Anyone use RAM Disk w/ Cubase?

Hey hey,

Im curious if anyone has or had a setup using RAM Disk configurations.
If so, what or what was your setup and performance? :slight_smile:


Aloha 125, and WOW!

I have not used a ram disk since the late 90’s.
(and ram was really expensive back then)

I’ll give it a try later this week.

In a similar experiment I HAVE loaded Cubase onto a USB flash drive
and then recorded/played back directly onto another USB flash drive with no probs.

Not really the same thing but kinda.

Good Luck!


Hope you’re hanging loose :wink:

My noobish knowledge on the technical aspects of Cubase limits me to know how volatile memory can help. There’s only a few threads on this from Google searching.

I found a thread on Gearslutz where the guy/gal use it temporarily while they were working on a session, then move it to a non-volatile memory (HDD, SSHD/D, etc) when they were done. This person also placed RTAS/VST’s in it for speed.

Even knowing that RAMDisk creates its own ISO on your HD on shutdown, im curious to know how RAMDisk will be applicable with a DAW.

I believe the current Demo for RAMDisk only allows 40MB :frowning:. Im giving it a try on my internet computer to store cache from Firefox and Google Chrome. I also copied some images and mp3s and its instantaneous @_@.

If anyone reading this wants to know about RAMDisk here’s a link :slight_smile:


waste of time, highly volatile (lost data) really no point to it

+1 to Scott

Nowadays the only reason to use RAM disk is if you have disk performance problem with optimized good quality SSD configuration. And I don’t think there’s many people here who does. (there shouldn’t be even many who has performance problem with well-designed HD configuration)

sigh :frowning:

I know that having so much RAM these days, it seems tempting to use a RAM drive.

However, I too recommend just using an SSD for your projects drive, and never think about a RAM drive again. For the dubious advantage of a few us, the risk of losing a session, and the before and after session data transfer management effort, just seem too great.

Don’t fix what ain’t broke.

RAM drive will be a 1000 times faster than a USB flash stick.


So imagine the diff in relation to using a spindle drive back in the 90’s.
This was why (even with the downsides) it was soooooo compelling a thing to do.
(If you had the $$$ for the ram).

Also it was way kool.
If you used a ‘ram disk’ back then you were securely on the bleeding edge.
Now days…not so much.

I remember thinking a lot about the Gigabyte RAM disk 5.25" box ( many years ago. They even had a PCI version ( They used slow RAM compared to that used in current computers.

Mostly overkill now, as the ‘mechanics’ of OS management of resources typically tend to nullify the benefits of one technology over another. SSDs are WAY faster in spec than HDDs, as evidenced by MS using a figure 100 times slower than ANY SSD as the threshold above which the OS decides that you have SSDs drives and so disables defragmentation and enables TRIM on them.

But stick them in your computer and you may get a measurable, but not whopping (as in orders of magnitude) difference in performance. Some things are really quick, like doing a Properties on a local folder tree, but start copying files around and all the CPU thinking about each file starts bogging things down.

I’m setting one up tonight and will try doing a 30 sec version of
a knock off of ‘Miss Celie’s Blues’ for a clients radio commercial.

I’ll report back tomorrow.

Might be fun but also might be just a waste of time.

Perhaps try a copy of a few GBs of mixed file sizes to itself, for 4kB and 64kB sector sizes, compared to the same files for an SSD and HDD. That should give a good idea of the raw real speeds to be expected.

I noticed that Windows seems to have used different file transfer algorithms over the years, currently with the first few GB going through really quickly, followed by a slowdown for the rest, perhaps to cater for transfers that would be complete while you wait the short time for them, and the longer ones where you would want to be able to do other things while the transfers proceed without consuming all the disk resources.

Or you were running MS-DOS (or Windows 2) in a computer with 4MB of memory. Only thing you could use those 3MB for was a RAM disk. Yes, I’m guilty as charged.

Probably those first few GBs are going to disk cache. When cache gets full and must be written to disk things slow down.

Not cached. The files have actually been transferred at that point.

I actually get dropouts all the time in Nuendo 7.1.30 and am using PCIe Flash Storage which is about 2x as fast as most SSD drives. I absolutely love the RAM Cache feature they added as a bolt on side application in Pro Tools 10 HD when it was only 32 bit and now is built in natively with Pro Tools 11 and above. It makes everything so much snappier and you can read and write to flash drive because it will use RAM if the drive can’t keep up while recording.

I am just doing simple playback with several tracks and no inserts and the dropouts are very difficult to work through. I have 32GB of RAM which is larger than the entire session is so I would love to load the entire thing into RAM if possible.