A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Homebuilt PC's
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How much memory is "useful"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 8th 16, 03:16 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Charlie Hoffpauir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 347
Default How much memory is "useful"

My system is a Gigabyte GA-Z97X-UD3H-BK board with 2 8GB DDR3 G SKILL
memory strips (16 GB total) and an Intel i5-4690 processor, set up
with two 24" monitors. I do a lot of genealogy work, and often have 8
database programs open at the same time, constantly switching between
them or copying information from one or more to my genealogy program.
Would more memory improve performance, or would having the database
programs running on a SSD be more effective? How could I tell if disk
access or limited memory was slowing down things?
  #2  
Old July 8th 16, 05:37 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,364
Default How much memory is "useful"

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
My system is a Gigabyte GA-Z97X-UD3H-BK board with 2 8GB DDR3 G SKILL
memory strips (16 GB total) and an Intel i5-4690 processor, set up
with two 24" monitors. I do a lot of genealogy work, and often have 8
database programs open at the same time, constantly switching between
them or copying information from one or more to my genealogy program.
Would more memory improve performance, or would having the database
programs running on a SSD be more effective? How could I tell if disk
access or limited memory was slowing down things?


At the moment, we don't know what OS you use. The
Task Manager interface varies a bit between OSes. I
expect you have a 64 bit OS, later than WinXP.

*******

The Task Manager (and a button on it that launches
Resource Monitor), provide feedback on how things
are going. I would start there.

At the moment, you have "the perfect amount of RAM",
so I would need conclusive evidence from your research,
to recommend even more of it. When you have tons
of RAM, it takes a while to fill it. So an operation
you thought might take "a second", well, it takes
25 seconds on a machine full of RAM. Some programs
only fill RAM at around 1GB/sec, even though the
STREAM benchmark runs at 17GB/sec.

Using one stick of RAM per channel, allows using XMP
RAM (automatic setup), saving a lot of messing about.
When you install a total of four sticks, the tuning
process will require more of your time, to ensure it
is error free. XMP typically supports two sticks total
with Command Rate 1T, or two sticks total with
Command Rate 2T. Since only 2T makes any sense, the
first profile is a waste of your time. While I have
heard rumors of XMP with a profile for 2 sticks and
the other profile is for 4 sticks, I certainly
don't own any of that. So I have to adjust tCAS,
memory clock, Vnb, or whatever, all by myself
when I have four sticks. Um, what fun. The last
time, it took me two days, because I did it
wrong the first time.

*******

In Task Manager, you'll be looking at the "percentage
of disk I/O" being used, to see if the disk is so slow
as to be holding things up. If doing a database lookup
causes the disk to go to 100% I/O, that would be a sign
an SSD could help.

If you look at the RAM in Task Manager, and all 16GB is
used, and the system is paging (hard fault indicator indicates
hundred of hard faults per second), then maybe I might be
convinced more RAM would help.

*******

I have a machine with a ****load of RAM (64GB).
I'm not impressed. So many things have been slower
than they should be, the list would take forever to type out.

I just bought an SSD a couple days ago. But, I put it
on a slow computer. I'm kinda impressed, but I still
see file system searches to be slow. The SSD might be
capable of 100,000 IO operations per second or so,
and yet if I use Agent Ransack to search for a file name,
the rate is not that high. The SSD might be 10x faster
than the hard drive, when looking at file names.

The operating system does not use the System File Cache
properly. There are *many* opportunities to consult
previous reads of a file stored in RAM, where the
OS goes right ahead and insists on reading the
hard drive again. This is known as an "uncached
file system call", uncached on purpose for unknown
reasons. While running uncached occasionally makes
sense, these OSes are a lot less well tuned than
Win2K was.

I haven't actually benched sequential performance on
the SSD drive yet. I'm sure it'll do 500MB/sec on a
SATA III port. You have SATA III ports on your
motherboard, so you are all set.

But I'd still study the situation with Task Manager,
before running off half-cut.

