Gigabyte's RAM drive card w/battery backup...

[ddrueding1]

The reasons for RAID are twofold

(less important) - you would actually increase your bandwidth beyond what is available on a single SATA channel.

(more importnt) - you would have a single drive of sufficient space to store all your apps, leaving network storage for data.

[Erssa]

Gigabyte might have a great product here, but i don't really get it:
* why use SATA?

SATA is faster than PCI and no incompatible problem.
Why not PCI-E?
I guess there r not many bords with PCI-E so far...

SATA is bootable PCI-E is not afaik.

On another note this could make up a nice silent combo with that recently reviewed Hitachi drive in a stand by mode as a storage drive. Guess we will have something similar in the future with the hard drives including flash memory..

[atomidude]

PCI-E would be as bootable as any RAID or SCSI card is. you need a driver to install the OS, just like you need one for SATA. no problem there

[ATWindsor]

PCI-E would be as bootable as any RAID or SCSI card is. you need a driver to install the OS, just like you need one for SATA. no problem there

But would you need that driver to be supplied from a floppy or cd? If so, its better with s-ata, as the driver is automatically installed.

AtW

[atomidude]

no SATA driver required when installing OS?! i have a K8VNXP mobo, A64 with socket 754, and sure need a floppy when installing WinXP. don't think that's an issue

[|Romeo|]

You don't need a driver from a floppy when using an intel ICH, unless you plan on playing with RAID. With third party PCI, or 3GIO cards you certainly will. I've never had an opportunity to try new Nvidia, Via, Sis or Uli ICHs; so I can't say whether or not they need a driver at OS install or not.

[nici]

I can only say that my nForce4 mobo didnt need any drivers when installing XP, it has the sata-controller intergrated to the chipset, the nForce2 mobo did need sata-drives, the controller was a separate Silicon Image 3112. My cousins Intel-based Shuttle didnt need separate drivers, and neither did his nForce4 board.

[sgtpokey]

nutball wrote:

What's missing for me is a sort of Windows equivalent of an NFS overlay mount. It would be very nice to able to install

now that's a good idea!! You mean as how unix/linix does this right? I've always liked how the OS hides the physical drives in this regard.

ddrueding1 wrote:

The reasons for RAID are twofold

(less important) - you would actually increase your bandwidth beyond what is available on a single SATA channel.

(more importnt) - you would have a single drive of sufficient space to store all your apps, leaving network storage for data

I was not aware that raid-0*used more than one channel?! In fact I would have bet that it is still limited to one channel.

The bigger drive criteria may be nifty if you have the PCI space, but realistically it may make more sense to prioritize what you want on 4 gigs and then wait for someone to change the form factor to a 5.25 or 3.5", as frosted wondered. I think they stuck with PCI this go around to save cost on development and get it to market faster (since they can leverage off current design, but since it's NOT a pci interface they should be able to get it into another form factor in the future)

BTW, found the cenetek review: http://www.silentpcreview.com/article49-page1.html. The relevant text may be:

"As you can see, it is a fairly sizable card. The RAM sockets are angled to ensure enough space for a card in the next PCI slot, but it is a very tight fit. You may want to keep the next slot free for some safety margin. Plus, RAM does generate heat, and it may be best to keep that distance to allow for some natural convection air cooling. "

*NOTE: edited as I originally inadvertantly typed raid-1 when ddreueding1 was talking about raid-0

EDITED AGAIN, URL was wrong

[lenny]

Edit : removed quote because original post was corrected

Was googling and found this article where many issues that were discussed here were already covered. Don't bother following the link if you've already read all the posts in this thread. The only links of interest in the article (to a bootable RAM disk with high bandwidth under development) don't work. There's a link to XP Lite which, from what I can tell, is a utility to remove components from XP or Win2K for you, to cut down XP to 350MB (and Win2K to 200MB) or less.

I blieve PCI Express can be bootable if the card has a bootable BIOS, but I'm assuming that PCI Express is merely a better PCI. Can someone more knowledgeable confirm or deny this?

