From: Bill Morrow (penzance_at_gate.net)
Date: Sun Nov 11 2001 - 18:53:08 EST
i STILL feel, a ramdisk is better.. :-)
when running on battery..
go ahead, throw math and logic at me..!
i'll raise you my red head wife..! (heh, heh, SHE (who IS the weakest link)
will confuse the devil out of anyone)
<------------------------------->
Cordially, :-)
Bill Morrow
WEB page http://thinkpads.com
thinkpads.com Open Forum
http://www.afaonline.com:8080/webboard/$webb.exe/~2/login?
or go to thinkpads.com and link from there
E-Mail: bill at thinkpads dot com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Geary" <Mike_at_Geary.com>
To: "THINKPAD_at_CS.UTK.EDU" <THINKPAD_at_cs.utk.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 6:09 PM
Subject: RE: RAM disk
> > a RAMdisk is better for a swap file because:
> > in a notebook, running on battery, running one app or even two,
> > with little or lots of swapping going on, better to have less
> > system memory and a busier swap file in RAMdisk..
> > lower power consumption..
>
> No, no, no. (Sorry, Bill.)
>
> Of course a swapfile in RAMdisk will be faster and use less energy than a
> swapfile on a physical disk.
>
> But the swapfile is only needed if you don't have enough memory in the
first
> place! By taking away memory to make a RAMdisk, you've just increased the
> need for swapping.
>
> Suppose you have applications running that need 512Mb memory, and you've
> only got 256Mb in the machine. Then Windows has to use a 256Mb swapfile to
> store what doesn't fit in main memory, swapping back and forth between the
> file and memory.
>
> If you do have 512Mb memory and you allocate 256Mb for a RAMdisk and put
the
> swapfile there, then Windows only has 256Mb available for your programs,
so
> it has to swap back and forth between the swapfile and the available
memory.
>
> But if you didn't allocate a RAMdisk at all, you'd have all 512Mb memory
> available for your programs. Windows wouldn't have to swap anything out to
a
> swapfile at all!
>
> Instead of taking away memory for a RAMdisk and filling it up with a
> swapfile, you'd be better off simply letting the memory be memory.
>
> -Mike
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:57:47 EST