RAM Question

[Bruce_D30]

I'm not sure where to put this topic since there's no category for "hardware" but I'd like some opinions from some of you who use similar software.

When I built my computer it was before I got into digital shooting. I only have 256mb of DDR RAM (1.6 Athlon XP processor) but now when i work with photos many times I have the following applications open: Photoshop 7, Breezebrowser, NeatImage, and a couple open Internet Explorer windows. When working with large tif files my computer is kinda slow at maximum use.

Do I need more RAM? How much would you recommend for what I'm running? (O/S is winxp home, BTW). I don't know if I should get 512mb, 768mb, and how much will windows xp safely work with? Some people I have talked to say that 512mb is fine with winXP but others say especially with digital photo workflows you should have much more so I'm a bit confused.

During a period of peak use I looked at the total memory usage (commit charge?) and it says I was actively using 315mb; total available 1.02gb, and peak memory use 400mb. Considering that my physical memory is 256 and i was using 315 (or 290 - 325 consistantly) that means I'm dipping into the swap file or hard drive memory....could this be why my machine is so slow?

How much RAM do some of you have & what's your software environment?

Bruce

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Bruce,

I'm running XP with 768mb of RAM. I upgraded from 256mb and definitely noticed an improvement in the operation of Photoshop. I would have liked to load more memory, but that would have meant paying for 512mb SIMMS that were a daft price at the time.

I would stuff as much RAM as you can into your PC.

You also need to consider scratch disk. PS benefits from large amounts. What percentage of system have you assigned to PS? I think 50% is the default. With more RAM, you could afford to increase it. I have mine set to 75%.

Another tip to improve performance for XP is to configure 1/2 logical drives as FAT and make them just large enough for the pagefile.

Regards,

[pigasus]

Roger_Cavanagh wrote:
Another tip to improve performance for XP is to configure 1/2 logical drives as FAT and make them just large enough for the pagefile.


Hi Roger. I have separate logical drives, one for my page file and one for my photoshop scratch file. They are both in NTFS format. Are you saying that they would be better in FAT format?

[henkbos]

Just bought another baby, 2.4Gh, 1Gb RAM, cruising! To increase performance you have to use different physical disks, preferably on different controllers. I now have 2 EIDI controllers and can handle up to 8 disks.
Configure one disk as scratch disk, I'm sure you have an old one laying around.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

pigasus wrote:
Roger_Cavanagh wrote:
Another tip to improve performance for XP is to configure 1/2 logical drives as FAT and make them just large enough for the pagefile.


Hi Roger. I have separate logical drives, one for my page file and one for my photoshop scratch file. They are both in NTFS format. Are you saying that they would be better in FAT format?

Sally,

Because there is less security with FAT than NTFS, the drives are supposed to perform a little better. I don't have my scratch drives set up for FAT because I do store some files on them - they're 9gb SCSI, I try to keep 5-6 gb free on them. But I have my pagefile defined on two separate logical FAT drives with a fixed size taking up all the space on each. I guess if you have a dedicated scratch drive, then FAT would work a little better.

Regards,

[defordphoto]

With XP, 512 is the magic number. Going from 256 to 512 is like getting a new computer. The speed is definitely noticeable and XP cruises nicely at 512. Rarely do I ever bog it down and I push it pretty hard with photo processing while doing other things too.

[defordphoto]

With XP, 512 is the magic number. Going from 256 to 512 is like getting a new computer. The speed is definitely noticeable and XP cruises nicely at 512. Rarely do I ever bog it down and I push it pretty hard with photo processing while doing other things too.

[lord.hypnos]

Roger_Cavanagh wrote:
Because there is less security with FAT than NTFS, the drives are supposed to perform a little better. I don't have my scratch drives set up for FAT because I do store some files on them - they're 9gb SCSI, I try to keep 5-6 gb free on them. But I have my pagefile defined on two separate logical FAT drives with a fixed size taking up all the space on each. I guess if you have a dedicated scratch drive, then FAT would work a little better.

Regards,


In reality there is little speed difference between FAT32 and NTFS, but the advantages of using NTFS far outweight any negligible speed increase that you might notice.

The best way to increase the pagefile speed is to keep it defragmented. You can download a free program to defrag your pagefile (which the built-in defrag program cannot do):
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/pagedefrag.shtml

There are actually quite a few limitations with using FAT32 with Win2k and WinXP. The future is NTFS.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;314463

And to answer the topic, I have 1GB of DDR RAM on a P4 2.26GHz. RAM is many times faster than your harddrive, so that should be your first priority.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

lord.hypnos wrote:
Roger_Cavanagh wrote:
Because there is less security with FAT than NTFS, the drives are supposed to perform a little better. I don't have my scratch drives set up for FAT because I do store some files on them - they're 9gb SCSI, I try to keep 5-6 gb free on them. But I have my pagefile defined on two separate logical FAT drives with a fixed size taking up all the space on each. I guess if you have a dedicated scratch drive, then FAT would work a little better.

Regards,


In reality there is little speed difference between FAT32 and NTFS, but the advantages of using NTFS far outweight any negligible speed increase that you might notice.

The best way to increase the pagefile speed is to keep it defragmented. You can download a free program to defrag your pagefile (which the built-in defrag program cannot do):
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/pagedefrag.shtml

There are actually quite a few limitations with using FAT32 with Win2k and WinXP. The future is NTFS.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;314463

And to answer the topic, I have 1GB of DDR RAM on a P4 2.26GHz. RAM is many times faster than your harddrive, so that should be your first priority.

Well, you wouldn't expect Microsoft to plug their old technology, :) but there are plenty of people who say that FAT is faster than NTFS for drives of limited size. http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/435/07/9.html here's one reference recommending what I've done:

- pagefile fixed in size
- pagefile split across drives
- pagefile on FAT volumes
- FAT volumes under 2gb

I'm not recommending FAT for any other use.

Regards,

[lord.hypnos]

Ok, I now understand what you are doing and why. I assume by saying FAT that you mean FAT16. The default cluster size for a 2-4GB drive formatted with FAT16 is 64kb whereas the default cluster size for a FAT32 or NTFS drive of the same size is 4kb. While the smaller cluster size allows you to use the space more efficiently, you sacrifice speed.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;q140365

Ideally your computer shouldn't touch the pagefile if you have enough RAM!

[gdstaples]

NTFS is much faster and much more reliable than FAT or FAT32. Though NTFS is far more secure, that isn't the reason to use it. It is a journaling file system that constantly updates itself and is far less prone to crashing than FAT/FAT32. It will also handle far larger partitions than either FAT/FAT32.

Purchase as much RAM as you can afford (and your computer will handle). If you are serious about digital imaging and use Photoshop you need at least 1GB if you work with layers and the history feature. Also purchase the fastest RAM you can afford and the computer will handle. If you are working with an 80MB file and are working with say 5 layers and are using many of the history features, your one 80MB image is occupying no less than 500MB of RAM at any given time at a minimum.

I just purchased 1GB of Mushkin PC2100 RAM for $200 with heat spreaders etc. Take a look on www.pricewatch.com.

Duncan