ReadyBoost

Hello,

I've just started to use readyboost by pushing a 4GB usb stick into the port
and configuring it to 'Improve system performance'. I can see its little
light flashing, so I assume it is working. Is there anyway of measuring how
much it is improving (or not) system performance. I have 2 Gb ram.

Thanks

K

 

"KRK" <trebor@yeleek.nospam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:er0nZKvLKHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Hello,
>
> I've just started to use readyboost by pushing a 4GB usb stick into the
> port and configuring it to 'Improve system performance'. I can see its
> little light flashing, so I assume it is working. Is there anyway of
> measuring how much it is improving (or not) system performance. I have 2
> Gb ram.
>
> Thanks
>
> K<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

No, but the more physical RAM you have, the less effect it has. With 2gb
installed, its effect would not be too apparent..

--

Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience

 

Hi,

Observation is the only real measure. With 2GB of system ram installed, it
is unlikely that you will see much in the way of performance improvement.
Readyboost is designed to supplement systems with small amounts of installed
ram (<1GB).

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help -
Vote for my shoe:

"KRK" <trebor@yeleek.nospam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:er0nZKvLKHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Hello,
>
> I've just started to use readyboost by pushing a 4GB usb stick into the
> port and configuring it to 'Improve system performance'. I can see its
> little light flashing, so I assume it is working. Is there anyway of
> measuring how much it is improving (or not) system performance. I have 2
> Gb ram.
>
> Thanks
>
> K <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:04:37 +0100, "KRK"
<trebor@yeleek.nospam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I've just started to use readyboost by pushing a 4GB usb stick into the port
> and configuring it to 'Improve system performance'. I can see its little
> light flashing, so I assume it is working. Is there anyway of measuring how
> much it is improving (or not) system performance. I have 2 Gb ram.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


Two points:

1. There's no real way to measure, but you should be able to judge its
effect by your personal observations.

2. Your question leads me to believe that you have observed no
improvement in performance. That's no surprise to me, since as far as
I'm concerned, ReadyBoost is of benefit only for systems with very
little RAM. With 2GB of RAM there is normally little to no impact of
using ReadyBoost. I also wouldn't recommend ReadyBoost for those with
little RAM, since the money would be better spent by buying more RAM.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

"KRK" <trebor@yeleek.nospam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:er0nZKvLKHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I've just started to use readyboost by pushing a 4GB usb stick into the
> port and configuring it to 'Improve system performance'. I can see its
> little light flashing, so I assume it is working. Is there anyway of
> measuring how much it is improving (or not) system performance. I have 2
> Gb ram.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

It's mostly in observed behavior. When I had a somewhat slower system with
1G RAM putting in a 2G USB key made a quite noticeable difference overall,
but especially in opening programs. I upgraded the motherboard with a
faster CPU and 2G RAM. Everyone said it wouldn't help much, if any, so
didn't bother with the USB key. Recently I put it back in specifically
because when one program ran it's cleanup process, both memory and disk
intensive, the overall system performance was quite poor and starting
programs took a long time. I recalled that the most noticeable thing
Readyboost did for me was made programs open faster. And so it did again.
The system is notably less clogged up during the clean up process and
programs open quicker, both during that and at other times. I haven't
really noticed much, if any, other improvement. I only did one timing,
opening Opera during that cleanup process. It went from ten seconds to
three.

If you want to see what it's doing, bring up the resource monitor, open the
Disk section, and sort by Read or Write to the drive. I find that the
Readboost drive is usually at the top of the list. For the aforementioned
cleanup issue, much of it's access now goes to the Readboost drive rather
than the programs data-store drive.

I suppose the performance of your hard disk system would be relevant as
well. Except for this one program, most of my computer usage is compute
bound rather than disk bound and my drives aren't all that fast (Mode 5
Ultra ATA, 7200RPM, 8MB buffer). Perhaps with faster transfer rates or a
larger on-drive buffer it wouldn't matter so much.

- Bill

 

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 12:57:00 -0500, "Andy Huang"
<anson198002@hotmail.com> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Utter waste.
> Remove USB stick, disable ReadyBoost as that service in fact slows you down
> when it loads at startup. Run services.msc & disable it, remove USB stick,
> spit 3 times and say
> "get behind me thee, ReadyBoost".
>
> Nobody needs this with 2GB, let alone my 4GB system
> By the way, get 4GB, that will help you more than ReadyBoost, you get
> approx. 3.1GB usable memory (because 0.75GB is consumed by
> moatherboard/hardware for itself) and while you will never see its benefits
> for basic tasks, graphics & video will benefit, in my case heavy CAD
> engineering sometimes specifies 16GB memory "for best performance", so I can
> use 4GB for sure......<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->



Although most of what you say is right, let me make one small
correction. You say "get 4GB, ... you get approx. 3.1GB usable memory
(because 0.75GB is consumed by moatherboard/hardware for itself)"

It's true that most people get to use only about 3.1GB out of the 4GB
installed, but it's not true that "0.75GB is consumed by
moatherboard/hardware for itself." The hardware is using the *address
space*, not the actual RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of
RAM, the rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no address space
to map it to.

