Is it beneficial to use multiple ReadyBoost flash drives?

[Influx]

Having 4gb of physical ram and an 8gb flash drive (4gb used) for ReadyBoost. Would it be beneficial to use more flash drives for ready boost?

 

[yowanvista]

No, ReadyBoost is only effective on systems with around 1GB of RAM or less, don't use it as a replacement for RAM.

 

[red454]

No, ReadyBoost is only effective on systems with around 1GB of RAM or less, don't use it as a replacement for RAM.

Ah, good to know. I wondered what the cut-off was for any benefits.

Seems that most computers made today (desktops) have a minimum of 4gb of ram which would make Ready Boost pointless.

 

[Infinite]

I think this Guide explains it all.

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/33289-readyboost-setup-use.html

 

[cluberti]

Readyboost isn't really about RAM (although if you have less than 2GB of RAM, it will indeed help as an additional Superfetch cache), it is more about the type, speed, and usage of the hard disk (it's not just for extending the superfetch cache, it can be used to supplement hard disk cache). If you have 8+GB of RAM, obviously you aren't very likely to need additional Superfetch cache - however, if you have slower hard disks (5400-7200RPM) with low amounts of cache (16MB or less), you might actually benefit from a Readyboost key or two. On Windows 7 you can use up to 32GB of a USB key for cache (and since it's 2:1 compressed, that ends up being more like 60-64MB of Readyboost cache), so a fast, big key is somewhat preferable to multiple small keys. However, if you don't do a lot of random I/O (other than during boot) as a normal usage pattern, do not have slow disks with small amounts of disk cache, or have 2GB of RAM or less in your system (especially an x64 install), you won't see much benefit from Readyboost. Also, since Readyboost is running off of a USB key, it's not as fast as main RAM, so adding more RAM (if possible) will be far more beneficial than adding USB keys for Readyboost.

 

[whs]

Having 4gb of physical ram and an 8gb flash drive (4gb used) for ReadyBoost. Would it be beneficial to use more flash drives for ready boost?

With 4GB, forget it. In fact it will probably slow your system down because of the extra write operations. Use the stick for something else.

 

[Influx]

No, ReadyBoost is only effective on systems with around 1GB of RAM or less, don't use it as a replacement for RAM.

Thanks, I don't use it as a replacement for RAM, it can never be.

 

[TBoyd]

For Ready Boost Skeptics...

Recently, I've been doing a lot of research on Ready Boost, SSDs, & Ramdisks.

Many people believe that Ready Boost serves as added ram for users with small amounts of ram. This appears to be untrue, based on a test I ran. (I'm probably not the first to try this.) My system has 8GB of ram & I have NEVER maxed out my ram usage, soooo.....

I experimented with Ready Boost by creating a 1GB Ramdisk & dedicated it to Ready Boost. I then set up logging for Ready Boost & ran it for about 7 minutes while I was doing other things on my PC. Please note again that I still never even came close to maxing out my ram. I'm attaching the report from the log file.

As you can see, Ready Boost is performing caching functions. Win 7 is definitely making use of Ready Boost, regardless of the amount of available/unused ram. I believe their is some slight benefit. I'm thinking the new Rapid Storage Technology on the Z68 chipped motherboards may be a variation/refinement of Ready Boost.

Improvements from using Ready Boost will vary, based on the media used. Some flash memory is faster than others. Also, there is the speed difference between USB 2 & USB 3. A Ramdisk is much faster than the average flash drive, & should be the best option for Ready Boost.

Any corrections or comments are welcome, as - by my avatar/logo implies - I'm no expert. I just find this subject interesting.

Also - please note that Ready Boost will only be useful when your OS is on a mechanical HD.

 

[red454]

Interesting - how do you generate that report? I got into the resource monitor, but I am lost after that...