Both the SSD and the RAM are not that expensive, relatively
speaking. RAM has come down in price. So you can certainly
speculatively install them. But I don't know how much it
would bother you, if there was absolutely no improvement
after the upgrade was complete. If you value your time,
it'll take time to clone over the HDD to the SSD, as well
as time to make the new memory setup error-free.

Here's an example of a small SSD. Relatively good reviews so far.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820147360

A measure of goodness, is the "Terabyte-Writes" rating
or TBW. The last page of the spec lists it as 150TBW.
You can try comparing that figure, from one drive to
another. An Enterprise class drive would have a higher
number.

http://www.samsung.com/us/system/con...6bw/850PRO.pdf

If I compare to an Enterprise drive, this one is
"Endurance Rating (Lifetime Writes) 16.9PB", which
means the entire drive can be written about 16000
times. The other one, about 600 times.

http://ark.intel.com/products/84239/...-6Gbs-20nm-MLC

Another example.

http://thessdguy.com/comparing-dwpd-to-tbw/

You should plan for regular backups of the SSD.

Your computer should be on a UPS, for best
data safely. If a single computer is on a UPS,
you can hook the "shutdown cable" from the UPS
to the computer, and even have the
computer shut down when you are not
in the room.

Paul
  #3  
Old July 8th 16, 08:24 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Charlie Hoffpauir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 347
Default How much memory is "useful"

On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 12:37:31 -0400, Paul wrote:

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
My system is a Gigabyte GA-Z97X-UD3H-BK board with 2 8GB DDR3 G SKILL
memory strips (16 GB total) and an Intel i5-4690 processor, set up
with two 24" monitors. I do a lot of genealogy work, and often have 8
database programs open at the same time, constantly switching between
them or copying information from one or more to my genealogy program.
Would more memory improve performance, or would having the database
programs running on a SSD be more effective? How could I tell if disk
access or limited memory was slowing down things?


At the moment, we don't know what OS you use. The
Task Manager interface varies a bit between OSes. I
expect you have a 64 bit OS, later than WinXP.

*******

The Task Manager (and a button on it that launches
Resource Monitor), provide feedback on how things
are going. I would start there.

At the moment, you have "the perfect amount of RAM",
so I would need conclusive evidence from your research,
to recommend even more of it. When you have tons
of RAM, it takes a while to fill it. So an operation
you thought might take "a second", well, it takes
25 seconds on a machine full of RAM. Some programs
only fill RAM at around 1GB/sec, even though the
STREAM benchmark runs at 17GB/sec.

Using one stick of RAM per channel, allows using XMP
RAM (automatic setup), saving a lot of messing about.
When you install a total of four sticks, the tuning
process will require more of your time, to ensure it
is error free. XMP typically supports two sticks total
with Command Rate 1T, or two sticks total with
Command Rate 2T. Since only 2T makes any sense, the
first profile is a waste of your time. While I have
heard rumors of XMP with a profile for 2 sticks and
the other profile is for 4 sticks, I certainly
don't own any of that. So I have to adjust tCAS,
memory clock, Vnb, or whatever, all by myself
when I have four sticks. Um, what fun. The last
time, it took me two days, because I did it
wrong the first time.

*******

In Task Manager, you'll be looking at the "percentage
of disk I/O" being used, to see if the disk is so slow
as to be holding things up. If doing a database lookup
causes the disk to go to 100% I/O, that would be a sign
an SSD could help.

If you look at the RAM in Task Manager, and all 16GB is
used, and the system is paging (hard fault indicator indicates
hundred of hard faults per second), then maybe I might be
convinced more RAM would help.

*******

I have a machine with a ****load of RAM (64GB).
I'm not impressed. So many things have been slower
than they should be, the list would take forever to type out.

I just bought an SSD a couple days ago. But, I put it
on a slow computer. I'm kinda impressed, but I still
see file system searches to be slow. The SSD might be
capable of 100,000 IO operations per second or so,
and yet if I use Agent Ransack to search for a file name,
the rate is not that high. The SSD might be 10x faster
than the hard drive, when looking at file names.

