Windows ReadyBoost does it actually work?

[nabilalk]

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?

 

[nailgunner]

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.

 

[gregrocker]

It's no substitute for simply increasing physical RAM.

It's a page file on a stick.

 

[nailgunner]

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.

 

[cluberti]

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).

 

[gregrocker]

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.

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.

 

[nailgunner]

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.

 

[pablo712]

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?

 

[nailgunner]

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.

 

[cluberti]

Correct - readyboost is meant to speed up seek times for objects cached, not necessarily speed up disk transfers. Your mechanical HDD will (in general) be faster at actually moving large sets of files, but when you're talking about finding and loading data in the HDD or readyboost cache, the pen drive is much faster to service that request overall (it's slower to read from, but it's going to find it much faster - 10 - 12ms in CPU time is actually an eternity).

And to clarify, I didn't say you suspected it was a RAM replacement - it is just something I hear from less-knowledgeable folks regularly, so it bears repeating about what readyboost is not. It was a general statement, basically.

 

[nailgunner]

Correct - readyboost is meant to speed up seek times for objects cached, not necessarily speed up disk transfers. Your mechanical HDD will (in general) be faster at actually moving large sets of files, but when you're talking about finding and loading data in the HDD or readyboost cache, the pen drive is much faster to service that request overall (it's slower to read from, but it's going to find it much faster - 10 - 12ms in CPU time is actually an eternity).

And to clarify, I didn't say you suspected it was a RAM replacement - it is just something I hear from less-knowledgeable folks regularly, so it bears repeating about what readyboost is not. It was a general statement, basically.

Gotcha...I'm just perplexed about some who make the general "ReadyBoost" doesn't work...add RAM comment. Well if you have a slow system, an unused flash drive, that doesn't sound like good "general" advice. RAM is cheap, but an unused flash is cheaper.

 

[Layback Bear]

Well you can see lots of opinions out there. When I'm not sure I got to the people who made W7, who should know better.
Understand ReadyBoost and whether it will Speed Up your System

 

[nailgunner]

Well you can see lots of opinions out there. When I'm not sure I got to the people who made W7, who should know better.
Understand ReadyBoost and whether it will Speed Up your System

Yea, it's a good article. I've been watching my Ready Boost performance monitor for about a week. Lots of activity, but like it says, hard to tell what change it is actually making. It sure FEELS a lot quicker, actually..not, but I like playing around with it.

 

[e1d8]

Definitely noticed a difference...

Well I don't know what kinds of programs and resources people are using but you typically will not see a change in performance with multiple gigs of ram and ReadyBoost.

I recently purchased this new toshiba laptop with 8gigs of DDR3 1066MHz, accompanied with the intel core i7 620m processor and I have not only used ReadyBoost for my system but noticed a significant difference in the loading and processing times.

What do I do you ask? Design buildings using AutoCAD/AutoDESK/Architectural Desktop Suite pack 15.6. Fully installed with all of its tools and packs takes up a whopping 42+GB of HDD space, and each file I've compiled so far is no smaller than 2gb(the bigger projects take up 20 times that if saved properly)

I'm currently running 2-16gb(32gb compressed) instances of ReadyBoost at any given time on my windows 7 ultimate system and I definitely need it. Originally when I was looking for a new laptop to replace my Toshiba Satellite L505 series, Intel i3 w/ 4gb of ram, I was looking for a quad core, local stores didn't carry one and the infamous "geek squad" insisted that I did not need a quad core for anything, then again they've never used architectural desktop.

Anyway, to say the least the ReadyBoost definitely helps out if you're begging for more system resources and NEED it. And by need it I mean really, truly need it. If you're surfing the net, emailing, gaming, whatever it is you may be doing, you probably won't notice a considerable difference, even if you're really looking for the difference. While some may claim 5 - 10% increase in response time, that's great, more won't notice it unless they're really killing their system for resources. I'm just glad windows 7 unlocked it from their vista version, to allow more capacity because I can definitely use it.

So far, I've noticed that the best way to get the speed and have it working all the time is by using SD cards in an empty SD slot(for a laptop anyway) Thumb drives stick out and use up usb ports. Not to mention you can set an SD card up to run while windows starts up to free up load time and reduce program load times by up to 50%. Not only that, but when I used a typical thumb-drive, I actually got the BSOD while running a few system scans(BSOD went away when I removed the thumb-drive), so it's not the best form. If you have SD and the slots, I suggest using those first. Kingston 16 G SDHC is the way to go for ReadyBoost...

Sorry for such a long post

 

[gregrocker]

Have you considered increasing your physical RAM, perhaps doubling it?

Thanks for the testimonial. First good report on ReadyBoost I've seen, and from someone who actually relies upon it.

 

[Layback Bear]

If you could stick more ram in your computer I think you would be very happy.

 

[Keiichi25]

Well, guys, you also have to take into consideration that this is a Laptop User. Unlike desktops, laptop memory will still have some 'stunting' as to how much physical ram you can up it. Depending on the model and who designed it, you may get the newer ram types like DDR3, but not necessarily the nicer memory upgrade ability as a desktop as most higher end desktops allow for 4 slots, where as laptops only allow enough room for 2 slots and even then, the chip count size will be even significantly less than a PC.

Although, looking at the Toshiba site, and looking up their models there, if he had this one:

Toshiba Qosmio® X505-Q890 Laptops

He should be able to upgrade to 22 Gigs worth of memory, although I think at that point it is the cost of the memory that would bite him.

Edit - Oh wait... That is Graphics memory and even that number is a bit off... going to here:

http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=Qosmio X505-Q890

The max memory available is 4 Gigs per slot, 2 slots maximum, therefore, he is at his maximum amount of memory for his system. So original assessment is correct, laptops are limited on memory allowances. Well, this particular one.

 

[natostanco]

can someone explain me why i can't use my 1tb usb flashdrive for readyboost?

excuseme for noob question

 

[nailgunner]

can someone explain me why i can't use my 1tb usb flashdrive for readyboost?

excuseme for noob question

I believe Windows does a check of your drive and system to see if it can work for you. It doesn't always automatically open the dialog, but if you open the properties of your flash drive, and there is a ReadyBoost tab showing, you can set it up from there.

 

[natostanco]

yeah and this is what i get