 

[whs]

Yeah, but a RAM disk is something completely different than a slow stick. And you only have to look into Resource Monitor > Memory tab > the graph on the bottom right to see that there are very few hard page faults (with 3GB of RAM or more). But yes, some programs generate faults even if there is plenty of available RAM. But for those rare occasions it is not necessary to install Ready Boost - especially not with a stick. It will only produce additional overhead.

 

[TBoyd]

Interesting - how do you generate that report? I got into the resource monitor, but I am lost after that...

You must open the Performance Monitor via Administrative Tools. Click on the green "+" at the top. The "Add Counters" window will open. Click on "Ready Boost Cache" & hit the "add" button.

Click on Action>New>Data Collector Set, name it, select where you want to save the data. It will now appear in the tree on the right under Data Collector Sets>User Defined. Right click on the DCS you just created & click "start".

BTW - You can change the way the data is displayed from the drop down menu from the "change graph" icon at the top.

 

[TBoyd]

Yeah, but a RAM disk is something completely different than a slow stick. And you only have to look into Resource Monitor > Memory tab > the graph on the bottom right to see that there are very few hard page faults (with 3GB of RAM or more). But yes, some programs generate faults even if there is plenty of available RAM. But for those rare occasions it is not necessary to install Ready Boost - especially not with a stick. It will only produce additional overhead.

Good point - some flash memory is slow.

While reading more about how Win 7 caches memory, my first post may not be entirely accurate.

The real question is - Is the ram that Win 7 caches used for the same purpose as the Ready Boost cache? - Or is Ready Boost created for other specific caching functions?

Does anyone have a solid answer? Brink.....?

If there is no distinction between the way the Win7 cache & RB cache are used, then using a Ramdisk for Ready Boost truly is redundant!

All I know is that RB is being used, despite the fact that I have 4.2GB of my memory cached.

 

[red454]

Interesting - how do you generate that report? I got into the resource monitor, but I am lost after that...

You must open the Performance Monitor via Administrative Tools. Click on the green "+" at the top. The "Add Counters" window will open. Click on "Ready Boost Cache" & hit the "add" button.

Click on Action>New>Data Collector Set, name it, select where you want to save the data. It will now appear in the tree on the right under Data Collector Sets>User Defined. Right click on the DCS you just created & click "start".

BTW - You can change the way the data is displayed from the drop down menu from the "change graph" icon at the top.

Great - thanks. Never fooled with that function before.

 

[cluberti]

The real question is - Is the ram that Win 7 caches used for the same purpose as the Ready Boost cache? - Or is Ready Boost created for other specific caching functions?

ReadyBoost is used to extend the SuperFetch cache (almost all of what you see as the "cached" memory number that you see in Windows 7 task manager or resmon), and also helps increase disk cache. So, using a RAMdisk for SuperFetch or ReadyBoost cache is indeed redundant, as Windows will also use RAM as a disk cache if the system's disk cache(es) get backed up enough to need it.

 

[TBoyd]

Thanks, cluberti. I guess I'll conclude my experiment & eliminate my ramdisk!

I will soon have 16GB of ram & am still thinking of uses for a Ramdisk sized to suit whatever will benefit performance.

From what I've learned so far, a Ramdisk could be beneficial used as a scratch disc for Photoshop & other programs that provide options for designating a location to place certain files tha the program utilizes as swap or some form of cache.

I also realize that - when using a ramdisk for such programs - that the ramdisk image must be saved & reloaded on shutdown & startup. I have good battery backup, so data loss from a sudden power loss would not be an issue.

Any other ideas for Ramdisk use?

 

[dduttonnc]

No, ReadyBoost is only effective on systems with around 1GB of RAM or less, don't use it as a replacement for RAM.