Also, recommending that he get 4GB is not a good idea for most people.
That's considerably more than most people need, and unless they do
things like editing large graphics or video files, or doing the heavy
CAD engineering you do, they will see little if any improvement by
having that much RAM.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

KRK;1129681 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Hello,
>
> I've just started to use readyboost by pushing a 4GB usb stick into the
> port
> and configuring it to 'Improve system performance'. I can see its
> little
> light flashing, so I assume it is working. Is there anyway of measuring
> how
> much it is improving (or not) system performance. I have 2 Gb ram.
>
> Thanks
>
> K<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


Even if you have no real performance improvement (which is probably the
case with 2GBs of RAM), you will have less disk activity because your
page file is now mapped to the USB stick. That helps with wear and tear
of the disk.


--
whs

 

Utter waste.
Remove USB stick, disable ReadyBoost as that service in fact slows you down
when it loads at startup. Run services.msc & disable it, remove USB stick,
spit 3 times and say
"get behind me thee, ReadyBoost".

Nobody needs this with 2GB, let alone my 4GB system
By the way, get 4GB, that will help you more than ReadyBoost, you get
approx. 3.1GB usable memory (because 0.75GB is consumed by
moatherboard/hardware for itself) and while you will never see its benefits
for basic tasks, graphics & video will benefit, in my case heavy CAD
engineering sometimes specifies 16GB memory "for best performance", so I can
use 4GB for sure......

 

whs replied:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Even if you have no real performance improvement (which is probably the
> case with 2GBs of RAM), you will have less disk activity because your
> page file is now mapped to the USB stick. That helps with wear and tear
> of the disk.
>
> --
> whs<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with whs. I have 1.5gb of ram and 4gb of Readyboost. My
computer seems to run smoother with Readyboost. Certainly does no
harm.

Bill

 

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:55:14 -0700 (PDT), vista bill
<billsrrempire@gmail.com> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> whs replied:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > Even if you have no real performance improvement (which is probably the
> > case with 2GBs of RAM), you will have less disk activity because your
> > page file is now mapped to the USB stick. That helps with wear and tear
> > of the disk.
> >
> > --
> > whs<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I agree with whs. I have 1.5gb of ram and 4gb of Readyboost. My
> computer seems to run smoother with Readyboost. Certainly does no
> harm.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


That's not surprising with 1.5GB of RAM, or with any amount under 2GB.
It's only with 2GB or more of RAM that ReadyBoost is largely useless.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

On Sep 6, 10:44 pm, "Andy Huang" <anson198...@hotmail.com> wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> My friend, memory is dirt cheap these days even for high-end makers like
> Corsair or Mushkin.
> I don't mention K-byte, PNY and other junk that's almost free.
>
> AND even junk works for home users.  I use Corsair.
> i am also a degreen EE Engineer w/ME experience, and I swear everyone should
> get 4GB and stop worrying about wasting $4 for unused 0.75GB address space,
> EXCEPT if all you do is wordprocessing, then you may get by with 2GB in
> Vista, 1GB in XP.
>
> My applications in 64-bit versions can fill even 16GB - Engineering/3D
> Graphics apps, I know we're talking about 32-bit WIndows but Server edition
> of 32 bit can address more than 4GB.
>
> Listen do you know who i am ???
>
> I am the guy who wrote a "Memory Article" for free - for the community to
> enjoy, and you all were discussing it here for weeks, then I reposted again
> and you were again discussing it endlessly.
>
> You all agreed I was right.  Get 4GB regardless of OS, get at least 8GB is
> your Windows is 32-bit Server or 64-bit Client.
> When you buy memory you stimulate economy, so companies hire more engineers
> so I get filthy rich and have time to post here instead of mopping streets!
>
> And please don't kill our jobs by buying cheap Asian semi's - get American
> Corsair, Mushkin, etc even though some made in Taiwan, design/taxes remain
> in America and high-end models are even manufactured in America
> (COLORADO/CALIFORNIA fabs).
> Come one help CA high-tech workforce.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More than 2gb of RAM can't be used in all computers.

