[SOLVED] More memory for faster storage access?

[DynV]

A couple things got me wondering if more memory for faster storage access. My system-to-be lacks memory, and although I have some I can use for short-term, I'm shopping for some. Someone recommended me for storage MX500 and after (s)he learned that I ended up with SN550, that person mentioned what I got was DRAMless. I don't know if it's the case but that got me thinking: What if I got more memory than I though I'd spend on it, and somehow turn that extra in storage caching. I'm not sure of how I'd do this but I think RAMDisk could do that but I'd need to make snapshots in case my system crashed.

I'm especially interesting in speeding up storage to play Fallout 4, and it's a 30 GB game. If indeed the game need to be install through a system (as opposed to directly on Windows) and I need to make snapshots, I'm wondering how much it will use my storage, as I think SSDs have a limited # of access (HDDs too I think). And although using such system I'd save on the # of reads, I'd increase the # of writes dramatically, unless there's a way to do incremental snapshots (I had an archive software that made daily incrementals and a weekly complete, that would be nice).

Is it true that my storage is lacking (DRAM or whatever) ? Is it true that there are systems to increase storage speed using memory? If so are there some that are incremental? If not, what kind of toll would the 30+ GB snapshots take?

Thank you kindly

 

[kanewolf]

A couple things got me wondering if more memory for faster storage access. My system-to-be lacks memory, and although I have some I can use for short-term, I'm shopping for some. Someone recommended me for storage MX500 and after (s)he learned that I ended up with SN550, that person mentioned what I got was DRAMless. I don't know if it's the case but that got me thinking: What if I got more memory than I though I'd spend on it, and somehow turn that extra in storage caching. I'm not sure of how I'd do this but I think RAMDisk could do that but I'd need to make snapshots in case my system crashed.

I'm especially interesting in speeding up storage to play Fallout 4, and it's a 30 GB game. If indeed the game need to be install through a system (as opposed to directly on Windows) and I need to make snapshots, I'm wondering how much it will use my storage, as I think SSDs have a limited # of access (HDDs too I think). And although using such system I'd save on the # of reads, I'd increase the # of writes dramatically, unless there's a way to do incremental snapshots (I had an archive software that made daily incrementals and a weekly complete, that would be nice).

Is it true that my storage is lacking (DRAM or whatever) ? Is it true that there are systems to increase storage speed using memory? If so are there some that are incremental? If not, what kind of toll would the 30+ GB snapshots take?

Thank you kindly

That drive is definitely not as fast as top-end NVMe drives. BUT, what is your current storage? If it is mechanical HDD, then this is still 100X faster.
Do not worry about the write life of SSDs. That problem is a thing of the past. WD has a 5 year warranty on that drive.

 

[jeremyj_83]

A couple things got me wondering if more memory for faster storage access. My system-to-be lacks memory, and although I have some I can use for short-term, I'm shopping for some. Someone recommended me for storage MX500 and after (s)he learned that I ended up with SN550, that person mentioned what I got was DRAMless. I don't know if it's the case but that got me thinking: What if I got more memory than I though I'd spend on it, and somehow turn that extra in storage caching. I'm not sure of how I'd do this but I think RAMDisk could do that but I'd need to make snapshots in case my system crashed.

I'm especially interesting in speeding up storage to play Fallout 4, and it's a 30 GB game. If indeed the game need to be install through a system (as opposed to directly on Windows) and I need to make snapshots, I'm wondering how much it will use my storage, as I think SSDs have a limited # of access (HDDs too I think). And although using such system I'd save on the # of reads, I'd increase the # of writes dramatically, unless there's a way to do incremental snapshots (I had an archive software that made daily incrementals and a weekly complete, that would be nice).

Is it true that my storage is lacking (DRAM or whatever) ? Is it true that there are systems to increase storage speed using memory? If so are there some that are incremental? If not, what kind of toll would the 30+ GB snapshots take?

Thank you kindly

Yes your SSD is DRAM less, but it has better performance than the MX500. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/wd-blue-sn550-m2-nvme-ssd-review-best-dramless-ssd-yet It isn't worth it to make a RAM Drive.

 

[DynV]

BUT, what is your current storage?

