Windows ReadyBoost does it actually work?

nailgunner said:

exo said:

Strange, my 7 with 4gb installed let me use ReadyBoost on two 8gb flash drives at the same time. I ended up removing the slower one because I don't have any other flash drives and I've heard ReadyBoost wears them out pretty quick... and it just seemed like it would be overkill and probably wouldn't be worth it since the other drive had a lot lower access time and higher data rates. From what I've heard 2.5x your physical ram is about as much useful readyboost space as you can get.

Per Microsoft, a flash drive dedicated to ReadyBoost should last 10 years. Take it for what it's worth because I'm sure they won't refund the price of a worn out drive. But supposedly they improved ReadyBoost for Windows 7. It will now take 8 devices up to 256GB. I still haven't heard what possible use there is for that much ability.

What I'm confused about is what kind of system will actually see a performance boost? I would assume, anyone with 1GB and below should see a boost whereas people with 3-4GB won't see much. What say you?

nabilalk said:

nailgunner said:

exo said:

Strange, my 7 with 4gb installed let me use ReadyBoost on two 8gb flash drives at the same time. I ended up removing the slower one because I don't have any other flash drives and I've heard ReadyBoost wears them out pretty quick... and it just seemed like it would be overkill and probably wouldn't be worth it since the other drive had a lot lower access time and higher data rates. From what I've heard 2.5x your physical ram is about as much useful readyboost space as you can get.

Per Microsoft, a flash drive dedicated to ReadyBoost should last 10 years. Take it for what it's worth because I'm sure they won't refund the price of a worn out drive. But supposedly they improved ReadyBoost for Windows 7. It will now take 8 devices up to 256GB. I still haven't heard what possible use there is for that much ability.

What I'm confused about is what kind of system will actually see a performance boost? I would assume, anyone with 1GB and below should see a boost whereas people with 3-4GB won't see much. What say you?

I have 4gb installed and have been using a 16gb ReadyBoost. I haven't noticed any real change but didn't expect to from what I read prior to setting it up. However, my computer is fairly new and with all the messing around I've been doing to it, I would have no idea what ReadyBoost has or hasn't done anyway. It's quick now, but it was quick out of the box. I'll be testing it on some photo editing programs that were slow as heck on XP. Gonna do a with and without ReadyBoost test, but I'm not expecting any real difference. I'm still unbelievably curious about what application would make use of 256GB ReadyBoost. All I can find is that it's available, but nothing on what it would be used for. Maybe Microsoft is planning a time-warp or Star Trek transporter program in the near future.

It's no substitute for simply increasing physical RAM.

It's a page file on a stick.

Yea...I know...half the people say that...and the other half say something else and the other 3/4's say something all totally new. Seriously this is as bad as the joke about asking 5 economists a question and getting 10 opinions. I can link you to page after page of "experts" who agree with you and page after page of "experts" who don't think you have a clue. So who's an impressionable young lad suppose to listen to? I would flip a coin but it would land on the edge.

nailgunner said:

Yea...I know...half the people say that...and the other half say something else and the other 3/4's say something all totally new. Seriously this is as bad as the joke about asking 5 economists a question and getting 10 opinions. I can link you to page after page of "experts" who agree with you and page after page of "experts" who don't think you have a clue. So who's an impressionable young lad suppose to listen to? I would flip a coin but it would land on the edge.

Make your own decision by trying it as I did.

cluberti said:

the more RAM in a system, the less need for readyboost (because superfetch does the same thing, basically - and it's smarter about it too).

Superprefetch is the premier genius feature of Win7.

cluberti said:

Readyboost isn't RAM, it's extending the HDD cache. However, superfetch does a LOT of the same thing by pre-caching files you are most likely to use (and it learns over time to try and get really good at it) into RAM itself - therefore, the more RAM you have, the better superfetch is going to work (it can cache a heck of a lot more files with 4-8GB of RAM on a box than it can with 1GB or less). If superfetch has already cached a file from disk and you go to use it, readyboost isn't going to do a thing for you. So, readyboost might actually be beneficial *right out of the box* when superfetch is basically only caching Windows binaries, but the longer you use a Win7 machine with superfetch enabled (again assuming 3GB or more of RAM), the less useful readyboost is going to be. It's not rocket science, it's just reading the technical specs for what these two things do, and using common sense once you understand how they do (and do not) work. So, gregrocker (and those that agree with him) are right - the more RAM in a system, the less need for readyboost (because superfetch does the same thing, basically - and it's smarter about it too).

Not sure where I said ReadyBoost was ram. If I have an unused flash drive sitting around, and I already have 4gb installed memory, seemed like the "common sense" thing was to slap on the flash drive and dedicate it to ReadyBoost.

I have a doubt about readybost.
RAM speed....8000 MB/s aprox
HDD speed....80 MB/s aprox
Pendrive....... 2 - 20 MB/s (being 20 the fastest top of the line pendrives)

How using readyboost could be faster than a pagefile in the HDD? Could be faster in access time but in the overall (access time + read/write time) should be a lot slower than the hdd. Unless we are talking of 1000 files of 40 kb in memory, but I think that loaded in memory there are a limited number of programs of several megabytes each.
What am I missing in this analysis?

pablo712 said:

I have a doubt about readybost.
RAM speed....8000 MB/s aprox
HDD speed....80 MB/s aprox
Pendrive....... 2 - 20 MB/s (being 20 the fastest top of the line pendrives)

How using readyboost could be faster than a pagefile in the HDD? Could be faster in access time but in the overall (access time + read/write time) should be a lot slower than the hdd. Unless we are talking of 1000 files of 40 kb in memory, but I think that loaded in memory there are a limited number of programs of several megabytes each.
What am I missing in this analysis?

Here is one comment from tomshardware.com that feels it helps depending on the device used for ReadyBoost

The core idea of ReadyBoost is that a flash drive has a much faster seek time (less than 1 millisecond), allowing it to satisfy requests faster than a hard disk when booting or reading certain system files. It also leverages the inherent advantage of two parallel sources from which to read data. Unfortunately, USB 2.0 flash drives are slower for sequential reads and writes, compared to modern desktop hard drives. Desktop hard drives can sustain anywhere from 2 to 10 times the transfer speed of USB 2.0 flash drives but are equal to or slower than USB 3.0 and Firewire (IEEE 1394) for sequential data. So, all USB 2.0 and newer flash drives hold an advantage in random access times: typically around 1ms, compared to 12ms and upwards for desktop hard drives. In addition, USB 3.0 and Firewire may also hold a slight advantage on sequential data too.