eBoostr 4.0 Beta Extended

Disclaimer: I have no vested interest in this software company - I just like what it does for my VAIO with an 16GB Lexar SSD used as its cache.

To me, it seems like almost having Intel's Braidwood technology, today.

I have been using the beta 4 build 543 for a while, but today, I noticed my computer seemed much slower. Hmmm...

I rebooted and eBoostr said it was expired - buy it! Oh yes, Nov 30 that was the expiry date (eBoostr must have turned itself off - I haven't rebooted in several days).

I checked to see if version 4 was for sale, but even better! The beta has been extended. Now I don't have to decide right now to purchase or not, perfect.

For anyone that wants to try increasing the 'snap' their computer has with minimal $$ - actually free right now until Feb. 14, 2010, try this:

http://beta.eboostr.com/download/


As long as you have a usb stick (that you don't mind sticking out of your computer while using it) that you're otherwise not using, or;

As long as you have an ExpressCard SSD or even an SD card that can be safely tucked into the computer, then you may be surprised at the improvement this little software can do to the 'feel' of your computer.

For how eBoostr improves my computing experience, see:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=436882

and

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=435052

The only issues I have with this software?

For the cache fill statistic on its Control Panel, it says I'm using 1152225916% of 15,268 MB on my Lexar ExpressCard SSD. I know I'm not using that much.

If anyone tries this on their systems, please discuss here!

BTW, I actually using about 90% of 15,268 MB currently. Also, at 81% cache/disk hit ratio with Random writes at 27.280 MB/s.

 

I have since 5 days ago and don't notice any improvement in my new Portable, even giving exclusive benefit to specific programs.
I noticed improvement with V3 in mine old 5400rpm, 1Gb memory when i had it.

 

Bullit, how do you have it configured and on which devices? RAM, SD/CF card, USB stick or other?

 

it doesn't work here...

just kiddin thanks for the news

 

davepermen! where have you been? lol

One more...

 

i made youtube videos..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhAdJOllZpo

but i definitely need a video cam that can film better my das has a full hd camera.. (all the stuff in this video would be full hd btw)

 

I have 1Gb in RAM and 4Gb in an eSATA external 7200rpm disk.

 

davepermen, cool! I also saw your HP/Mtron SSD video too.

Bullit, the eBoostr RAM cache is a give/take situation - ie. - not optimal, but may give some positive results.

The eSata 7200 RPM is definitely not worth using - its the access times that eBoostr depends on and even through eSata to an 7200 RPM HD it doesn't benefit at all - I would even think its detrimental to overall performance.

Do you have a 4GB USB stick you can try, or an SD card? If you do, they would be better options than either of the cache devices you are currently using (in my experience with eBoostr).

 

I have 3GB DDR2-667 and WD Blue 320GB 5400RPM drive on Vista Ultimate 64-bit, and haven't noticed any difference (haven't done any stop watch timed measurements so this is just qualitative approximation) btw eBoostr's newest software and without it, in Windows loading, shut down, hibernate, sleep, or anything really. I use about 900MB in my memory for it (since I have nothing else to use it for) and 200MB for RAMDisk (cache and temp files), on idle I have slightly over 1GB free. Btw, do you notice any benefit on battery life, tiller?

From my experience, though I haven't used an SSD on this system (so it's not quite a fair comparison), but my friend's Dell w/ Samsung SSD, feels a lot snappier/responsive and definitely loads faster...

 

How an USB stick is faster than an eSATA interface?

I have only a 2Gb stick.

 

by having faster access times than the hdd on the eSATA interface. (which is the reason, too, why ssds are so fast.. not their bandwidth solely, but mainly their access times)

 

It is faster in access times. 2GB will be enough to show you the improvement possible.

7200 RPM 16-20 ms access times.

USB stick .2 ms access times or lower.

If you do try this, give it a fair test and use it for a couple of days - it takes a while for eBoostr to build up its cache % filled status.

This is a Lexar 4GB USB stick (pay attention to the Random Read scores):

--------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 (C) 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
--------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 32.071 MB/s
Sequential Write : 24.448 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 32.453 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 13.219 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 7.548 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 0.123 MB/s

Test Size : 100 MB
Date : 2009/12/01 16:56:28



This is my Scorpio Blue 500GB Sata2 drive:

--------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 (C) 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
--------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 70.583 MB/s
Sequential Write : 72.156 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 28.938 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 41.843 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 0.397 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 1.307 MB/s

Test Size : 100 MB
Date : 2009/12/01 17:00:17

 

yep, exactly.

the random write isn't great, though..

shall i now post my numbers?