The operating system does not use the System File Cache
properly. There are *many* opportunities to consult
previous reads of a file stored in RAM, where the
OS goes right ahead and insists on reading the
hard drive again. This is known as an "uncached
file system call", uncached on purpose for unknown
reasons. While running uncached occasionally makes
sense, these OSes are a lot less well tuned than
Win2K was.

I haven't actually benched sequential performance on
the SSD drive yet. I'm sure it'll do 500MB/sec on a
SATA III port. You have SATA III ports on your
motherboard, so you are all set.

But I'd still study the situation with Task Manager,
before running off half-cut.

Both the SSD and the RAM are not that expensive, relatively
speaking. RAM has come down in price. So you can certainly
speculatively install them. But I don't know how much it
would bother you, if there was absolutely no improvement
after the upgrade was complete. If you value your time,
it'll take time to clone over the HDD to the SSD, as well
as time to make the new memory setup error-free.

Here's an example of a small SSD. Relatively good reviews so far.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820147360

A measure of goodness, is the "Terabyte-Writes" rating
or TBW. The last page of the spec lists it as 150TBW.
You can try comparing that figure, from one drive to
another. An Enterprise class drive would have a higher
number.

http://www.samsung.com/us/system/con...6bw/850PRO.pdf

If I compare to an Enterprise drive, this one is
"Endurance Rating (Lifetime Writes) 16.9PB", which
means the entire drive can be written about 16000
times. The other one, about 600 times.

http://ark.intel.com/products/84239/...-6Gbs-20nm-MLC

Another example.

http://thessdguy.com/comparing-dwpd-to-tbw/

You should plan for regular backups of the SSD.

Your computer should be on a UPS, for best
data safely. If a single computer is on a UPS,
you can hook the "shutdown cable" from the UPS
to the computer, and even have the
computer shut down when you are not
in the room.

Paul


Great comments Paul....

To answer a few questions you made about details I left out...

The OS was originally Win 7 64 bit Pro, now Win 10... took the plunge
and upgraded.

The computer is on a UPS... AC power out here in the country is far
from consistant, so virtually everything electronic is on a UPS (3
computers and 2 Dish network DVRs, each on it's own UPS)

My "C" drive is a SSD and all the data is on a couple of 7200 RPM SATA
drives. I was wondering if putting the large database files on an SSD
might speed things. These are large files for a home computer, 2.9 GB,
2.7 GB, 1.5 GB, etc. these are FileMaker Pro files, converted from
Access when the file size became too large for Access to handle. The
ones under 1 GB are all on MS Access. All of these as very simple
"flat" files, no complicated relationships.

Based on what you've said so far, I'm thinking that adding more memory
might not be the way I want to proceed.... I don't need the hassle of
trying to tune the memory, whereas adding an SSD for the data would
be really easy to implement.




  #4  
Old July 8th 16, 11:44 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
John Doe[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 410
Default How much memory is "useful"

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:

My system is a Gigabyte GA-Z97X-UD3H-BK board with 2 8GB DDR3 G SKILL
memory strips (16 GB total) and an Intel i5-4690 processor, set up
with two 24" monitors. I do a lot of genealogy work, and often have 8
database programs open at the same time, constantly switching between
them or copying information from one or more to my genealogy program.
Would more memory improve performance, or would having the database
programs running on a SSD be more effective? How could I tell if disk
access or limited memory was slowing down things?


Open Task Manager and look under Performance to see how much memory you
are using.

Yes SSD's are fast. You should use an SSD for your primary drive.
  #5  
Old July 9th 16, 07:21 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,364
Default How much memory is "useful"

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:

Great comments Paul....

To answer a few questions you made about details I left out...

The OS was originally Win 7 64 bit Pro, now Win 10... took the plunge
and upgraded.

The computer is on a UPS... AC power out here in the country is far
from consistant, so virtually everything electronic is on a UPS (3
computers and 2 Dish network DVRs, each on it's own UPS)

My "C" drive is a SSD and all the data is on a couple of 7200 RPM SATA
drives. I was wondering if putting the large database files on an SSD
might speed things. These are large files for a home computer, 2.9 GB,
2.7 GB, 1.5 GB, etc. these are FileMaker Pro files, converted from
Access when the file size became too large for Access to handle. The
ones under 1 GB are all on MS Access. All of these as very simple
"flat" files, no complicated relationships.