Bill

 

My friend, memory is dirt cheap these days even for high-end makers like
Corsair or Mushkin.
I don't mention K-byte, PNY and other junk that's almost free.\

AND even junk works for home users. I use Corsair.
i am also a degreen EE Engineer w/ME experience, and I swear everyone should
get 4GB and stop worrying about wasting $4 for unused 0.75GB address space,
EXCEPT if all you do is wordprocessing, then you may get by with 2GB in
Vista, 1GB in XP.

My applications in 64-bit versions can fill even 16GB - Engineering/3D
Graphics apps, I know we're talking about 32-bit WIndows but Server edition
of 32 bit can address more than 4GB.

Listen do you know who i am ???

I am the guy who wrote a "Memory Article" for free - for the community to
enjoy, and you all were discussing it here for weeks, then I reposted again
and you were again discussing it endlessly.

You all agreed I was right. Get 4GB regardless of OS, get at least 8GB is
your Windows is 32-bit Server or 64-bit Client.
When you buy memory you stimulate economy, so companies hire more engineers
so I get filthy rich and have time to post here instead of mopping streets!

And please don't kill our jobs by buying cheap Asian semi's - get American
Corsair, Mushkin, etc even though some made in Taiwan, design/taxes remain
in America and high-end models are even manufactured in America
(COLORADO/CALIFORNIA fabs).
Come one help CA high-tech workforce.

 

vista bill wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>SNIP <!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> More than 2gb of RAM can't be used in all computers.
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I still have an old dog Gateway that's maxed out at 384MB.
Runs XP pretty good without an AV.
Two years, no AV, no viruses.
Viruses get tired of waiting to run, so they just leave.

 

i use something like your Gateway for C=programming for an embedded
micrcoontroller design here.
Beleieve it or not, even Windows 98 is Ok for such tasks.

The entire reason for breathtaking advances in hardware was multimedia -
something business people hardly care about. In order to write a proposal
in MS Word r run Autocad one does not need quad cores or Gigabytes of
memory... 3D Inventor is a different story.
Autodesk Inventor2010 can fill uo even 8GB memory, another application comes
ot mind - Adobe Photoshop, also can bite lots of memory.

 

Re: ReadyBoost - Thanks

Hello and thanks.

Yes you are right there was no obvious system improvement, in fact if
anything it seemed to make performance worse.

K


"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news3i7a5df4k126fl5gl0ms0ge86ulb9uird@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:04:37 +0100, "KRK"
> <trebor@yeleek.nospam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> I've just started to use readyboost by pushing a 4GB usb stick into the
>> port
>> and configuring it to 'Improve system performance'. I can see its little
>> light flashing, so I assume it is working. Is there anyway of measuring
>> how
>> much it is improving (or not) system performance. I have 2 Gb ram.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>
> Two points:
>
> 1. There's no real way to measure, but you should be able to judge its
> effect by your personal observations.
>
> 2. Your question leads me to believe that you have observed no
> improvement in performance. That's no surprise to me, since as far as
> I'm concerned, ReadyBoost is of benefit only for systems with very
> little RAM. With 2GB of RAM there is normally little to no impact of
> using ReadyBoost. I also wouldn't recommend ReadyBoost for those with
> little RAM, since the money would be better spent by buying more RAM.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Re: ReadyBoost Thanks

Thanks again

Yes I do a lot of video/graphics stuff, so more RAM might be sensible

KK


"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:f2q7a51c3711i83da89n7b8o5hungba3l5@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 12:57:00 -0500, "Andy Huang"
> <anson198002@hotmail.com> wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Utter waste.
>> Remove USB stick, disable ReadyBoost as that service in fact slows you
>> down
>> when it loads at startup. Run services.msc & disable it, remove USB
>> stick,
>> spit 3 times and say
>> "get behind me thee, ReadyBoost".
>>
>> Nobody needs this with 2GB, let alone my 4GB system
>> By the way, get 4GB, that will help you more than ReadyBoost, you get
>> approx. 3.1GB usable memory (because 0.75GB is consumed by
>> moatherboard/hardware for itself) and while you will never see its
>> benefits
>> for basic tasks, graphics & video will benefit, in my case heavy CAD
>> engineering sometimes specifies 16GB memory "for best performance", so I
>> can
>> use 4GB for sure......<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>
>
> Although most of what you say is right, let me make one small
> correction. You say "get 4GB, ... you get approx. 3.1GB usable memory
> (because 0.75GB is consumed by moatherboard/hardware for itself)"
>
> It's true that most people get to use only about 3.1GB out of the 4GB
> installed, but it's not true that "0.75GB is consumed by
> moatherboard/hardware for itself." The hardware is using the *address
> space*, not the actual RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of
> RAM, the rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no address space
> to map it to.
>
> Also, recommending that he get 4GB is not a good idea for most people.
> That's considerably more than most people need, and unless they do
> things like editing large graphics or video files, or doing the heavy
> CAD engineering you do, they will see little if any improvement by
> having that much RAM.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