If you follow the link in the OP, please look at the column Where and see what is marked as Purchased.

 

[kanewolf]

If you follow the link in the OP, please look at the column Where and see what is marked as Purchased.

The title on that link is "system to be" -- I interpret that to mean not yet the baseline system. So the question is still valid, what are you comparing against?

 

[geofelt]

Storage and memory are two different things.
Memory or ram is needed for your build.
Probably, a 2 x 8gb kit is sufficient ram.
Ryzen likes fast ram. Pick a compatible kit from your motherboard's ram qvl list of from a ram vendor ram selection app.

Your processor comes with a decent cooler, no need for a cheap aftermarket unit.

Storage is the permanent storage, be it a HDD or a ssd.
Your list has a ssd of 500gb which is about right.
That is sufficient for windows and a fair number of games.
It is easy to add more storage later if you need more.
You can get more and/or faster ssd devices but the differences in performance are not all that great.

Endurance of a ssd is no longer an issue, particularly with the larger devices available.
Your device will be long obsolete before it runs out of writes. Think 15 years for normal desktop usage.

If you are looking at backups, you need External backup.
That might be a usb connected HDD or ssd.

 

[DynV]

The title on that link is "system to be" -- I interpret that to mean not yet the baseline system. So the question is still valid, what are you comparing against?

Multiple things in that list are being shipped, others arrived, from that list. It's for the system in that list once I get some memory so it can be completed.

Ryzen likes fast ram.

What speed and CL do you suggest?

Your list has a ssd of 500gb which is about right.
That is sufficient for windows and a fair number of games.

I already had the GPU before anything else in the OP link. The game works but it lags, the reason of doing the upgrade is to lower the lag. I'm convinced it's related to things other than the GPU as I hear the CPU fan increase after actions of mine. Part of the upgrade was also to reduce load time, even if it's mainly to reduce lag; if a technique like what I brought in the OP, I'd consider that unless it's very complicated, laborious or expensive (ie: the software).

If you are looking at backups, you need External backup.
That might be a usb connected HDD or ssd.

It was just an example of how something incremental is done.

Your processor comes with a decent cooler, no need for a cheap aftermarket unit.

There was none. I wasn't trying to beat the original, just match it, I hope it does.

 

[kanewolf]

Multiple things in that list are being shipped, others arrived, from that list. It's for the system in that list once I get some memory so it can be completed.

You are still not answering the question. When comparing the NVMe SSD performance, what is your baseline system? If you have a mechanical HDD then ANY SSD or NVMe will be much faster. If you have a system with a Samsung PRO then this system will be slower benchmarking. There will usually be no real-world differences that you can identify because of other inefficiencies in software or use input. Benchmarks are not real-world performance.

 

[DynV]

When comparing the NVMe SSD performance, what is your baseline system?

It's the OP link list using 16 GB memory with traditional FO4 install VS that list with 32 GB memory using some kind of way for FO4 to load faster, I gave the example of RAMDisk but I'm not sure if it's relevant, any way that extra 16 GB could be used just to help storage access.

 

[kanewolf]

It's the OP link list using 16 GB memory with traditional FO4 install VS that list with 32 GB memory using some kind of way for FO4 to load faster, I gave the example of RAMDisk but I'm not sure if it's relevant, any way that extra 16 GB could be used just to help storage access.

Sorry, you and I are just not communicating. I have attempted to ask a question about your expectations on performance, and you haven't addressed that. I will bow out.

 

[DynV]

Like I didn't want "FO4 to load faster" in post #9 also mentioned in #1 as "speeding up storage to play Fallout 4".

 

[jeremyj_83]

Like I didn't want "FO4 to load faster" in post #9 also mentioned in #1 as "speeding up storage to play Fallout 4".

A RAM disk won't help with the loading times in FO4, and neither will the extra RAM. All of that has to come from the storage subsystem and about the best that you could hope for with the RAM disk is that it is used as caching. Real world game loading times are almost all the same between SSDs, regardless of them having DRAM cache or not. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/wd-blue-sn550-m2-nvme-ssd-review-best-dramless-ssd-yet/2 The DRAM cache starts making a big difference when the drive is getting full or you run out of SLC write cache, it will not play any difference in reads on an SSD.