[sgtpokey]

Not me that wants to run a ramdisk in RAID-0

But now that you mention it, you're right, I think ddreuding1 confused RAID-0 with simple drive spanning, and then I got confused by *his* confusion. *plus i inadvertantly said raid-1 when ddreuding clearly typed raid-0*

RAID 0 doesn't give you more space, Drive Spanning does. I didn't catch that. What I did catch in ddreuding's post was the statement that RAID-0 can give you speeds greater than the bandwidth of a single channel. I didn't know about that and was in the process of researching that to see what the deal was...

[ddrueding1]

I'm afraid you guys need to do a bit more research on RAID levels:

Here is StorageReview's RAID-0 FAQ entry

[afrost]

Is my guess right, the reason for using the pci is to charge the battery on the card.
Thanks

The battery could just as easily charge from a four pin molex though. If there is power available to the PCI slot when the computer is shut down but the power supply is still on, then they could use this to keep the RAM up. It would be a much more usable solution this way for people who don't want to run their PC 24/7

I'm just guessing on this and really have no idea....it's what I'm hoping for actually as I don't run my PC 24/7 since that is a waste of electricity.

[lenny]

The battery could just as easily charge from a four pin molex though. If there is power available to the PCI slot when the computer is shut down but the power supply is still on, then they could use this to keep the RAM up. It would be a much more usable solution this way for people who don't want to run their PC 24/7

PCI slot provides5V standby (2A max. on most systems). Molex does not. It is not clear if the card makes use of 5V SB to refresh the RAM or to keep the battery topped up.

[BobDog]

Hey that thing is pretty cool. As those of you who had a look at the audiophile debate thread know, I am building an HTPC (STILL not built!) and I am going after a silent PC, networked storage solution much like the one suggested by perry above.

In any case, I looked at the Rocket Drives et al. (which were all much more expensive than this Gigabyte, BTW) but in the end I decided to go with this (I actually have 2, one for my HTPC and another for a tablet PC I'll be using as a remote control). True, it is a little more expensive, but not too much more and, more importantly (to me) there are no volatility or incompatibility problems, it looks like a normal IDE HDD because it is a normal IDE HDD--it should all be very, very easy to implement... whenever the time finally comes to do so (and I have been assured that I can fit XP on 2GB ). It is also very, very fast (though not as fast as the DDR-based drives, I think), and will not suffer from high temps., so that is one less thing to worry about.

I just wish I had looked around for a SATA HDD before I bought the one I did.

[lenny]

but in the end I decided to go with this

I have the 800MB version of the SimpleTech flash drive. Performance sucks big time. Transfer rate never breaks 1 MB/s. Does not support DMA transfer modes (only PIO modes) so CPU usage is high. I use it as a backup drive (MS Money writes the backup file to this drive) and even then it is agonizingly slow. Forget about writing from this device to CD unless you want to test the buffer underrun protection feature of your drive.

[BobDog]

but in the end I decided to go with this

I have the 800MB version of the SimpleTech flash drive. Performance sucks big time. Transfer rate never breaks 1 MB/s. Does not support DMA transfer modes (only PIO modes) so CPU usage is high. I use it as a backup drive (MS Money writes the backup file to this drive) and even then it is agonizingly slow. Forget about writing from this device to CD unless you want to test the buffer underrun protection feature of your drive.

Really, it specs very well... but I know that specs are not everything (I guess unless you really know what to look for). In any case, preformance is unimportant for me, I will never do anything more demanding than playback a DVD on this machine, I only care about no moving parts (and robustness to heat b/c I will have no fans at all in my case). Thanks for the heads up however.

BTW, what are you doing with an 800MB backup drive?

[sgtpokey]

I'm afraid you guys need to do a bit more research on RAID levels:

My bad, since it was my intial reply that muddied up the waters.

back on track of this Ramdisk, anadtech has followed up with more info in their day 2 coverage, so you know a lot of people are interested in this one...

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2434

[lenny]

BTW, what are you doing with an 800MB backup drive?

Not sure what you mean by the question, but I'll try to answer my couple of interpretations of it.

- Why do I have a 800MB flash drive? I found it on eBay cheap and wanted to play with it. When I found out the performance is lacking, I decided to use it for online backup of files, so that I have device redundancy without additional noise.

