-hh wrote:
> Since contem****ary OS's run virtual RAM and swaps out to the Hard
> Drive (HD) whenever the user has more stuff running than physical RAM,
> the system's performance takes a hit from the I/O access speed
> differences between RAM and HD.
That's your misunderstanding of how CS3 manages these files and utilizes
memory. In a batch process of 150 D3 RAW files you will never break the
1.5GB memory barrier if you have acceptable disk I/O.
> This is why there's a performance gain from adding more physical RAM,
> and that this is more significant than Disk I/O - - simply put, RAM I/
> O is faster than any hard drive configuration in existance today.
I agree with you when one upgrades from 1GB to 2GB or RAM. RAM I/O speed
is
irrelevant because you have to get your filed from and back to the disk.
> Granted, these performance gains will be an area of dimini****ng
> returns, since the RAM is displacing Disk I/O. Dimini****ng returns
> means that the first +1GB of RAM has more benefit than the next +1GB
> of RAM added, etc.
Well, 1.5GB is the sweet spot for CS3.
> Thus, when someone like "Rita" claims that anything more than 1.5GB of
> RAM is a "waste", they're merely speaking for their level of personal
> need. Thus, I'm not surprised to hear "Rita" claims.
Could be since batching 150 D3 RAW files really is just a blip on the old
SCSI I/O.
> For everyone else, the metric to use is to examine one's Page-In/Page-
> Out ratio after a period of typically serious use of Photoshop, etc,
> to then decide if the frequency with which the OS hits the HD due to
> lack of Physical RAM is acceptable to them or not.
I haven't broke the 1.5GB barrier yet and don't know anyone else that has.
If a person is breaking the 1.5GB barrier they are doing something
seriously
wrong.
Rita
|