Based on what you've said so far, I'm thinking that adding more memory
might not be the way I want to proceed.... I don't need the hassle of
trying to tune the memory, whereas adding an SSD for the data would
be really easy to implement.


I think moving the database files to the SSD is
a great first choice in experiments. As long as
the operations do mostly reads, and sparse writes,
everything should be fine, and you'll get any
speed boost that better I/O could provide.

*******

A more complicated experiment would be:

1) Buy a pair of DIMMs exactly like the ones you've got.
Another set of 2x8GB should not cost a lot today.

2) Do the tweaking and tuning, until memtest86+ and prime95
torture test (or any other tester that is known to be
good at certifying the memory) say the new setup is error free.

3) Install this, buy a license, and set the size to 16GB. Thus,
the newly installed RAM becomes a very fast RAMdisk. Load
the database files onto it.

http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...ftware/ramdisk

That product can write out the RAM contents at shutdown, but
you also have the option during the day, of doing anything
else you might like. Like, exit the database softwares
(so no files are busy or half-written), run a copy of
Macrium Reflect Free and make a backup. And so on. You can
backup and restore to the RAMDisk, because it behaves like
a block device. Only certain softwares, like perhaps older
Partition Managers, do not like the declared CHS geometry.
RAMDisks are not perfect emulations of SATA drives or anything.

My experience with the RAMDisk, is it might be twice as good
at the best of times. But not all operations benefit equally.

To give an example, when I ran my JKDefrag tests, and loaded
the RAMDisk with the C: partition from a real computer, one
kind of defrag when hosted in RAM, only did 1.5MB/sec. Terrible
performance. And another kind (defrag only, no optimize), ran
at 1GB/sec, and the disk was defragmented in a matter of just
ten seconds. It is the nature of the uneven performance,
that makes these RAMDisks such a loser. I cannot predict what
is going to happen. The same thing happened with running
VMs stored on the VHD file - VirtualBox ran no faster,
I was still seeing occasional 1.5MB/sec disk I/O to the RAMDisk.

So I have to mention this option for completeness, but
it's sheer lunacy with "real data" on it. If one of
my experiments runs amok here, nothing of value gets
lost :-) If yet another VM crashes and burns here, nobody
(not even me), cares.

Paul
  #6  
Old July 9th 16, 04:06 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default How much memory is "useful"

On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 09:16:33 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote:

My system is a Gigabyte GA-Z97X-UD3H-BK board with 2 8GB DDR3 G SKILL
memory strips (16 GB total) and an Intel i5-4690 processor, set up
with two 24" monitors. I do a lot of genealogy work, and often have 8
database programs open at the same time, constantly switching between
them or copying information from one or more to my genealogy program.
Would more memory improve performance, or would having the database
programs running on a SSD be more effective? How could I tell if disk
access or limited memory was slowing down things?


Four processors in your quad configuration is likely less indicative
of adding more memory, than a derivatives six or more cores.

Ideally. Personally, I might first wonder of a tradeoff based on my
current configuration after updating cores several times. I'd say
I've realized an additional 30 degrees Fahrenheit, reported as
indicative of the MB being "maxed out " with the last purchased
update, a quad core. That being an AMD, however, and not necessarily
a correct supposition, heat as per se an environ expect of one
provided by a MB running an Intel, say were it a posit placed for
similar core-to-performance scenario.

Once a build is settled and optimized with a modicum of reason
provided a given CPU, afterthoughts to a supportive role for further
augmenting the system are generally of magnitudes of lesser
significance, generally acceded for marginally impacting overall
performance based on an initial thematic choice given performance to
rate matrices for the CPU.

The exception being SDDs introduced, of course having benefited all
alike across an operable board of PC platforms indiscriminately.
  #7  
Old July 9th 16, 09:55 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Charlie Hoffpauir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 347
Default How much memory is "useful"

On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 02:21:46 -0400, Paul wrote:

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:

Great comments Paul....