 

davepermen,

Don't. You. Dare.

Naw, go ahead, but when my 7K500 comes in (this weekend? Please!), then maybe we'll have a little more fair comparision - not in the access times (indicated by the Random 4K scores) but in the sequential writes.

Till then, draw your sword and prepare to feel the wrath of... oops! Did I say that out loud?

 

DV7 Disk
--------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 (C) 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
--------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 82.747 MB/s
Sequential Write : 77.045 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 32.092 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 44.382 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 0.404 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 0.893 MB/s

Test Size : 100 MB
Date : 2009/12/02 2:38:09

PEN 2GB Kinston
--------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 (C) 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
--------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 14.376 MB/s
Sequential Write : 4.372 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 14.196 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 1.978 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 4.298 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 0.028 MB/s

Test Size : 100 MB
Date : 2009/12/02 2:48:29

SAMSUNG in eSATA Enclosure
--------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 (C) 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
--------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 93.665 MB/s
Sequential Write : 90.330 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 39.139 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 68.014 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 0.545 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 1.759 MB/s

Test Size : 100 MB
Date : 2009/12/02 2:52:57

While my disks are okay my pen is crap.

 

Actually, you only need to pay attention to the Random Reads - forget the writes - really.

......................DV7.......PEN2GB.......eSata

RanRead 512KB...32............14............39

RanRead 4KB....00.404.....04.298......00.545

In the 512KB RR score, the 2GB PEN is slower than either of your HD's, but remember that it will be supplying 14 MB/s in addition to your main HD (almost like RAID0).

In the 4KB RR scores - the PEN blows your hard drives away. By over 106x and even the non-system disk eSata is destroyed by over 78 times.

The 4KB Random Read scores are the most important here - not only can the eBoostr cache access those 10 to 100x faster on the PEN than on your HD's, but it is able to supply them to the CPU at least 78x to 106x faster once they're accessed, than how you have it set up currently.

Also remember that the smaller files is what slows our mechanical HD's so that even 2GB cached of those files will make a big difference to the feel of your computer.

Don't worry that it will take a long time for eBoostr to finish building (writing) to the PEN, once its finished - all it has to do is read those small files as fast as possible (and this is where the PEN shines - compared to your HD's).

Trust me, my Lexar ExpressCard SSD is worse than your PEN, when it comes to writes - but the Reads at 27MB/s make it worth the hour or so it takes to build the 14.9 GB cache.

 

what's the different between Intel Turbo Memory and this thing?

 

I think basically that Intel Turbo Memory is a (set of) memory chip(s) that's built-in or attached to your motherboard, but this program can use any memory device attached to your computer to do the same thing. So basically Intel Turbo Memory is purpose built to do this, while this just takes any old storage device that you attach and effectively turns it into (fake) Turbo Memory.

 

Judicator,

Actually, Turbo Memory never offered any real performance boost to any system I tried it with, while eBoostr offers comparable performance to an entry level SSD. So, you essentially have it backwards - eBoostr is the 'real deal' while Turbo Memory was the 'fake'.

RazzNutts,

Turbo Memory was a very weak attempt at doing the same thing, you're right. The memory used was just too slow, the software algorithms to fill that memory were not tuned to what would make a real difference to a users computing experience and overall; Turbo Memory was simply not enough hardware and not enough software intellect combined to tackle the problem it sought to rectify.

Intel's Braidwood, meanwhile, looks to have the means to swallow this market completely - at least for the newest systems going forward (2010 or 2011), however, eBoostr will still have a market with anything else that doesn't have the hardware/software that Braidwood requires (which includes probably only Win 7, but maybe/possibly Vista too). That is, eBoostr will have a market if Intel doesn't buy them out (for the IP).

 

Well, fakes and knock-offs can sometimes be better than the real thing, you know. There's a reason I used the word fake in parenthesis. After all, the synthetic diamond they use in ICD is probably much better than using "real" diamond dust. Really, my point was largely that Turbo Memory, it seems, came first, even if it did it poorly, and eBoostr came next and "did it right".

 

Touche!

BTW, what is ICD?

 

ICD7 (7 carats), and ICD24 (24 carats) are different sizes of a type of thermal paste (full name technically is IC Diamond) composed of industrial diamond dust in solution. It's produced by Innovation Cooling and is considered one of the higher end thermal pastes.

