I already told support about it but they made a note but never fixed it. Can't blame them though I am probably an rare user that uses a RAM disk. Still the fix is simple, just change the temp back to c: install then change it back to the ram disk after and it all works. Same thing can happen if you try to unzip a large file from the 7zip archive manager. It decompresses the file to your temp drive and then copies it to the location you dragged and dropped the file to. Interestingly right clicking and dragging the zip to the destination and selecting unzip from the menu doesn't use the temp space it directly unzips to the directory.

The one nice advantage of a ram disk as your temp drive is that it is really wiped out every reboot. It really is nice as lots of times when the temp directory has lots of crap left behind by installers and the like. Funny thing is I looked in my c: windows temp and noticed it still eating 4GB and has crap from 2007 still in there.
 
Last edited:
Well I do use a ram disk and mainly it's just to keep windows from using my SSD as a temp drive. For the most part it works fine and I allocated 6GB of my 32GB towards it. I notice no real speed advantages in this kind of setup but there are situations where it doesn't work out. For example some installers won't work if your temp drive isn't on C: (for me that is the installer that comes with Directory Opus). I already told support about it but they made a note but never fixed it. Can't blame them though I am probably an rare user that uses a RAM disk. Still the fix is simple, just change the temp back to c: install then change it back to the ram disk after and it all works. Same thing can happen if you try to unzip a large file from the 7zip archive manager. It decompresses the file to your temp drive and then copies it to the location you dragged and dropped the file to. Interestingly right clicking and dragging the zip to the destination and selecting unzip from the menu doesn't use the temp space it directly unzips to the directory.

The one nice advantage of a ram disk as your temp drive is that it is really wiped out every reboot. It really is nice as lots of times when the temp directory has lots of crap left behind by installers and the like. Funny thing is I looked in my c: windows temp and noticed it still eating 4GB and has crap from 2007 still in there.

You know you can clean up your temp folder, right? :p Don't even need a third party tool - windows disk cleanup can do it. I often use ccleaner because I find disk cleanup to be a little clunky but my temp folder is... 120KB right now. Sometimes it will grow but then I have ccleaner running as a scheduled task every night so it doesn't matter.

I don't bother with RAMdisks anymore, mainly because I've found it to makes little to no difference for gaming vs a SSD (sometimes even vs a HDD), which is pretty much the only thing I could use it for.
 
I used to use sysinternals sdelete and run this nightly in a scheduled batch file.

sdelete -s -q C:\Users\%username%\AppData\Local\Temp
sdelete -s -q C:\Users\%username%\AppData\Temp
sdelete -s -q C:\Users\%username%\Temp

It's not really effective on an SSD though due to most all of them being log-structured.

You can do similar though...
 
You know you can clean up your temp folder, right? :p Don't even need a third party tool - windows disk cleanup can do it. I often use ccleaner because I find disk cleanup to be a little clunky but my temp folder is... 120KB right now. Sometimes it will grow but then I have ccleaner running as a scheduled task every night so it doesn't matter.

I don't bother with RAMdisks anymore, mainly because I've found it to makes little to no difference for gaming vs a SSD (sometimes even vs a HDD), which is pretty much the only thing I could use it for.
Yeah I know I use to clean it manually all the time but then I started using a ram disk and haven't even gone into the directory since I checked it when I posted. ;)

I still like the ram disk though, great for when I want to download a PDF or unzip a file that I am not going to keep around. Also go for debugging some batch files that manipulate directories and their contents. :)
 
You'd think so, but I just spent the last 6 years at Fusion-io building database systems on flash that were cheaper and faster than databases running in ramdisk.
The biggest enterprise issue with running databases in ramdisk is the time to read all that data into DRAM, and then park it out to disk periodically.
When you run the whole thing in flash, you don't have to do that stuff. Not to mention that flash can keep up with any database workload coming in via gig-e or 10Gig-e.

Also, flash is a fraction of the cost of DRAM.

Ramdisk will certainly run circles around some sata SSDs, but I've been putting together flash systems with over 60GB/sec of theoretical throughput to the filesystem (actual single CPU socket can't push more than ~30GB/sec).

At those speeds, there's no point in trying to deal with a ramdisk.

As for your A/B/C points.
A) see above
B/C) good enterprise NAND flash devices will have over 30 petabytes of write longevity per device (ours did)... We never had anyone wear one out, plus you tend to have more than one in a system, spreading out that wear life well beyond 20+ years.

I built one setup around Elastic Search that ingested 30TB/day with an estimated wear-life of 144 years.

If you work at Fusion-IO you should hook us up with some "sample/demo/accidentally misplaced" PCI-e SSDs... :D
 
Taking advantage of the topic, do actually exist a software that creates the virtual drive (after a reboot) and copy (from a ssd) the files ? And obviously copy them back in the shutdown process ?

The last time i messed with ramdrive was in 2006 :( !
 
Ram disks kick butt! My current setups obliterate my Samsung 950 Pro, and even my 8x-Sandforce LSI Raid 0 rig.

atto.jpg

cd.jpg
 
Ram disks kick butt! My current setups obliterate my Samsung 950 Pro, and even my 8x-Sandforce LSI Raid 0 rig.

The problem with these kinds of benchmarks is the same reason samsung rapid mode fakes benchmark
These benchmark doesn't show real-world applications because they don't show system performance.
These kind fo benchmark bypasses the cache to measure the actual device. which is niece for measuring two different kinds of drives, but not for two different kinds of system configuration because you don't get the effect from the entire cache.

The cache in your system is used to minimze the gap between well ramdisk and a non ramdisk by coyping data into memory and act like a "Dynmaic ramdisk"
and as said before you have to realize by adding this memory disk you are taking away ram that could be used for cache. so you might end up hurting overall performance even though you benchmark on just this little corner of the machine looks better.

basically
1: You are looking at the benefits i without taking into account the cost.
2: you are not seeing real world speed with a cache in effect to minimize the gap.
 
Last edited:
Alright, quit with the synthetic benchmarks, run an actual application against your ramdisk and 950 pro.
 
Just as a FYI, it looks as if Softperfect RAM Disk is no longer free. So if you are interested in trying out a ram disk, go download the older v3.4.8 version from some file mirror site as of v4.x it's a 30 day trial and requires a purchase to continue to use it.
 
Back
Top