Here's how I got ARMA2 to perform smoothly using RAMDISK

[qwertz 10]

How do you get windows XP 32b to support 12GB of RAM?

Windows x86 only sees <4GB. The RAMdisk driver is able to see the rest and use it as RAMdisk. There are two advanced RAMdisk product I know of that support using the physical RAM above the 32bit boundary:

http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/ramdisk.php

http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

Currently testing both.

Edited December 31, 2009 by qwertz

[InFireBaptize 0]

Go play the game and enjoy the smoothness you fool.

so childish!

[yanquis 10]

I have finally gotten arma2 to run perfectly smooth with no stuttering. At a very reasonable frame rate.

Now i didnt tweak or prod, i simply dropped some cash into a ATI5870.

replacing a pair of 1792MB GTX260 in SLI. The result was simply stunning,

The game runs like a dream, using eyefinity on three screens, 5760x1080.

I think the only thing left to do now is change my signature :)

This video card is a gem!!

regards./

grrr. tried to pick one of these up today, no one has them. i got a 4890 which ill swap for a 5870 whenever someone around here gets them in. great to hear the game takes full advantage of it!! ive been wanting confirmation before i splurged on one. congrats on your purchase.

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

Hey Cacheman XP registered version helped A LOT. I have 960Meg Cache now, and let it auto-optimize all my stuff, and it's MUCH smoother. Much much.

worth every penny.

[qwertz 10]

Luhgnut;1465179']Hey Cacheman XP registered version helped A LOT. I have 960Meg Cache now' date=' and let it auto-optimize all my stuff, and it's MUCH smoother. Much much.

worth every penny.[/quote']

Hey Luhgnut, that great to know (although in 99.9% all "tweaking tools" that claim to know better than windows how to manage its cache and RAM are snakeoil at best).

Please note though that this little to do with what we discuss here as far as I can judge - this tool does not help to keep your texture and asset files in RAM. :j:

Edited December 31, 2009 by qwertz

[pythonic 10]

a) looking though the screenshots of cacheman - you might be better off with just disabling ntfs access time updates - I can see some potential problems or just placebo from using a 1 gb cache for I think ~6gb of data - plus you are adding a layer of indirection on the filesystem lookups. What we really need to find out is if these caches work on whole files or blocks - cause if blocks then it could be very helpful. Guess it all depends - but I would do ramdisk or cache alone first, so you can judge the benefits without stepping on toes between the two systems.

b) For all making symlinks hdd->ramdisks - while it may be a little harder to setup, but it would probably be faster to have the root arma folder on the ramdisk and link to the the bulk on the hard disk. I.E. no links from hdd->ram.

c) For all who are analyzing file access, it would be helpful if you post your data back in this thread. Not everyone is going to have 8gb of free ram, so we should narrow down the most accessed pbos

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

Hey Luhgnut, that great to know (although in 99.9% all "tweaking tools" that claim to know better than windows how to manage its cache and RAM are snakeoil at best).

Please note though that this little to do with what we discuss here as far as I can judge - this tool does not help to keep your texture and asset files in RAM. :j:

oh I know alot of them don't mean doodle. I just got a big bump in framerate in the one server I was on. I have to keep messing with it to make sure, but I also noticed I could increase my view distance. I thought this is where someone said something about Cacheman XP. Maybe another thread. hell I dunno. :)

[liquidpinky 11]

a) looking though the screenshots of cacheman - you might be better off with just disabling ntfs access time updates - I can see some potential problems or just placebo from using a 1 gb cache for I think ~6gb of data - plus you are adding a layer of indirection on the filesystem lookups. What we really need to find out is if these caches work on whole files or blocks - cause if blocks then it could be very helpful. Guess it all depends - but I would do ramdisk or cache alone first, so you can judge the benefits without stepping on toes between the two systems.

b) For all making symlinks hdd->ramdisks - while it may be a little harder to setup, but it would probably be faster to have the root arma folder on the ramdisk and link to the the bulk on the hard disk. I.E. no links from hdd->ram.

c) For all who are analyzing file access, it would be helpful if you post your data back in this thread. Not everyone is going to have 8gb of free ram, so we should narrow down the most accessed pbos

On point b. I don't feel that to be necessary, with the 3.21gb of files I have moved the game is already lightning quick although it would improve on some load times though. It certainly would be nice to have it all in RAM and I am now for the first time feeling my 8gb of RAM to be inadequate, which leads me onto point c. There certainly is plenty of testing left to be done so this can be optimised right down for people less fortunate than myself with 8gb of RAM.

