flash drives as ram in 9x?

[jacksprat199]

I asked about this question in one of my other posts but not so directly as I am now. Is it possible to use flash drives as ram, pf or cache in 9x?

[Fredledingue]

Cache and virtual memory why not. As ram, I don't think it's possible because the PC looks at the ram before starting anything else.

[Sfor]

The flash seems to be much too slow to be usable as a RAM. Besides, the amount of write cycles is significantly limited.

[jacksprat199]

Cache and virtual memory why not. As ram, I don't think it's possible because the PC looks at the ram before starting anything else.

If it works in Vista as "readyboost" why can't we force 9x to act the same way?

[Guest anything.com]

Cache and virtual memory why not. As ram, I don't think it's possible because the PC looks at the ram before starting anything else.

If it works in Vista as "readyboost" why can't we force 9x to act the same way?

Because it is completely unnecessary, ram should be used by a program and released,data stored in ram is an achilles heel (see drm) if you use a buffer you release it. Flash drives have limited writes, far better to boot a win9x image from it via grub4dos,swap file in ram, hard drive pgp protected and your good to go. Vista needs it becauses its a fat pig, and would like you to go through the os (i.e vista) before you can access it, after it deems you are allowed to do so

[jacksprat199]

I get the point that flash drives can't be used as ram now, but for virtual memory it could be an alternative for cache or page files which could be stored on a flash drive. I'm not buying that flash is "too slow" or "limited" as usb 2.0 is faster access than any IDE hard drive. I might need to investigate as to how readyboost is loaded in vista.

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

I get the point that flash drives can't be used as ram now, but for virtual memory it could be an alternative for cache or page files which could be stored on a flash drive.

Flash is definitely not for write intensive applications. Even with firmware wear-leveling (without which flash drives could not exist) the lifespan is puny and ill-suited for cache/page files. Reading good, writing bad.

WIKI: Flash_memory ... Rather than entirely replacing the hard drive, hybrid techniques such as hybrid drive and ReadyBoost attempt to combine the advantages of both technologies, using flash as a high-speed cache for files on the disk that are often referenced, but rarely modified, such as application and operating system executable files. (emphasis mine)

I'm not buying that flash is "too slow" or "limited" as usb 2.0 is faster access than any IDE hard drive.

Whoops, absolutely false. All decisions based upon a flawed premise are themselves flawed.

WIKI: List_of_Device_Bandwidths

--- Interface ------------ Mbit/s ---- MB/s

USB Low Speed (USB 1.0) ..... 1.536 ... 0.192

USB Full Speed (USB 1.1) ... 12 ....... 1.5

Ultra DMA ATA 33 .......... 264 ...... 33

USB Hi-Speed (USB 2.0) .... 480 ...... 60

Ultra DMA ATA 66 .......... 528 ...... 66

Ultra DMA ATA 100 ......... 800 ..... 100

Ultra DMA ATA 133 ....... 1,064 ..... 133

Serial ATA (SATA-150) ... 1,500 ..... 187.5

Serial ATA (SATA-300) ... 3,000 ..... 375

To get to where you want to be, two separate items would need to be true:

• Flash Drives would need to be faster than ATA drives internally.
  
• USB 2.0 Interface would need to be faster than UDMA-100.
  

But neither is true. To put it another way, we're comparing a slower device on a slower interface versus a faster device on a faster interface.

Take it from someone that throws all kinds of Hard Drives into IDE/USB adapters. Native IDE (or the much faster SATA 3) is so much quicker that when backing up a system disk to a USB adapted HDD, its easier to just rip the IDE drive out of the enclosure and hook it up internally and get it done fast. The only thing that is slow on an IDE channel these days is a CD/DVD unit or maybe a legacy device like an Iomega floppy.

Now if you hook a flash drive onto an IDE or eSATA channel you can directly compare the storage. You will still find out that the write speed for Flash drives is in the 10-15 MB/s sustained range. Hard Drives easily achieve 50 to over 100 MB/s (inner/outer of disk). Of course, the Flash cost per gigabyte will kill you even before the write cycle limitations.

I might need to investigate as to how readyboost is loaded in vista.

WIKI: ReadyBoost ... begin here!

Edited October 8, 2008 by CharlotteTheHarlot

[noguru]

Flash memory is slower in actual reading and writing, especially with larger files, but access and seek times are lower. That's the idea behind readyboost.

However, this will only be really beneficial on systems that are relatively low on memory. Most "modern" win98 installations have huge amounts of memory compared with what Win98 was designed for. A win98 system with 256MB+ ram and "conservative swapping" enabled will hardly do any swapping to disk anymore so what's the point of having something like readyboost. Vista has readyboost because it's memory hungry (or starving if you like , I say who cares, 2gig is ok and it's cheap). Win98 doesn't need the cheap trick readyboost.

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

Not sure if this requires a new thread or not, but it sure fits the discussion we were involved in above.

Read this over at DansData on the page: 4.1-Way SSD Shootout.

In short, Flash Devices used as primary storage, exploiting the native ATA interface, benchmarks and details of its limitations. Direct, controlled comparisons between HDD and Flash are included. Some of the transfer rates are surprising.