Ram Disk- Utilizing unused ram by OS - Experience?

Elektrobolt · March 27, 2012, 12:11am

Haven’t used RAM Disks since the golden floppy days, but maybe they are still viable… the traditional RAM Disks were simply a way to map a drive (like F: or some other letter), which was in RAM, rather than an actual disk. So for example what some people did, was to copy the content on the DOS floppy to the RAM disk and when you executed DOS commands they executed faster, because the were not loaded from the floppy, but from the RAM Disk (which is way faster).

The concept may have expanded from those days, of course.

Also, a note, if your computer were to crash, your RAM Disk was in RAM.

Jarno · March 27, 2012, 12:36pm

In my opinion RAM disks are suitable only for very few tasks. You have to remember:

RAM disk does not survive OS crash or power blackout
RAM disk needs to be saved into hard drive before system shutdown (SuperSpeed’s Plus version seems to do this automatically)

Now, what it may be good for in DAW computer? I can only find one usage: sample libraries. You can copy your sample libreries to RAM disk at system startup. But you’ll probably need quite a huge RAM disk for this.

Jarno · March 27, 2012, 5:37pm

UPS doesn’t help if you OS crashes. RAM disk is lost.

These are totally different beasts. Their benefit is that they are usually battery-backed which makes them survivable from crashes and blackouts and even hold data for days when your computer is off. (At least they were when I studied them few years ago)

I think it really does just this. Use RAM in your motherboard. You may have for example 32G of RAM (because your processor supports it), but 32-bit windows sees only 3G. RamDisk doesn’t use Windows to allocate memory and use rest 29G for your RAM disk.

It was the same in those days Elektrobolt told you about: Depending on your processor, you could have 1M, 16M or 4G RAM. MS-DOS used only 640k, because it was designed for i8086 with 1M RAM limit and IBM in their great wishdom decided to use last 384k for memory-mapped I/O (yes, it was IBM who thought 640k is enough for everyone, not Bill Gates). Now, RAM-disk software didn’t care about OS (MS-DOS), but allocated this “unseen” memory for your RAM-disk.

Split · March 27, 2012, 7:45pm

So is using a Ram Disk a Dam Risk …

Jarno · March 27, 2012, 7:53pm

Elektrobolt · March 28, 2012, 12:37am

I think that even IF the situation were like you sort of hoped, the money (for the extra RAM, interface, etc.) would be better spent on a SSD or a faster SATA drive, if you wanted a fast “work” disk. This would also be less volatile, because frankly a RD would be risking it, to say the least. Especially as a “rigged” workaround.

IMHO, just not worth the potential pain.

And good word play there, Split!!!

twilightsong · March 29, 2012, 3:25am

I read where cubase 64-bit can address ONE TERABYTE of RAM

It’s in the Read Me that comes with v 5 and 6

Split · March 29, 2012, 7:06am

No doubt sometime in the future that will become reality

and no doubt someone will still complain that it’s not enough

HornForHire · March 29, 2012, 8:30am

Elektrobolt · March 29, 2012, 4:08pm

I think you are absolutely right. The only thing that is a drawback with your scenario, is the cost and in some fashion, logistics. The software required on each machine, Windows and applications with dongle requirements, etc.

In some other thread I included a link to the Windows restrictions on memory, check out:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx

So when they talk about 1 TB of RAM, you need an OS that will deal with that too. (AND, a supporting wallet!!! )

Windows 7, above home editions, can handle a lot of RAM. Like you said, more than one would need, really. At least as things are today. Tomorrow will be different.

Elektrobolt · March 29, 2012, 9:00pm

Try this one: Memory Limits for Windows and Windows Server Releases - Win32 apps | Microsoft Learn

Elektrobolt · March 29, 2012, 9:14pm

Steve Fogal:

Let’s face it, this music stuff isn’t cheap and we’ve all invested thousands of dollars. At least my guitars are all holding, while the DAW stuff…well it go’s without saying. I bet most of us already have spare computers, even our older ir most previous DAW computers, spare sound cards, more that one version of Cubase, or other DAW platforms…or all the above. Investments already have made for the most part. This ‘already have’ mindset has pretty much been a main theme for adding in additional computers. Now I’m behind the times with regard to my DAW, it’s hardware & software, but with logistics/expenses aside, I do feel multiple computers is the way to go. Even if you have the latest & greatest software & hardware, you still have all this older stuff that can be continued to be put to use in an older machine as a slave. Not only does it not go to waste, but will relieve your master DAW machine as well. Many here also use UAD cards, even though they have Cubase 6 running on a Win 7 64 bit machine with gobs of ram, so that says something.
It seems to me by the responses in different threads that using multiple computers for many here is not highly desirable… But for reasons other than being an ultimate but not all-ending answer to a lack of resources. seems it’s considered too much of a ‘hastle’. Now I’ve not accomplished setting up/using a 2 computer set up yet…I’m still going through my own hastles and gathering the extra’s I’ll need…along with my practice of redundancies. I do, and will continue to investigate and implinent different ways to make use if what I already have or can aquire to relieve my main DAW. That’s one reason I use my keyboard/synth with good Ol’ 5 pin midi still for many of my sounds…besides liking/prefering them in many instances. It works for me extremely well and I may expand on this option. But for my favorite virtual instruments, synth sound modules won’t do…that’s where a slave computer comes in. Now I hope after my big campaign on this, that it actually works!

Many truths there, Steve.
It is so hard to drop the old MIDI machines. Some of the ones I have are so old, I am afraid to play too rough on them. It is also getting harder and harder to find replacement parts for some of them.

Elektrobolt · March 30, 2012, 1:30pm

Absolutely! I just cannot let go because I have so much “knowledge” about them and the way the make sounds (after all these years of tweaking, I sure hope I learned something). The VSTi’s are much more advanced (generally) and for some reason it’s harder to invest time in ONE of them, because there are so many.

E.g. one of my more used synthesizers is a Roland Jupiter 6 and I am taking better care of it than my kids at times, I think. Nah, but you get the point. I also have a Juno 106 which is not near as good a quality, but very useful (to me) and because it’s prone to age breakdown, mine has worked for a long time without any problems (knock knock), I actually acquired a couple of already broken ones, a few years back.

Lately I’ve been using Roland V-Synth as my main (I switch every once in a while, so I don’t stagnate), and it’s awesome, BUT even though it has a VA synth built-in, the sampling capabilities are the main attraction. It’s making me do things I am not familiar with, which is awesome. Downside is that even though sampling is cool, it’s a bit more cumbersome than just using good ol’oscillators. AND it requires a whole lot more RAM!!!