In my guide I just named the files I used, I am an amateur though and only did this though some googling thanks to this thread and would like someone with more know how to do some disk monitoring so this RamDisk method can be optimized for all to use.

But also with symlink it is possible to spread files over multiple drives, probably including USB flash so the method is outlined in my dummies guide and all are free to give it a go and post their results.

Having witnessed the results of the RamDrive first hand I could honestly say I would love 250gb RAM and have it load up from raid SSDs on start up, the delay would be worth the instant performance once it fires up.

Before reading this thread I was contemplating getting an SSD pretty much to boost this game but now I don't have to as I am just making better use of my current hardware, which still out performs the SSD I could have paid a lot of hard earned cash for.

It is a total win, I can only thank qwertz for starting it and a few of the other contributors pointing out the symlink method etc.

[shataan 1]

I beta tested Cacheman XP back in the day. Cool app. But the new Cacheman (sans XP) supports Vista, win 7 etc, and is optimized for more cores. You may wanna try it.

[cjph 0]

On point b. I don't feel that to be necessary, with the 3.21gb of files I have moved the game is already lightning quick although it would improve on some load times though. It certainly would be nice to have it all in RAM and I am now for the first time feeling my 8gb of RAM to be inadequate, which leads me onto point c. There certainly is plenty of testing left to be done so this can be optimised right down for people less fortunate than myself with 8gb of RAM.

In my guide I just named the files I used, I am an amateur though and only did this though some googling thanks to this thread and would like someone with more know how to do some disk monitoring so this RamDisk method can be optimized for all to use.

But also with symlink it is possible to spread files over multiple drives, probably including USB flash so the method is outlined in my dummies guide and all are free to give it a go and post their results.

Having witnessed the results of the RamDrive first hand I could honestly say I would love 250gb RAM and have it load up from raid SSDs on start up, the delay would be worth the instant performance once it fires up.

Before reading this thread I was contemplating getting an SSD pretty much to boost this game but now I don't have to as I am just making better use of my current hardware, which still out performs the SSD I could have paid a lot of hard earned cash for.

It is a total win, I can only thank qwertz for starting it and a few of the other contributors pointing out the symlink method etc.

Thanks for the info - like you I have been contemplating an SSD to improve my game, but for a small single disk with enough cache etc the cost here is around £180, which is the same price as a modest CPU or GPU upgrade. For a third of that I can get another 4Gb of RAM (currently 4Gb under XP32), and for further £20 or so I can get one of the RAMDisk programs (it sounds like there is some testing underway and appreciate all the work posters are doing). Once some of the larger files are speeded up, the others are loaded faster, showing all round beneft for those as well.

So, it sounds simple to add extra RAM, copy/move the selected files from the install folder to the RAMdrive (and possibly other drives), link them using symlink, and away you go ?

[Barso 10]

This RAMDISK method sound fantastic.

I have 12 GB RAM that goes totally unused so I took out 6 and have 6GB in storage.

It would be great to plug it back in for arma2.

How much of that RAM can I use for arma2 as I am using windows7 64bit?

Also do I need to keep the necessary arma2 files into the ram before I play or can I configure it to do it once I load arma2?

Sorry but last question, which ramdisk software is the best one to use?

Thanks for all the work and testing and I can't wait to see what the optimal results are.

Thanks again and replies are much appreciated.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Barso

[Alex72 1]

Im so doing this if its as good as OP states. No more popping etc. I basically for the first time checked my HD activity yesterday while playing and yep - its working constantly. Even when i look into the ground without moving. Then again my system is the best so that might be a bit worse.

But i sure will test swing back to XP32, stuff my pc with 12gig RAM and shove the game up there with RAMDISK.

