Here's a look:. Turning ReadyBoost on is as simple as clicking the radio button next to "Use this device. In the following screenshot, I've turned ReadyBoost on.
My own testing confirmed that, too. The key language reads: "This device does not have the required performance characteristics for use in speeding up your system. Also note the "Test Again" button at the lower right. You can click this button to force Vista to interact with the Flash drive to see if it meets requirements. Occasionally, after reformatting the Flash drive to destroy all traces of prior cache files on the Corsair Survivor, I had to use this button to make Vista recognize the drive as ReadyBoost capable--even though I knew it already was.
I didn't perform exhaustive benchmarks on my Windows Vista system, which is a unit with a 2. I chose this tool because it's free, works with Vista, and also works with most processors and motherboards that run Vista. The Global Performance benchmark includes ratings for processor, cache, memory, video, and hard disk performance. To keep things consistent and to sidestep issues related to Flash drive performance, I used the same Corsair Survivor Flash drive for all ReadyBoost tests.
I simply resized its cache for each reported test where ReadyBoost was active. As the following results illustrate, using ReadyBoost does provide some benefits to Vista users. In the following table, numbers that appear to the right of the performance metrics under the column heads that read None, 1 GB, 2 GB, and so forth, come from PC Wizard's Global Benchmark ratings.
These numbers don't correspond to any specific units of measure, but they do provide relative values when compared in the right-left dimension. While the PC Wizard benchmark ratings increase for many values when using ReadyBoost, the biggest boost comes from the first gigabyte. There's actually a fall-off for the next 2 gigs. Then finally, there's an increase for the fourth and final gigabyte of ReadyBoost cache. Also, processor and memory performance both decline somewhat when using ReadyBoost.
When you insert a new flash device and try to use it as a ReadyBoost device, it either passes or it fails. If you try to use a cheapo USB flash drive that some company passed out at a trade show, you won't know from that initial screen why it failed.
But the actual numbers are there for all to see, if you know where to look. Carl Siechert, Craig Stinson, and I discovered this fact during our research for Windows Vista Inside Out , and to the best of my knowledge no one has published this information online yet. I gathered together more than 20 flash devices I've picked up over the past several years and put them to the test. Follow along in the image gallery that accompanies this post and you'll see how you can measure the performance of your own flash devices.
To be used as a ReadyBoost device, your flash drive has to pass several tests, including available free space, write performance, and random read performance. When you connect a supported flash device to your system and choose the Speed Up My System option, Windows Vista runs a quick performance test to see if the device meets minimum standards required for ReadyBoost.
Those standards are:. These results must be consistent across the entire device. In addition, the device must be at least MB in size although you can designate less than the full space on the drive for the ReadyBoost cache. If you get a failure message when you first insert a flash device and try to use it as a ReadyBoost drive, you can click Test Again to get a second hearing. If the drive fails several tests, you can look up the specific performance results for yourself.
Open Event Viewer Eventvwr. Under this heading, click Microsoft, Windows, and ReadyBoost. Under this latter heading, select Operational. The log entries in the center pane include performance test results for both successful and unsuccessful attempts. Although the spec says 1. Six drives, most of them originally given to me as freebies at various press events, failed because they were smaller than the minimum size. It was the only one of its vintage that passed.
It's the oversized, roundish device at the right in the photo at the top of this post. It was very slow on the write test. Turns out to be not so We need to understand the memory hierarchy. At each level the slowdown can be measured at clock cycles. Skeptics are advised to refer to the rated memory timings for more information: Average disk accesses seek, etc are always in millisecond; instructions are executed in nanoseconds.
This is simple. If you have tons of small files, cluster size is an issue, since the smallest files which can be generated and stored is the size of the cluster. Or any cluster size would be fine.
Anybody can tell me this? I'd be grateful. Small logical storage units i. The smaller the units the more checks to the index is required, and more "jumps" across the disk is needed. If there are fragmentation, then the situation is very much worsen. There is no hard and fast rule for setting the cluster size. I would believe Microsoft has done enough studies to find an optimal size as the default for their users to use.
0コメント