Ways around the 2gb Ram limit….suggestions?

P
Posted By
progress
Jun 19, 2004
Views
441
Replies
16
Status
Closed
PS CS is becoming a real dog under heavy loading these days, 2gb is just not cutting it. Scratch space isnt a problem but I wondered if there was a way of making a ram drive in OSX because drives can only go so fast, and thats no where near as fast as ram.

Any sugggestions?
Related Tags
limit memory suggest

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

B
Buko
Jun 19, 2004
Any sugggestions?

maybe Tiger will address this.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jun 19, 2004
I think the new build is called rodent.
B
Buko
Jun 19, 2004
Did you read the FAQs B)
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jun 19, 2004
once a year, that’s all we ask.
B
Buko
Jun 19, 2004
If its a 64bit thing we may have to wait till systems are 64bit as well as the apps so Photoshop CSX maybe??
R
Ram
Jun 19, 2004
Progress,

Do a forum search; I remember someone did in fact post about using a RAM disk for this purpose.
R
Ram
Jun 19, 2004
I found at least one thread in which the RAM disk was discussed. Read both of povimage’s posts there:

<http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.3bb3eb16>
LT
Laurentiu_Todie
Jun 19, 2004
I think that Adobe could make a "cluster optimized" version of Photoshop and sell it along with a Mac supercomputer blueprint (complete with hardware scratch disks suggestions and third party software conflict reports).

They could call it: The Photoshop supercomputer for the rest of us.
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Jun 19, 2004
progress

At the moment ramBunctious <http://www.clarkwoodsoftware.com/rambunctious/> still doesn’t work for Panther (though the authors appear to be seriously working on it). But it does work in OS X versions prior to Panther. rB’s "Accessor" writes to the hard drive so it really is not an acceptable workaround either. Maybe they’ll update it and resolve the problem soon.
P
progress
Jun 20, 2004
cheers for the posts…looks like we’re still stumped. 🙁
AW
Allen_Wicks
Jun 20, 2004
I would think that at the current (fast) state of DP G5s RAID arrays of fast drives would be _the_ way to greatly accelerate PS after PSCS has 2 GB of RAM accessible to it.

I am still using a DP G4, but when I upgrade I expect that a RAID 0 array will be part of the plan.
P
progress
Jun 21, 2004
raid is still a brick wall in speed terms compared to ram…
AW
Allen_Wicks
Jun 21, 2004
Too true. But because so much of PS work involves disk access my guess is that RAID O with fast ATA will make a very large throughput improvement, possibly a larger change than going from 2 GB accessible RAM to 4 GB accessible RAM. The exception may be for folks with huge (greater than 1 GB size) files.
SP
steve_peters
Jun 23, 2004
I have a 6 drive scsi ultra 320 RAID 0. I am getting thoughput around 230mb/sec. Right now the fastest real world performance you can get is scsi, and on a G5 with a dual scsi card and the fastest 15k drives you can only get around 280mb/sec. The fastest SATA raids are only around 150mb/sec. So even with the fastest RAID 0, you are still not going to get the same speeds you can with ram.
P
progress
Jun 23, 2004
yes…not to mention the cost…can i ask how much the 6 drive u320 raid cost you steve?
AW
Allen_Wicks
Jun 23, 2004
Unless one creates a RAM disk, which is not what we are discussing, RAM and hard drives are accessed at different steps in the throughput process. My point was not to compare RAM speed to disk access, rather to compare the effect on throughput of PS [being able to access 4 GB of RAM rather than 2 GB of RAM] against [ATA RAID 0 on a new G5 vs regular ATA on a new G5].

Building RAID 0 into a new G5 that will have multiple hard drives anyway is quite cheap. Unlike very expensive, somewhat faster and much more problematic SCSI RAID setups.

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections