Is a RAM disk or similar solution really worth it?

[txus.palacios]

I've been asking this myself these weeks. Is a RAM disk useful for those of us who have >8GB RAM for Windows? (main OS's Arch Linux, but I am just too damn lazy to add a tmpfs to fstab)

I have Chrome's cache there, because some guys said it made Internet browsing faster, and, well, I had nothing to lose. But I don't get the point, cache is supposed to make web loading faster by not downloading files stored in cache. I think this is just a very big bottle of snake oil, but, well. I trusted them back then, and tried it. Damn, I even have a transparent proxy cache (the famous Squid) installed in my pfSense gateway to lower webpage loading times. So this was counter-intuitive.

Also, I have both %TEMP% and %TMP% environment variables linked to the RAM disk. This I can understand, since usually they're only required for a short time (thus the name, temporal files), and having them in volatile memory would make my life easier by not having to clean them on a weekly basis, and not filling my SSD with junk. But, alas, IIRC, some apps use %TEMP% and/or %TMP% to save files required for, p.eg., a software upgrade. That'd render the RAM disk useless once again, because as it's volatile storage, the files would just disappear when the system restarted before the upgrade, and I'd be greeted by a nice "Files are missing yadda yadda" error as soon as I start the system. A point against RAM disk. Again.

So, is there something good in RAM disks? Excluding the obvious ~10kbish bandwidth.

I'm thinking of using my 16GB for my yet to be built home server (which, if I can, will virtualize a lot) and buy a 8GB 2133MHz or so kit for my daily driver. I rarely virtualize more than a machine with 2GB, so I can afford that lost of memory.

 

[johan851]

It used to be mildly worth it for some stuff, like what you mentioned. But with SSDs, access time is so fast that it's not worth the hassle. Like you said, the volatility makes it a pain to use for a number of applications.

I don't use a RAM disk for anything because I sort of ran out of convenient uses.

 

[petteyg359]

But, alas, IIRC, some apps use %TEMP% and/or %TMP% to save files required for, p.eg., a software upgrade. That'd render the RAM disk useless once again, because as it's volatile storage, the files would just disappear when the system restarted before the upgrade, and I'd be greeted by a nice "Files are missing yadda yadda" error as soon as I start the system.

If so, you might look for an alternative, because the programmer of that software is a moron.

 

[ivanlabrie]

I'm curious to know myself...I too have 8gb and could use some expertise on the matter.

 

[txus.palacios]

If so, you might look for an alternative, because the programmer of that software is a moron.

I don't really think s/he is a moron. For example, IIRC, VMware, when upgrading, downloads the installation MSI file to the %TEMP% folder. Then, it restarts the system, loads the file from the %TEMP% folder via a RunOnce, and then, I guess it (a) deletes it when it's done, or (b) leaves it there until it gets deleted by Disk Cleaner or CCleaner.

It isn't that bad, since the %TEMP% / %TMP% folder isn't supposed to be volatile storage, but it is supposed to be something that "can get deleted".

Anyway, I think I'm dropping this. The average usage of RAM disk of my computer is pretty low, sometimes less than a MB, and never bigger than a GB. And that's mainly the Chrome cache and some temp files, that I guess I'd be better leaving it on the SSD.

 

[petteyg359]

It isn't that bad, since the %TEMP% / %TMP% folder isn't supposed to be volatile storage, but it is supposed to be something that "can get deleted".

Downloading the installer there is just fine. You only need that file once, when it first runs. Saving data there and expecting it to remain after a reboot is violating the purpose of that directory. In most situations, since it is on a physical disk, it will remain, but that is absolutely not guaranteed, so using it as such is foolish. This is a case of lemmings, though. These people (ab)use it this way, so lets all do it! An example of doing it right: AMD and nVidia drivers extract their installers to a folder on the drive root (C:\AMD or C:\NVIDIA).

Anyway, I think I'm dropping this. The average usage of RAM disk of my computer is pretty low, sometimes less than a MB, and never bigger than a GB. And that's mainly the Chrome cache and some temp files, that I guess I'd be better leaving it on the SSD.

The only benefit a normal system would see from a RAM disk over an SSD is for extremely huge files (which would require excessive amounts of RAM to match) where DDR's multi-GBps bandwidth would beat SATA's 300-600MBps. Then again, most extremely huge files are stuff you want to keep, and not lose if the system loses power.

 

[TollhouseFrank]

RAM disks really are only useful in extremely high-load situations like you might find in an enterprise server or maybe a media-house server.

 

[EpicMango]

I was planning a RAM disk for my current system, but I decided to go against it. Buying a 32GB kit is more expensive than just getting 8GB's of RAM and a 550MB read SSD.