Is 12GB RAM enough for 10-11GB game? Thinking of ARMA2+ACE2+Soundmod. Just thinking of if it need some sort of buffer of X amount of free RAM to work?

Alex

[Pappy60 10]

Link Shell Extentions does not seem to be working for me using XP 32 ....

I am trying to follow your instructions on this, everything went well until I try to connect the ram files to the add on folder....

Link Shell only gives me a "cancel link creation" there is no "drop hardlink" option...however I do get the "drop hardlink" option if I select a place on the R: drive (ram drive) but when I select the addon folder or any other folder on the C:drive, there is no option to create the hard link......

Obviously I am doing something wrong but be damned if I can figure it out......

It does allow junctions from ramdrive to C:\ if you select folders but it will not allow files to be selected and dropped....

Edited October 17, 2009 by Pappy60

[hamis 0]

Is 12GB RAM enough for 10-11GB game? Thinking of ARMA2+ACE2+Soundmod.

Plus vehicle and weapon replacement packs and...

Edited October 17, 2009 by hamis

[Alex72 1]

Plus vehicle and weapon replacement packs and...

LOL!

I know it can get pretty much heh, but we have to be selective with this method. :)

ARMA2 + ACE2 + Soundmod will be for standard play to me. Plus Kju's FPS boost addon(s). And then find a team that plays serious team play WITH these addons allowed. Otherwise its a no go. Cant play a MILFPS with too much stutters. That just dont fly. I think in the end all will be good though - it will end with: Operation Arrowhead + ACE2 + Soundmod all shoved up my RAMDISK! :D

[thales100 10]

Operation Arrowhead + ACE2 + Soundmod all shoved up my RAMDISK! :D

lol sounds great :now:

[yanquis 10]

has no one even tried the USB stick yet???

[PuFu 4591]

has no one even tried the USB stick yet???

why would one? The transfer is worse than on a HDD in the first place..

[yanquis 10]

ive heard its actually extremely fast (faster than SSD) & someone else here seemed to believe this was the case as well.

[schaefsky 0]

I think it already came up, but:

IMO ot would be a better investment in this case to get a decent SSD, last time I checked I'd say Intel X25 Postville or Samsung PB-22J. That would make around 2€ - 2,50€ per GB, and you could get 80GB for around 220€ with the Intel disk, or 128GB for 250€ with the Samsung.

Building your system to have a large RAM-disk would e.g. cost you:

Having 4GB, you would need around 25€ per GB, so 200€ for 8GB (plus maybe another board, cpu fitting on that board, etc.).

So I think RAM-disk will be faster than an SSD, but much more expensive (around factor 10!) and not so expandable. You can "allways" plug another SSD in your system with less hassle than upgrading from 12GB RAM to 24GB (if that's even possible). And 8GB for Arma2 might just not be enough soon (think ACE2, P85, CWR2, I44, Rip31st WW2, etc, etc, etc..., at least if you are anything like me ;) )

If you don't sh*t money or are in a really urgent need for more performance, I would also suggest waiting a bit longer if you'd want to get an SSD, because prices have been pretty stable for quite a long time, they must go down "soon". I'd suspect somewhen after christmas you would get an even better deal.

[Alex72 1]

ive heard its actually extremely fast

No. Im no expert but people i trust around here tells me thats not the case. Its far slower than a HDD. Some aspect of it is fast i think, but im seriously too tired to look up specs.

All i know is that people that have looked up these specs says: No.

[Tankbuster 1733]

The thing about the USB solution, or indeed, any non rotational disk, is that the seek times are negligible. Yes, average transfer times are slow with USB.

If you want lots of small files and not to write much, USB does begin to make sense.

[Langnasen 10]

Fastest stick I've been able to find is 25mb/s read, 18mb/s write. I don't think that's up to the job.

[Greg 0]

I see a free hard disk cache configuration program here:

http://www.analogx.com/contents/download/System/cb/Freeware.htm

If anyone is game to try it and report if it helps ARMA.

Since ARMA tends to only use about 1gb of RAM it stands to reason that forcing disk cache to use the rest of you RAM would be a good thing, unless Windows does that effectively already.

[zaira 10]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231307

This is good, CAS 7 and 1.5V