Gigabyte IRAM

[Wai_Wai]

Sorry, what's Iram?

Go to the Gigabyte site and check it out

@gdogg:

Systemfiles would be the best, for the SWAP-file it would be better if you just trow in more RAM in the motherboard sockets. (Bâshrat the Sneaky is saying the same with other words )

{deleted}

Edited March 19, 2006 by Wai_Wai

[LLXX]

Put your swapfile on it. Even if it's not as fast as main memory, it's still much faster than an actual hard drive.

Did you ever see that thing?

Just max 1500MB/s, your normal RAM will do better then that, just trow in a 2GB or 4GB(XP64/2003) and you have the best optimalisation for your swap-file

Edit: Jeremy, you beat me with that one... I needed to use 12 minutes to type it while eating.

What I meant was, use it as swapfile *after* you've maxed your RAM.

[nmX.Memnoch]

i-RAM, which is limited to the PCI bus' speed.

It's limited by the speed of the onboard SATA controller speed. The PCI bus is only used to power the DIMMs and recharge the battery. The data is still transfered over one of the systems onboard SATA channels.

http://www.giga-byte.com/Products/Storage/...Name=GC-RAMDISK

Power Interface

PCI 2.2 mechanical compliant slot

Support PCI 3V & 5V Slot

Data Transfer Interface

One onboard SATA connector supports 1.5Gb/s data transfer rate

[ripken204]

also about the batteries, as long as the psu is on, it will charge. if the psu is off then it wont charge. so ur comp doesnt have to be on to charge it which is nice.

[erdsah88]

Hey.I also consider at using it in my database server.

The ECC RAM is really expensive when I wanna reach 32 GB.And also the windows server 2003 has a limit of 32 GB.

So i am thinking of buyin a 2 GB x 4 RAM modules + IRAM for around 1.200 dolars.

instead of paying 8.000 dolars for ECC server RAMS of that size.

did anybody tried these on 64 bit machines? And 64 bit drivers?

[jago_lfn]

Hey.I also consider at using it in my database server.

The ECC RAM is really expensive when I wanna reach 32 GB.And also the windows server 2003 has a limit of 32 GB.

So i am thinking of buyin a 2 GB x 4 RAM modules + IRAM for around 1.200 dolars.

instead of paying 8.000 dolars for ECC server RAMS of that size.

did anybody tried these on 64 bit machines? And 64 bit drivers?

I didnt figure they'd need drivers other than for the motherboard you are using. They are seen just as a standard hard drive hooked to the sata port so if you have 2 in raid then you'd only need your motherboard's raid drivers i.e NVRaid so i'm pretty sure they'd work flawless in xp64

[erdsah88]

that will be cool not to have driver issues.

I am thinking of letting the IIS use the pagefile as much as it can.As I am expecting a concurrent use of the server.And I have limited budget,

Do u think using IRAM is a cool solution for pagefile on a highly concurrent IIS server ?

[gdogg]

yes, ram is extremly fast.

the most solid state disks are used in military servers, where it just has to work immediatly.

[erdsah88]

>>the most solid state disks are used in military servers, where it just has to work immediatly.

hmmm IRAM seems like a cheap and fast solution.Do u know any IIS using this type of technology?

[deathwarder]

IIS? what is IIS? and, do not use this as pagefile, just put more ram in and disable pagefile, use this as an hd

[nmX.Memnoch]

that will be cool not to have driver issues.

I am thinking of letting the IIS use the pagefile as much as it can.As I am expecting a concurrent use of the server.And I have limited budget,

Do u think using IRAM is a cool solution for pagefile on a highly concurrent IIS server ?

If you have enough RAM IIS should rarely, if ever, use the pagefile.

Personally, I would never use a technology as new as this in one of my critical servers.

If you were to use it, you'd be better off using it to serve pages. If the content is dynamic (ASP/PHP/ColdFusion/etc) then you probably won't notice much of a difference since the CPU still has to generate these pages before they can be sent to the browser.

Also, the comment about the military servers...I work on a US military installation and I don't know of any servers using solid-state drives (none of mine do). For starters, it's very expensive. It's also a fairly new technology and we certainly wouldn't trust any of our critical data to it yet.

[erdsah88]

>>>>you probably won't notice much of a difference since the CPU still has to generate these pages before they can be sent to the browser.

hmmmm.I thought this as a easy way to handle concurrent users.But u are possibly right CPU will became a bottleneck before RAM does.

I wanna find a way to use this staff in non mission critical (read only) part of the web application.Do u know any ?

IIS >internet information server ....serves web pages.

[ssmokee]

I wanna find a way to use this staff in non mission critical (read only) part of the web application.Do u know any ?

It would be ideal for serving static web content to concurrent users (ie. the web content is stored on the IRAM itself). Pumping out a lot of small randomly accessed files is precisely where the IRAM would completely annihilate a traditional hard drive. I think Gigabyte are collectively a bunch of idiots for not just going to a SATA 2 interface though.

[nmX.Memnoch]

It would be ideal for serving static web content to concurrent users (ie. the web content is stored on the IRAM itself). Pumping out a lot of small randomly accessed files is precisely where the IRAM would completely annihilate a traditional hard drive.

Not really. IIS6 is tuned pretty well. If your files are static and accessed a lot they will get stored in system RAM and be served from there...making the iRAM pretty useless in that situation as well.

I think Gigabyte are collectively a bunch of idiots for not just going to a SATA 2 interface though.

I think they're also stupid for limiting it to just 4GB RAM (not 4GB sticks...4GB total).