 

your last hope, right? seeequential writes how i just don't care about them

 

I know, I know, but I had to get you back with something, right?

 

yeah.. i think i need a 160gb G2, then..

what's your strategy, then?

or shall i re-configure my raid0 of mtrons? 240MB/s read, 200MB/s write

 

Thanks for your advice tilleroftheearth.

 

Hey, no prob! Did you try it yet?

 

No not yet, some stuff to do. Will do it in weekend.

 

Okay! Curious to know your results.

A tip to build the cache filled % as fast as possible? Open each/all programs once or twice and then click on build cache now on the eBoostr Control Panel. Also, reboot - wait 10 - 20 minutes with no user activity and again, click build cache, reboot - repeat.

This could fill the cache % in an hour or two as opposed to a day or even a week if the computer is used 'lightly'.

 

Did it today. Is there any good metric like boot time?

 

My test was to shut down (timed to computer 'off'), boot time (till the DT is in a usable state - usually when the HD stops flashing) and simply open/close at least a dozen different programs and track the start and end times (of all, not each program).

Make sure you have filled the cache as much as it can be filled before doing these tests - then, once you have your numbers - simply remove the USB device you're using for the eBoostr cache and (after a reboot, of course) simply repeat those same identical tests (same programs and same order too).

Waiting to see what your numbers look like.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=327767

For comparing boot times.

 

sgogeta4,

Thanks for that link although it is a year old!

However, we're not interested (yet) in comparing the boot times to other systems, here - we're simply trying to see if eBoostr will make a difference on the same system. (eBoostr 'on' vs. eBoostr 'off').

 

While the link is old, it can still be used to compare what you wanted - btw eBoostr on and off in the same system.

 

Hmmm... I don't think so?

See, eBoostr needs Windows running to work - rebooting is different how that script measures it vs. what we consider a 'usable' desktop.

To tell the truth, I don't think (I may be wrong of course) that this will show eBoostr as doing anything - simply because eBoostr starts working after Windows is 'up' ('up' as measured by that script).

 

I have 4gb ram and a 32 bit OS, I set the cache to "advanced memory cache".
I think it's using the extra ram that the OS was not using.
So I think I just got an extra gig of ram.

 

Oh? Are you also using/trying eBoostr Beta 4? That's one of its features but the last machine that I might have used that on was sold almost two years ago.

The latest build 544 was supposed to make this feature (use hidden system RAM) more bullet proof.

 

Yeah I just downloaded the beta.

Could you tell me if it's better to put readyboost on a USB or this eboostr?

Also, I have a HDD in my optical bay, should I use that with eboostr?

 

Here is the result so far (attached screenshot).
Is that actually a true performence increase?

 

moral hazard, sure, its a 'true' performance increase - but only when the system requests something from the cache. Overall, you'll find that as eBoostr tunes itself to how you use your computer, it may provide up to a two or three fold increase (2x or 3x) in specific tasks, like launching a program or even simply right-clicking on an item (desktop, file or folder) and getting the menu to pop up instantly.

I would not use the HD - too slow! (The access times, not the transfer rates). For more information, read from post 10 in this thread.

I would also not use a USB stick for ReadyBoost, eBoostr is much more effective with the USB stick than ReadyBoost is. Yes, I've tried it by themselves, one by one and both - the 'best' experience was eBoostr by itself.

Also, when you add the USB stick - don't worry about how your 'score' drops to 4x or less. The more cache you give eBoostr (USB stick, RAM or both), the better.

 

This is great, my cache fill is only 37% and my cache/disk ratio is 98%.

 

But, moral hazard - do you feel a difference?

And how big is the cache (RAM/USB stick) you created anyway?

 

I'm just using advanced memory cache (1020MB ram).

I do feel that some programs open faster (IE is noticibly faster to open).
But this is only with xp.

In win7 my cache/disk ratio is like 20%.
I don't feel the difference.

But it is a fresh install of win7, maybe it's going to help more after I use it some more.

 

Yes, it does need a while to build/tune its cache to how we use our computers.

Glad you're seeing a difference already in XP - remember that Win 7 and Vista already uses some sort of caching technology by default so the size of the cache and the % filled will be more important as to when/if you 'feel' it on those more modern O/S's.

By comparison, XP needs something like eBoostr to take advantage of the newer, better, and simply 'more' (RAM) hardware we have almost a decade after it was mainstream!