To answer a few questions you made about details I left out...

The OS was originally Win 7 64 bit Pro, now Win 10... took the plunge
and upgraded.

The computer is on a UPS... AC power out here in the country is far
from consistant, so virtually everything electronic is on a UPS (3
computers and 2 Dish network DVRs, each on it's own UPS)

My "C" drive is a SSD and all the data is on a couple of 7200 RPM SATA
drives. I was wondering if putting the large database files on an SSD
might speed things. These are large files for a home computer, 2.9 GB,
2.7 GB, 1.5 GB, etc. these are FileMaker Pro files, converted from
Access when the file size became too large for Access to handle. The
ones under 1 GB are all on MS Access. All of these as very simple
"flat" files, no complicated relationships.

Based on what you've said so far, I'm thinking that adding more memory
might not be the way I want to proceed.... I don't need the hassle of
trying to tune the memory, whereas adding an SSD for the data would
be really easy to implement.


I think moving the database files to the SSD is
a great first choice in experiments. As long as
the operations do mostly reads, and sparse writes,
everything should be fine, and you'll get any
speed boost that better I/O could provide.

*******

A more complicated experiment would be:

1) Buy a pair of DIMMs exactly like the ones you've got.
Another set of 2x8GB should not cost a lot today.

2) Do the tweaking and tuning, until memtest86+ and prime95
torture test (or any other tester that is known to be
good at certifying the memory) say the new setup is error free.

3) Install this, buy a license, and set the size to 16GB. Thus,
the newly installed RAM becomes a very fast RAMdisk. Load
the database files onto it.

http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...ftware/ramdisk

That product can write out the RAM contents at shutdown, but
you also have the option during the day, of doing anything
else you might like. Like, exit the database softwares
(so no files are busy or half-written), run a copy of
Macrium Reflect Free and make a backup. And so on. You can
backup and restore to the RAMDisk, because it behaves like
a block device. Only certain softwares, like perhaps older
Partition Managers, do not like the declared CHS geometry.
RAMDisks are not perfect emulations of SATA drives or anything.

My experience with the RAMDisk, is it might be twice as good
at the best of times. But not all operations benefit equally.

To give an example, when I ran my JKDefrag tests, and loaded
the RAMDisk with the C: partition from a real computer, one
kind of defrag when hosted in RAM, only did 1.5MB/sec. Terrible
performance. And another kind (defrag only, no optimize), ran
at 1GB/sec, and the disk was defragmented in a matter of just
ten seconds. It is the nature of the uneven performance,
that makes these RAMDisks such a loser. I cannot predict what
is going to happen. The same thing happened with running
VMs stored on the VHD file - VirtualBox ran no faster,
I was still seeing occasional 1.5MB/sec disk I/O to the RAMDisk.

So I have to mention this option for completeness, but
it's sheer lunacy with "real data" on it. If one of
my experiments runs amok here, nothing of value gets
lost :-) If yet another VM crashes and burns here, nobody
(not even me), cares.

Paul


I feel strangely compelled to try this RAMDisk thing. I did try
putting some of the data files on a small, old SSD that I had (OCZ
Vertex 2, SATA II) and if there was any speed improvement, it wasn't
enough to be noticable. My database queries are usually fairly simple,
looking of combinations of husband and wife's surnames, for example.
Maybe for more complicated queries there would be more of an
improvement.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USB bootable maker: Diff between "HP Drive Key Boot Utility" and "HP USB Disk Storage Format Tool"? Jason Stacy Storage (alternative) 1 April 21st 09 01:14 AM
Printer defaults to "offline" at startup, how can I get it to defaultto "online"? Joe[_17_] Printers 0 June 15th 08 07:55 PM
"true life" vs. "anti-glare" of Vostro 1500: What are the brightness & contrast ratios??? Thomas G. Marshall Dell Computers 1 April 11th 08 10:47 PM
Downside of changing "Max frames to render ahead"/"Prerender Limit" to 1/0? Jeremy Reaban Nvidia Videocards 2 March 31st 06 04:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.