This thread may be old, but it has some VERY invalid information

I have a Windows 8.1 x64 system with 16GB ram... I get GREAT speed boosts from Readyboost USB 3.0 thumb drives... The KEY is USB 3.0 USB 2.0 RB drives were simply too slow to provide benefits

1) All my drives are HD or HDDSD, but no SDDs.. a USB 3.0 RB unit 32GB in size (formatted NTFS to go around the 4GB limit), GREATLY helps because data can be read/written FASTER to it vs my HDDs - EVEN my RAID 0 and Raid 5 arrays

2) Everyone assumes if you have 4,8,16,32GB of ram, you have TONS of ram just sitting around caching data... true for many people... NOT true for me. I have 16GB and I often have 12-14GB in use... so YES.. having 2 32GB usb3 RB drives hold 64GB of cached data with GREATLY boosts my performance

3) Even if I never used more than 8GB and had 8GB left over for cache.. that's still ONLY 8GB cached... I now can have 64GB ADDITIONAL cached. It's not as fast as RAM.... but faster than the HD.

So no matter how you slice it, unless you are running pure SSDs, RB drives WILL help you, no matter what configuration as long as they are USB 3

 

[cluberti]

While that's true, you also have to remember that Windows 7 was released in 2009, and USB3 as a standard didn't exist until 2008 (and finding machines with USB3 ports as standard is only really the last year or two). Also, for the most part, you aren't normal if you're constantly using 90+% of your RAM.

Your points are valid, but be careful when posting in old threads and be cognizant of the time frame things were being discussed. Also, getting SSDs as standard in a lot of mobile devices is starting to become the norm, and even desktops are starting to head that way. In not very long, ReadyBoost will definitely become even more of a niche use case.

 

[Layback Bear]

dduttonnc I'm glad you took care of the (VERY invalid information).

Valid information is if you are using 90% of your ram you need more ram.
If your hard drives are to slow for the way you use your PC you need SSD's. No usb 2.0 or 3.0 is faster than ram and a SSD, I don't care what you plug into it. ReadBoost went out with buckle shoes.

Have a nice day.

 

[readyboostquest]

well I don't have a ssd on my computer. However I used readyboost after removing the cache from my main harddrive because I was trying to reduce crashes I was getting running fallout 4 on integrated graphics. with my gpu drivers and whatever fallout 4 did plus readyboost. Readyboost did improve my fps and google chrome was now usable which it hadn't been after turning off the disk cache. I guess I'm just saying it can be useful. Here is my question. Assuming you have enough ram and have an ssd, Are you saying if I had
an ssd instead of a harddrive and I turned off the cache. Readyboost wouldn't help. I realize that readyboost wouldn't actually be enabled by default but there is a way around that you just set devicestatus and only devicestatus to 2 in the registry. I only know that because I also tested readyboost with a fast harddrive and it works okay if I set the partition size as the size of the readyboostcache. Otherwise fallout4 runs better with a program called eboostr where I could set the cache to the size of the mb transfer rate which was around 100mb. Anyway, the usb drive works fine and it did give me performance improvement. It's just I was only able to put the drive in high performance mode and not use the setting enable write caching on the drive. If it wasn't for that I would have stuck with the drive with the lower seek times for searching through the cache.
sorry I'll sum it up
would an ssd without a cache be helped by readyboost even though readyboost is not supported on such systems
when readyboost is not supported, negligible benefits are seen.
It is possible to use readyboost alternatives for those situations. However, I tried to purchase eboostr and it wouldn't process my credit card. Plus windows works great with the flash drives it supports so there is no need to reinvent the wheel.
there may never be a reason to disable your ssd drives cache. However I was desperate to stop whatever crashes I could in fallout4. my graphics card shares memory with the gpu so I thought it would help. anyway all the fixes I'm probably seeing are due to updates by the developer.

as far as the original question
I used an unsupported usb 3.1 harddrive in a 2.0 port and usb 3.0 flash drive in a 3.0 port. Both transfer speeds for both drives were around 60 megabytes and I noticed a performance decrease doing this compared to using either by themselves. I am curious as to why this isn't true though because with ram dual channel or quad channel ram is always better at least with integrated graphics it is. Also I watched a video where usb sticks were put in a raid 0 configuration on a mac and read speed increased after two drives so I wonder wouldn't two identical drives with identical readyboost caches be good with readyboost