So in the year 2017, what's stopping me from having 640gB

>>58687545
Why cant all RAM be made from the same stuff that level 1 cache is made from?

common sense

>>58687545
you can do that

>>58687596
Can you point out some flaws?

Barebones Linux handles ram disks.
32gB disk for just Windows.
480gB disk for storage.
A bunch of Simlinks to make it where everything important is on the 480.
Ecc ram.
30 min backups.
A massive UPS.
What could be bad about it? Aside from the whole $4500 bucks in ram alone thing (ddr4).

>>58687699
it would probably be more cost-effective to just raid0 a few small ssd's

>>58687567
L1 cache is 3 mm far from cpu cores. Ram is further and can't be as fast.

>>58687567
>SRAM vs DRAM

what the fuck is a gB

>>58688546

>he doesn't know about giegoBetos

AHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

File: Supermicro-X10DRI-Overview-800x578.jpg (213KB, 800x578px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 800x578px

First of all you need one of these motherboards or something like it that can support larger DIMMs

You are gonna get worse latency the bigger the DIMMs are, and a general performance penalty on certain tasks for using 2 processors

To load the SSD into ram you just need to read it once, on a system with sane memory management that should be enough to load it into ram

Something like find / | xargs cat > /dev/null should do it

>>58687545
Cost.

It's basically a waste of time unless you really definitely need it. It's not going to make most "normal" things notably faster. Then again if this is even on the table you're probably not doing normal things.

>>58688546
gigoBeets

>>58687545
you do realize that you will only get faster startup time in programs. bottleneck on runtime is the ram you cuck.

>>58687699
Why did you type so much in response to a two word post

>>58687545
>So in the year 2017, what's stopping me from having 640gB of ram, and creating a 512gB ramdisk on boot, and populating it from an image stored on a fast Ssd?

Not a thing. This is a fairly common usage scenario for video production.

>>58687545
What is a gram Byte?

>>58688847
>This is a fairly common usage scenario for video production.
really?
sounds insane to me
can't you just have some PCIe SSDs that are fast as shit instead of fucking around with all that RAM?

>>58687545
Aren't PCIe 3.0 SSDs fast enough for you? Maybe raid0 two of them? I can't even feel the difference between high-end sata ssds and pcie ones.

>>58688872
Even fastest PCI-e ssd is going to be two times slower than RAMdisk.

>>58688882
what about RAID?

>>58688872
PCIe SSDs are a new-ish thing. Before that big ramdisks were used to allow quick scrubbing of large video files. Some people still use them because it's what they know and PCIe SSDs can actually be slower and more expensive.

>>58688898
You raid together two of the good ones and you're looking at a lot of money. You could buy a terabyte of DDR3 memory and stick in an old workstation from 2009-2011 for a fraction of the price and still get very good performance.

File: 1479543415085.jpg (443KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1280x720px

>>58687699
Why don't you just stop being a fucking retard and let your operating system cache the disk blocks in ram like it already fucking does?

Here's the benefits:
- No startup overhead, no matter the amount on the disk
- No limit on storage
- Blocks are cached as they are read/written
- Linux's sync kthread takes care of "30 min backups" way more efficiently
- No retarded split between windows and linux
- You can cache an entire 640gb of hdd space
- It's completely transparent, no extra bullshit or additional work on your end, it's all done for you automatically by the kernel.

Seriously, learn how your OS works before you attempt to use it stupidly.

>>58687545
Why ramdisk, why dont start all of your programs at boot time. That should take same time of loading memory from hdd>ram but saves 1/2 of your ram space.