F5F Stay Refreshed Software Operating Systems Increase the allocation for disk write cache memory.

Increase the allocation for disk write cache memory.

Increase the allocation for disk write cache memory.

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next
N
Neosdrow
Member
56
04-13-2016, 08:16 PM
#1
Is there any way to allocate more RAM to disk write cache in Windows (like through the registry or something) and, if not, is there a software that can do this that you'd recommend? My Proliant fileserver currently has 2GB of RAM, I've never seen it use more than 800MB of that. Windows + my drive monitoring softwares use about 600MB, when receiving files over the network it'll cache around 200MB but the rest of the memory goes wasted. Would be great if there's a way to put all of the RAM to use soaking up incoming writes. Should add it's running Windows 7 x86.
N
Neosdrow
04-13-2016, 08:16 PM #1

Is there any way to allocate more RAM to disk write cache in Windows (like through the registry or something) and, if not, is there a software that can do this that you'd recommend? My Proliant fileserver currently has 2GB of RAM, I've never seen it use more than 800MB of that. Windows + my drive monitoring softwares use about 600MB, when receiving files over the network it'll cache around 200MB but the rest of the memory goes wasted. Would be great if there's a way to put all of the RAM to use soaking up incoming writes. Should add it's running Windows 7 x86.

S
sironip
Member
191
04-13-2016, 09:33 PM
#2
Want fast and efficient growth? Just filling up the 2GB and then jumping to another task that uses as much memory as possible—repeatedly loading data from disk—can hurt your storage. An SSD won’t last long under constant heavy use like this.
S
sironip
04-13-2016, 09:33 PM #2

Want fast and efficient growth? Just filling up the 2GB and then jumping to another task that uses as much memory as possible—repeatedly loading data from disk—can hurt your storage. An SSD won’t last long under constant heavy use like this.

T
tyc4
Member
60
04-14-2016, 04:13 AM
#3
Controller handled it.
T
tyc4
04-14-2016, 04:13 AM #3

Controller handled it.

H
HopiheEmi
Member
158
04-14-2016, 05:28 AM
#4
You're referring to implementing caching features in Windows, specifically related to drive management. Clarify if you need guidance on optimizing performance or troubleshooting cache issues.
H
HopiheEmi
04-14-2016, 05:28 AM #4

You're referring to implementing caching features in Windows, specifically related to drive management. Clarify if you need guidance on optimizing performance or troubleshooting cache issues.

H
Hagnarock
Senior Member
434
04-14-2016, 08:25 AM
#5
Don't have a fix for Windows. I understand Linux can handle more RAM for writing caches. It's quite risky because external devices might assume writing is done, but it could take many seconds before the disk actually writes, during which power issues or other problems might cause major data loss. Consider using a UPS. It's not identical, but Device Manager has an option to disable write flushing, which might slightly boost write performance. Same potential risks involved.
H
Hagnarock
04-14-2016, 08:25 AM #5

Don't have a fix for Windows. I understand Linux can handle more RAM for writing caches. It's quite risky because external devices might assume writing is done, but it could take many seconds before the disk actually writes, during which power issues or other problems might cause major data loss. Consider using a UPS. It's not identical, but Device Manager has an option to disable write flushing, which might slightly boost write performance. Same potential risks involved.

D
dreams1
Member
249
04-15-2016, 07:33 PM
#6
When the system requests to write new information, it must store the data on the disk. You can adjust the details of the data and its duration in memory to improve future access speed.
D
dreams1
04-15-2016, 07:33 PM #6

When the system requests to write new information, it must store the data on the disk. You can adjust the details of the data and its duration in memory to improve future access speed.

N
Nashiko57
Senior Member
485
04-15-2016, 08:44 PM
#7
Avoid allocating less RAM for buffering writes. Since disk operations happen on Windows regardless of drive speed, ensure sufficient memory is reserved for write buffering.
N
Nashiko57
04-15-2016, 08:44 PM #7

Avoid allocating less RAM for buffering writes. Since disk operations happen on Windows regardless of drive speed, ensure sufficient memory is reserved for write buffering.

N
Noah_2002
Junior Member
23
04-15-2016, 09:08 PM
#8
The idle RAM is quietly used by the operating system to store files that are accessed frequently, such as DLLs, etc. When applications require memory, the OS removes the data from RAM and later restores it from the page file (if available) or reads it back from the disk. Your SATA controller driver will store some writes together into larger requests before sending them to the SSD or hard drive. I still need to ask—why does a network card with only 1 Gbps (125 MB/s) cause the OS to delay writing to the SSD when the drive can handle it? It seems the main problem is your server has just 2 GB of RAM. You should ideally use dual or quad-channel memory depending on the CPU, and at least two sticks would be better... with only one GB sticks, the available bandwidth from your RAM will likely be very limited.
N
Noah_2002
04-15-2016, 09:08 PM #8

The idle RAM is quietly used by the operating system to store files that are accessed frequently, such as DLLs, etc. When applications require memory, the OS removes the data from RAM and later restores it from the page file (if available) or reads it back from the disk. Your SATA controller driver will store some writes together into larger requests before sending them to the SSD or hard drive. I still need to ask—why does a network card with only 1 Gbps (125 MB/s) cause the OS to delay writing to the SSD when the drive can handle it? It seems the main problem is your server has just 2 GB of RAM. You should ideally use dual or quad-channel memory depending on the CPU, and at least two sticks would be better... with only one GB sticks, the available bandwidth from your RAM will likely be very limited.

Q
QSGRezune
Junior Member
6
04-21-2016, 03:49 PM
#9
Windows already utilizes RAM to boost performance. With only 2 GB available, not fully using all RAM shouldn’t be a major issue. My assumption was you’d expect more from a system with 128 GB. The real challenge lies in the speed of writing data; even if the source drive halts early, it still limits progress. With just 2 GB of RAM, any advantage is minimal. It’s ironic that many face the opposite—thinking fetching is too slow—and then blaming Windows for being inefficient.
Q
QSGRezune
04-21-2016, 03:49 PM #9

Windows already utilizes RAM to boost performance. With only 2 GB available, not fully using all RAM shouldn’t be a major issue. My assumption was you’d expect more from a system with 128 GB. The real challenge lies in the speed of writing data; even if the source drive halts early, it still limits progress. With just 2 GB of RAM, any advantage is minimal. It’s ironic that many face the opposite—thinking fetching is too slow—and then blaming Windows for being inefficient.

A
alexbaab
Junior Member
4
05-07-2016, 04:13 AM
#10
SSDs aren't the best choice here. My main RAID setup on an HP HBA works well with gigabit Ethernet, but some backup drives are 5400 RPM SMR laptops running at software mirrored arrays, which limits their write speeds compared to the network. I'm using 2x1GB memory sticks at 800MHz and the northbridge supports dual channels. Installing the full 4GB would be wasteful if it's only using about a gigabyte.
A
alexbaab
05-07-2016, 04:13 AM #10

SSDs aren't the best choice here. My main RAID setup on an HP HBA works well with gigabit Ethernet, but some backup drives are 5400 RPM SMR laptops running at software mirrored arrays, which limits their write speeds compared to the network. I'm using 2x1GB memory sticks at 800MHz and the northbridge supports dual channels. Installing the full 4GB would be wasteful if it's only using about a gigabyte.

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next