SuperTalent Unveils USB 3.0 RamDisk Device

Status
Not open for further replies.

vittau

Distinguished
Oct 11, 2010
221
0
18,690
1
So instead of having the OS transfer the files as usual, let's use a middleware to fake a super fast transfer and then transfer it slowly anyway. Genius!
 

warezme

Distinguished
Dec 18, 2006
2,405
27
19,840
20
If you have enough RAM on your system, it would be faster to create a RAM disk off system memory and just place your system cache on it, no USB3 bus limitation. This idea has been around for decades.
 

chumly

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2010
647
0
19,010
17
32, 64, 128, 256, 512

5120/8 = 640

I don't understand why humanity is still in Base 10. We should switch to 8. :) Maybe when Skynet gets here....
 

nukemaster

Titan
Moderator

8 megabits = 1 megabyte
so

5000(assuming they use the base 10 giga like they seem to now) megabits = 625 megabytes.

If they are still using 1024(they way that things have always been in the past) it would be 640 megabytes.

Everyone seems to do it differently, just like how ALL HDD makers use base 10 1000megabytes = 1gigabyte vs 1024(what I call the real way).
 

azgard

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2002
159
0
18,680
0
Not really sure how this is effective or where they even get those numbers, as 625 MB/s is wrong too, sustained transfer rates would top out at 512 MB/s with no other devices on the bus. This is also ignoring the fact that USB is a horrible way to implement whatever this is with all of the cpu overhead required to run the USB device in the first place. This thing claims to be a ramdisk using system ram....from a usb port really confusing.
 

superman21

Distinguished
Apr 11, 2009
11
0
18,510
0


I know how it works. The original line read GB/s and MB/s, which is incorrect. Capitalization matters with this sort of stuff.
 

Lekko

Distinguished
May 10, 2008
30
0
18,530
0
The only thing I can see this actually speeding up would be transferring a massive number of small files. On USB 3.0 I always notice write speeds dropping massively when writing a cluster of smaller files. If it can create an image on RAM and then transfer them all in bulk, much like a .zip file, then you would at lest get full write speed out of it for the entirety of the transfer.
 
USB drives are for quick transferring and removing, if this uses RAM as a fake high speed transfer while its not actually transferred to the device it is USELESS

Theres an easy way to mimic this on ANY device - device manager change the profile to high performance rather then quick removal - Windows will then use the ram like this device suggests it will do to "boost" transfer speeds

This is infact all BS because the devices can only read/write at a specific rate, and will always take just as long no matter what you do

The problem is customers/end users will just remove the device mid way through transfers thinking there done and corrupt the files or leave things incomplete (aka its not idiot proof)

Other problems - these devices are usually used by "limited" users - most computers there transferring it to/from will have the OS secured/limited (schools university workplaces etc) so your unable to install applications/drivers to allow the speeds/device in the first place (why otherwise would you own a external storage device)

This device is useless
 

The_Trutherizer

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2008
509
0
18,980
0
Nice form factor,and it is really good that it is mobile, but the general idea is so old that I'm surprised it's not standard on all motherboards to have fast memory directly on the motherboard pcb dedicated to this type of task by now.
 

The_Trutherizer

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2008
509
0
18,980
0


computers use base2 :p

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS