Superfetch loading music files and 4 GB ISO at startup!

Hi!

I rebooted my system ysterday, and the hard-disk light was on (not even blinking, constantly on) for about 10 minutes. I checked the Resource Monitor, and it was loading my DELL OEM ISO that I was modifying using vLite. I scrolled down, there were huge files from Unreal Tournament 2004, and then songs, most of them being the ones I rarely listen to.

I turned off SuperFetch, and now I have 20% of RAM (of 4 GB) being utilized at startup, instead of 31-32% with SuperFetch.

Is starting it again worth all this? Can I modify it and tell it which files to load, or let's say which partition to monitor?

Thanks!

 

You can't. You can tell it not to fetch boot files or applications, but that's it.

 

Superfetch shouldn't interrupt your work. Theoretically, if you start loading programs or games, superfetch immediately goes idle.

I haven't tested this yet, but I've never noticed appreciable lag or HD thrashing caused by superfetch.

Also, I know superfetch uses some available RAM, but it will unload its cache if that RAM is needed.

 

SuperFetch should only loads stuff that you use often, however, for it to do that, it needs some time.

 

It shouldn't load mp3s or ISOs.

 

Why not?

In this case it seems superfetch either doesn't have enough time or he has too much free ram so its caching more than it needs to, but withstanding that information... Why shouldn't superfetch load up ISOs and MP3s?

If that person is regularly using those files then they would realize a benefit from the caching... Not to mention other apps use file extensions commonly used by other things... Superfetch shouldn't discriminate really...

 

It shouldn't, because it is plain stupid to do so. Loading a 4GB ISO is plain stupidity, as the speed doesn't matter. It will open in the same time without SuperFetch and loading an mp3 is the same thing. It should stick to exes and small files.

 

Huh? The speed difference between HDD and RAM is HUGE and will be noticeable on any serious operation requiring transferring or manipulating that information...

So having a 4GB ISO cached in RAM would be a LOT faster than loading that 4GB ISO off the HDD. You can't argue any other way as the sheer speed of RAM is hundreds of times faster than that from HDDs.

Superfetch should load up the ram with whatever you use most first and continue down the chain until its filled up your unused RAM. It shouldn't in any way discriminate on the file size or type IMHO...

You do get a larger benefit from a ton of small files being cached over a single large file (as the HD would have to do less seeking if the large file is defragged), but the real world benefit of that gain is dependent on your usage pattern. Some system admins manipulate ISOs regularly...

 

frazell, you're way off. SuperFetch is made to improve loading times. What benefit do you see from having a large file loaded? I see none and that is because there isn't an advantage.
ISO = big ****ing CD/DVD image (usually they're pretty big) that gets loaded once, doesn't affect performance in any way, you install, then remove it or keep it to play a game which you have already bought (instead of a crack or whatever) just because you don't want to waste the DVD (scratches for instance).
You are simply wrong about loading one. There is no benefit. There is a benefit loading real applications.

 

I know what an ISO image is... But you're view of their usage is extremely limited as is your view of where loading times occur...

If you're a system administrator and you're loading that image up to modify regularly or your loading up a DVD image that you modify regularly it can speed up the load times in the program you manipulate the image in (for instance transcoding a DVD9 image to a DVD5 image).

If the person is using the image as you described, in a use and discard senerio, then the image would rank very low on your usage of it and the chance of it being cached in SuperFetch should be very low.

 

What's the point? It's still loaded from the HDD and it's going to go back on the HDD. It's totally useless. The route the bits are going is: slow (HDD) -> fast (RAM) -> slow (HDD again). Where's the good part? The bottleneck is still the HDD. It's not like you're loading an exe. You only load it from RAM so it starts faster, but when you load an ISO you load it to install something to the HDD, which makes the whole idea pointless.

 

Maybe... If your transferring it over a Gigabit LAN you'll get far better transfer speeds if its in RAM and not on the HD... Again, the benefits to the average user might not be there or large, but the benefits to various people might be there and might be large. Windows has a large user base and has to cater to everyone equally...

That's why I said it should focus on what you use the most not on how big or what type of file it is.

 

I tend to believe that there is no benefit. Sure you might argue, but until either one of us sees any benefit from loading big files, we'll just have to settle this through words .

 

Yea we'll disagree

As I said before, in his case this probably isn't a benefit as he probably doesn't use that ISO regularly or whatnot, but we'll disagree on the benefits in general.

 

You're both right. In a game? I'd want the whole background music mp3 loaded into RAM so other random file accesses are speedier. For an ISO, it depends on whether you mount it as an image, if you access the files on that very often, whatever. SuperFetch doesn't make distinctions on filetypes or anything... it simply looks at usage, and caches accordingly. If it sees an ISO being touched a lot, it'll cache it so access is more efficient. Sometimes that's the right thing to do, sometimes it isn't, but SuperFetch can't tell for sure what your intentions are. It can only look at usage and adapt accordingly. Perhaps the software knows better than you what files you access and which ones will speed up access of different things? Besides, what good is having 4GB of RAM and not using it? Memory is made to be used... this isn't like back in the Win9x days where Windows had very little clue what to do with memory. Memory is released instantly if another application requests it and you aren't actively using the pages.

 

Guys, the ISO I am talking about, I've used it just once, to try out features of vLite. And I am complaining because I could not do anything on my notebook until it was fully loaded! I won't use it everyday, and haven't used it everyday, so I don't know why SuperFetch would "fetch" it.

And my problem is not that some part of my RAM is being used, the maximum it goes is 38% anyways, but the fact that it (loading files) slowed my notebook the **** down. I had to wait for around 10 minutes to get task manager! I'll save 0.05 seconds while loading Winamp when SuperFetch is on because it is already in RAM, but I'll lose 5-10 minutes while booting?!

 

It happened again today! I had enabled SuperFetch now, thinking my problem might've been one off, and when I rebooted, it was shoving a 20 GB movie, which I had just watched, in the RAM! I waited for about 10 minutes, being unable to do anything other than open the task manager somehow and find out wtf was going on. I cold rebooted, and it was doing the same again. I went in the Safe Mode, and turned Super**** off.

Now windows loads faster, and I can stand a 0.005 ms difference of Winamp and MSN messenger loading times, plus the 10% free RAM is appreciated too.

Don't know what went wrong, maybe it got too intelligent for itself.

 

"It improves performance over time."
Well, you can say that too.
Do you have SP1?

 

No, and I won't install SP1 till it's officially out. It is not out yet for the public for a reason, and I trust MS more than the hacks and what not that'll enable me to get it a day or so faster. The thing is, it was working perfectly fine until now, for the 5 months or so that I've had Vista for. So I know SP1 isn't the answer.

 

Yeah, it's not out yet because they have two official releases: one for business users (which is always shortly after RTM) and one for the consumers (which can be months later). Try installing SP1.