"Andy Huang" <anson198002@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uY3DYn1LKHA.3948@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> My friend, memory is dirt cheap these days even for high-end makers like
> Corsair or Mushkin.
> I don't mention K-byte, PNY and other junk that's almost free.
>
> AND even junk works for home users. I use Corsair.
> i am also a degreen EE Engineer w/ME experience, and I swear everyone
> should get 4GB and stop worrying about wasting $4 for unused 0.75GB
> address space, EXCEPT if all you do is wordprocessing, then you may get by
> with 2GB in Vista, 1GB in XP.
>
> My applications in 64-bit versions can fill even 16GB - Engineering/3D
> Graphics apps, I know we're talking about 32-bit WIndows but Server
> edition of 32 bit can address more than 4GB.
>
> Listen do you know who i am ???<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Yes you are unemployed Russian Jeyboy who has serious problems with the
fathers of women you take a fancy to!

 

Re: ReadyBoost - Thanks

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 12:08:07 +0100, "KRK"
<trebor@yeleek.nospam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Hello and thanks.
>
> Yes you are right there was no obvious system improvement, in fact if
> anything it seemed to make performance worse.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


You're welcome. Glad to help.


<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news3i7a5df4k126fl5gl0ms0ge86ulb9uird@4ax.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:04:37 +0100, "KRK"
> > <trebor@yeleek.nospam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> ><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >> I've just started to use readyboost by pushing a 4GB usb stick into the
> >> port
> >> and configuring it to 'Improve system performance'. I can see its little
> >> light flashing, so I assume it is working. Is there anyway of measuring
> >> how
> >> much it is improving (or not) system performance. I have 2 Gb ram.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> >
> >
> > Two points:
> >
> > 1. There's no real way to measure, but you should be able to judge its
> > effect by your personal observations.
> >
> > 2. Your question leads me to believe that you have observed no
> > improvement in performance. That's no surprise to me, since as far as
> > I'm concerned, ReadyBoost is of benefit only for systems with very
> > little RAM. With 2GB of RAM there is normally little to no impact of
> > using ReadyBoost. I also wouldn't recommend ReadyBoost for those with
> > little RAM, since the money would be better spent by buying more RAM.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup <!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

Re: ReadyBoost Thanks

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 12:11:47 +0100, "KRK"
<trebor@yeleek.nospam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Thanks again
>
> Yes I do a lot of video/graphics stuff, so more RAM might be sensible<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


Yes, in that case, you are typical of the person to whom more RAM can
provide better performance.

<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:f2q7a51c3711i83da89n7b8o5hungba3l5@4ax.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 12:57:00 -0500, "Andy Huang"
> > <anson198002@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >> Utter waste.
> >> Remove USB stick, disable ReadyBoost as that service in fact slows you
> >> down
> >> when it loads at startup. Run services.msc & disable it, remove USB
> >> stick,
> >> spit 3 times and say
> >> "get behind me thee, ReadyBoost".
> >>
> >> Nobody needs this with 2GB, let alone my 4GB system
> >> By the way, get 4GB, that will help you more than ReadyBoost, you get
> >> approx. 3.1GB usable memory (because 0.75GB is consumed by
> >> moatherboard/hardware for itself) and while you will never see its
> >> benefits
> >> for basic tasks, graphics & video will benefit, in my case heavy CAD
> >> engineering sometimes specifies 16GB memory "for best performance", so I
> >> can
> >> use 4GB for sure......<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> >
> >
> >
> > Although most of what you say is right, let me make one small
> > correction. You say "get 4GB, ... you get approx. 3.1GB usable memory
> > (because 0.75GB is consumed by moatherboard/hardware for itself)"
> >
> > It's true that most people get to use only about 3.1GB out of the 4GB
> > installed, but it's not true that "0.75GB is consumed by
> > moatherboard/hardware for itself." The hardware is using the *address
> > space*, not the actual RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of
> > RAM, the rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no address space
> > to map it to.
> >
> > Also, recommending that he get 4GB is not a good idea for most people.
> > That's considerably more than most people need, and unless they do
> > things like editing large graphics or video files, or doing the heavy
> > CAD engineering you do, they will see little if any improvement by
> > having that much RAM.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup <!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

Hi,

How do you know about father?
Who are you??

Actually I am employed, just not as well as pre-2008. With my skills people
make $millions, I am almost 40, and it's a long story.
I am just curious what diud you mean by father?
Any relation to Long Island, NY?

If yes, you know what?
F you and everything your family stands for, Thugs. Two years will pass in
May but don't even think of calling me.
Go marry Brian.

jewboy.