- What do I backup with only 800MB? Mainly personal data that changes a lot. MS Money, e-mails, documents that I wrote, bookmarks, and occasional stuff I save from the web. Digital photos go on DVDs and external HDDs (at last count > 20GB worth)

I may pull the drive out and use it in my mini-ITX system that's been collecting dust. Don't actually have a compelling application for the mini ITX though.

Maybe the 2GB drive has better specs than the 800MB. Let us know.

[Shining Arcanine]

Hello, ladies and gentlemen; check this out. Seems like an interesting solution if you leave your box on 24/7, like people who fold, or never shut down for more than 16 hours (the built-in battery backup lasts up to 16 hours). Four slots means up to 4G by my guess, and I jjust did a quick check of my Windows XP Pro folder on a fairly loaded system and it only takes up 2.4Gb, plus 1.82GB for the Program Files folder; finally, Documents and Settings takes up 728MB. I believe a significant amount of space can be saved by using a smaller OS and not having as much software installed (SystemWorks Premiere, Office 2003 and Photoshop CS are the doozies).

WinXP Home on the RAM drive with a supplemental HDD drive for storage that is set to spin down after 5 minutes seems perfectly feasible to me.

Although personally, I still think it's cheaper and just as quiet to get a couple of 2.5" drives and isolate them, but for those who really want to go solid state, here's a more affordable solution than in the past. Also, this would be way faster than any HDD!

-Ed

Now we need are 16GB memory modules to debut.

By the way, with hybrid hard drives we probably won't need to set storage drives to spin down as they'll do that for us.

[Yoda]

Some previous posters already mentioned the need for planning for enough available PCI-slots if using this RAM drive.

Only a couple weeks ago I was thinking that one Foxconn mobo, the NFPIK8AA-8EKRS (a single-Opteron one with 2 x16-PCI-E slots etc.), might be suitable base for my next computer. The mobo has only 1 PCI slot. No PCI-X, but 2 full-bandwidth x16-, 1 x4- and 1 x1-PCI-E.

I thought that I would have no use for more than one PCI-slot, as I would be building this new setup from the scratch.

Since then, I have learned that:
1. The successor of Creative's Audigys will be PCI-based
2. I can have, for free, a PCI-based 3Ware 8-port RAID-adapter from an old computer from our office. I have a couple of 160GB IDE-drives I could use.
3. Gigabyte might have a PCI-based RAM drive available soon.

So, at least three potential users for the single PCI-slot, grrr!

The RAID I'll probably put to some other computer in the network, because it'll be noisy. But, I would be interested in the idea of having, let's say, two of these RamDrives in a RAID-0 setup as the system drive, and the OS, most important programs (and a couple of games) on that. The rest would be on a HDD which would spin down quickly. Coupled with quiet CPU-fans etc, a passively cooled graphics card, what else could I wish for a quiet pc?

For that I would need 3 PCI-slots if I'll use the sound-card, too. So, I was thinking, for this and other scenarios, are there any (affordable) adapters which would enable attaching PCI-card(s) on a x1 or x4 PCI-E slot? All I've found by Googling around are 7-slot monstrous expansion systems for developers etc. As big as the computer itself...

Wbr, Tatu

[BobDog]

BTW, what are you doing with an 800MB backup drive?

What do I backup with only 800MB? Mainly personal data that changes a lot.

Yea, that's what I meant. It didn't seem like a lot, but I could see where you would find it useful--plus the "no extra noise" part would be nice.

Maybe the 2GB drive has better specs than the 800MB. Let us know.

Well according to CDW (not where I bought mine), the Simple Tech 2GB specs out at:

Average Latency: 0.1 Ms
Average Seek Time: 1.25 Ms

vs., say, a WD Raptor 250GB SATA II HDD:

Average Latency: 4.2 Ms
Average Seek Time: 8.9 Ms

So the Simple Tech should blow the doors of one of the fastest drives going... but I suppose that "should" and "does" can be two very different things. I guess I'll know when I get it up and running. I'll let you know then.

[wundi]

Well according to CDW (not where I bought mine), the Simple Tech 2GB specs out at:

Average Latency: 0.1 Ms
Average Seek Time: 1.25 Ms

vs., say, a WD Raptor 250GB SATA II HDD:

Average Latency: 4.2 Ms
Average Seek Time: 8.9 Ms

So the Simple Tech should blow the doors of one of the fastest drives going... but I suppose that "should" and "does" can be two very different things. I guess I'll know when I get it up and running. I'll let you know then.

