ArmA 2 I/O analysis results

[Leon86 13]

Could be, but hibernate should've been closer to 5000MB. Well, at least it's something.

[domokun 515]

Go with 120GB~ SSD, and put it all on it. If you ACE/SU/Rsync then path the rsync files to a different Drive(HDD or SDD) to save space. 64GB SSD is too small, i know i use them.

Thanks for your advice. I've since bought a 120GB Crucial M4 SSD. I should receive it this weekend. For the best performance, should I just move C:\Windows and ..\ArmA2\ onto it? And what software can you recommend to shift all that data without panicking Windows? Acronis??

[kklownboy 43]

Thanks for your advice. I've since bought a 120GB Crucial M4 SSD. I should receive it this weekend. For the best performance, should I just move C:\Windows and ..\ArmA2\ onto it? And what software can you recommend to shift all that data without panicking Windows? Acronis??

I would start fresh. But if you like your current OS install, then i would test/practice on a "spinner". Paragon,Acronis,Ghost,Clonzill etc will work, just need to get the alinement correct.

A helpful guide for SSD installs,

Install without 100MB partition and SSD Alignment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the first setup screen (Language, Keyboard, etc.) press SHIFT+F10. This will open a command prompt window. Type "C:\" then Enter. Use the following commands.

- Diskpart

- List disk

- select disk 0

- clean

- create partition primary size=120

(this creates a partition of 120GB in size. To skip just leave off "size=120000")

- select partition 1

- active

- format fs=ntfs quick (optional)

Now continue with the install. When you get to the partition screen, highlight the partition you just created and click Next. Windows will install to the partition you created and not create the 100MB boot partition. Instead, you will see a C:\Boot folder when the install is finished.

To check alignment:

- list partition

Then after Windows 7 is finished installing and I do the drivers, chipset, etc

And turn of your Hibernation.

Edited February 3, 2012 by kklownboy

[Angus S 10]

I am using a system with 4GB of RAM and have just made a 512MB RAM disk and have noticed a significant improvement in performance, and I was wondering how big a RAM disk I should create with just 4GB avaiable. Can anyone help?

[Tankbuster 1747]

I paid for the full version of RAMDISK and now give half of my 16GB Ram over to the ramdisk and filled it up with pagefile.

I've freed up a load of space on my SSD. This, is nothing else is the big benefit for me.

[Leon86 13]

Have you tried smaller pagefiles, like 3GB or something? Or do some applications use it a lot?

[griffz 1]

Wrong. Normally Windows 32 Bit will allow 32Bit apps to address 2GB. When you load the 32 Bit OS with a /3GB switch, you allow apps to address 3GB - but only if they are LLA.

Yes in theory 32 Bit apps could address up to 4GB but Windows 32 Bit does not make 4GB of address space available to them. With a /3GB switch 1GB is reserved to the OS kernel. Without it, it reserves 2GB. So LLA allows a 32Bit application running on a 32 Bit version of Windows to address 3GB of RAM, if the OS is /3GB switched.

For a 32Bit app running on a 64Bit OS, WOW64 operates in much the same way. Although MS say that 32Bit apps can use up to 4GB in Win64, industry experience has shown that WOW64 does not work like that in actuality.

Wrong again. Using RAM like this is standard practice on the servers that I build for work (high volume web transactions), and the hybrid approach to using spare RAM for paging or as a Level 2 cache is becoming increasingly common as the price of RAM falls. Try running a Ramdisk as a Level 2 cache for an SSD and tell me you can't see a difference in performance. Or try running Skyrim for a few hours with your swap file on a Ramdisk and tell me it isn't much quicker. I agree that Arma does not page as much as some apps.

I'll give you an example - real world, not your bedroom laboratory. Say you are running a 10GB database in 32Bit SQL server, on Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition 32Bit. You've got 8GB of RAM on board. Under what circumstances would it be "useless" to have the paged data going into a swap file residing in the component with the fastest access time ie RAM when that RAM cannot be addressed by either the OS or the application because it is > 4GB ?

Or what about if you were running 2003 Server Web Edition that only supports 2GB?

you said it : free ram is useless ram.

[dystopian1 23]

qwertz

Thank you for your threads.

In fact if it is enough for you to use numbers for analyzing (without diagrams) you can use ProcMon built-in feature "Tools - File Summary...". You can sort pbo's by reads count or read bytes and find most "popular" files.

[BasileyOne 10]

as long as RAM is also used[aside storing OS body and vital services/appz] for IO caching and for storing GART/IOMMU testures for you GPU, i think 4Gb is slightly small :)

usually 5-7Gb is safer[depend appz you use].

p.s.

GPU's with BIGGER onboard memory - helps TOO :)

6Gb AMD and 4Gb Nvidia cards meant basically :-)

[MavericK96 0]

I paid for the full version of RAMDISK and now give half of my 16GB Ram over to the ramdisk and filled it up with pagefile.

I've freed up a load of space on my SSD. This, is nothing else is the big benefit for me.

I have 12 GB and have the page file turned completely off. Never had any problems.

[Sebolatius 10]

Hey guys,

I currently think about buying a new SSD for Arma. The Problem is, there is no native SATA3-Controller installed on my Mainboard (Gigabyte 790FXTA-UD5), there is only a third party chip from marvel installed which doesn't provide full SATA3 bandwidth/speed.

That are my system specs:

AMD Phenom II 965 (C3) @ 4012 Mhz, (NB: 2596 Mhz, HT: 2360 Mhz)

2x2GB Kingston DDR-2000 CL8 @ 1573 Mhz (6-6-6-18-CR1T) | Thermolab Baram + 2xScythe SY1225SL12HPVC

Gigabyte GA-790FXTA-UD5 | HIS HD5870 2GB Eyefinity6 (@ 900/5200 Mhz)

Intel X25-M G2 Postville 80GB | Corsair VX 550W | LG Flatron W2452V

At the Moment I think about buying either a second-hand OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2 240GB drive on ebay because I will get a better bandwith via the PCI-Express Slot or a new SanDisk Ultra Plus SSD 256GB which has better 4K read speeds than the OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2. But the OCZ RevoDrive has a better 4K-64Thrd read and also a better sequential read Bandwidth.

The sequential read speads of the SanDisk Ultra Plus SSD would probably be limited to ~380 MB/s sequential read speeds and ~200 MB/s 4K-64 Thrd speeds because of the non-native third party sata3-marvel-chip on my mainboard.

Which SSD will provide me a better performance in your perspective? Should i get a new SanDisk which is cheaper and has probably a better 4K read speed or should i get the OCZ RevoDrive 3 which is even if I buy it used in ebay more expensive and has probably only better sequential and 4K-64Thrd read speeds?

Which specifications are better for Arma 2/3 performance?

Thanks in Advance!

Cheers,

Sebolatius

Edited July 20, 2013 by Sebolatius