I'm afraid latencies and seek times have nothing to do with bandwidth, and consequently, transfer rates. It's the same thing with kids and food: even with a small mouth they can taste the food right away, but eating a large meal can take a long time For me, though, the bandwidth between the plate and the stomach has grown near infinite, if you know what I mean..
/OFFTOPIC
Also, the SATA II HDD you're referring to is of the Caviar family, not the Raptor. The flagship Raptor is 74GB SATA I.

[frostedflakes]

FYI, I shot an email at Gigabyte conveying the interest of myself, as well as the quiet PC community, in this particular product. I also put in a good word for SPCR. With any luck, maybe SPCR will be able to get their hands on a pre-production model, or at least be one of the first to review the product as soon as it is released.

[Edward Ng]

FYI, I shot an email at Gigabyte conveying the interest of myself, as well as the quiet PC community, in this particular product. I also put in a good word for SPCR. With any luck, maybe SPCR will be able to get their hands on a pre-production model, or at least be one of the first to review the product as soon as it is released.

That's really good of you; thanks!

-Ed

[BobDog]

I'm afraid latencies and seek times have nothing to do with bandwidth, and consequently, transfer rates. It's the same thing with kids and food: even with a small mouth they can taste the food right away, but eating a large meal can take a long time For me, though, the bandwidth between the plate and the stomach has grown near infinite, if you know what I mean..

Right, that makes sense to me. However bandwidth is a function of the interface, right? If so, than ought the Simple Tech not be as fast/faster than any magnetic IDE HDD (as a function of its low seek/latency times), even if it would clearly be slower than a SATA drive, as per wundi's observation?

That makes sense to me, but I am very new to this PC stuff so if there is a flaw in my logic I's appreciate a heads up. Thanks--this is helpful.

[frostedflakes]

FYI, I shot an email at Gigabyte conveying the interest of myself, as well as the quiet PC community, in this particular product. I also put in a good word for SPCR. With any luck, maybe SPCR will be able to get their hands on a pre-production model, or at least be one of the first to review the product as soon as it is released.

That's really good of you; thanks!

-Ed

No problem. I have always considered SPCR's reviews to be fair, comprehensive, and well-written. Keep up the good work!

[BobDog]

I have always considered SPCR's reviews to be fair, comprehensive, and well-written. Keep up the good work!

Ditto.

[Ducky]

I'm afraid latencies and seek times have nothing to do with bandwidth, and consequently, transfer rates. It's the same thing with kids and food: even with a small mouth they can taste the food right away, but eating a large meal can take a long time For me, though, the bandwidth between the plate and the stomach has grown near infinite, if you know what I mean..

Right, that makes sense to me. However bandwidth is a function of the interface, right? If so, than ought the Simple Tech not be as fast/faster than any magnetic IDE HDD (as a function of its low seek/latency times), even if it would clearly be slower than a SATA drive, as per wundi's observation?

That makes sense to me, but I am very new to this PC stuff so if there is a flaw in my logic I's appreciate a heads up. Thanks--this is helpful.

It's like this:

Flash drives, with their ridiculously low seek times, are capable of blowing away traditional mechanical drives in the following things:

• Booting up.
• Loading programs
• Searching for files

It'd probably be slower to do the following with a Compactflash drive, however:

• Reimaging the entire drive
• Writing a big, contigeous file, like a movie, when the drives are properly defragmented.

Because of the available standards when Compactflash standards were made, all drives are PIO only. Which means that the computer can't tell the drive "go read some data and tell me when you're done" -- instead, the CPU has to manage all the reading and writing itself. So, when the computer is heavily loaded, the transfer would become much slower. But, it's true that Flash drives can approach the theoretical maximum transfer rates a lot more readily than hard drives unless the CPU is heavily loaded.

[BobDog]

Thanks.

[elec999]

From tomshardware news
"The RAM disk will be shipping in the third quarter of this year and will carry a price tag of about $80."
I taught they said it will cost $50, why is it changing.
Thanks