Memory question.

[Cobster]

So I recently installed Win7 on my 3 year old PC build, thankfully it runs Win7 amazingly (can't believe how well and fast W7 actually is, love it) well on 2G, but will upgrade to 4 now.
The question is, and since it's been a few years and I'm a little rough on specs and what not, my current memory is Corsair's XMS2 series, specs are as follows.
CMX1024-6400C4 - so 1G with a Cas latency of 4
Timing is 4-4-4-12
800mHz

Now the models they sell now are
6400C5 with a Cas latency of 5
Timing is 5-5-5-18
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145201

I'm assuming that these new sticks would work fine and that they will run at the settings of the lower original pair of RAM, correct?

 

[WoodPeckr]

Google your PC model. It should take you to a site that will show all your PC specs telling you exactly what type memory you need.

FWIW, my 3 yr old laptop running 32 bit Vista came with 2GB of RAM. There was a very noticeable increase in performance when I maxed the RAM to 4GB even through 32 bit Vista only used ~3.5GB of that RAM.

Win7 should show a nice gain in performance also by maxing out the RAM to 4GB.

 

[danmand]

Crucial has a memory scan program, that you can run. It will tell you http://www.crucial.com/systemscanner/loader.aspx

 

[Cobster]

Nope, I was wrong. I called them and they said it's better to get 4G of the same specs since mine are 3 years old and the newer ones are, well, newer. lol
Thanks for the replies though.

 

[SkyRider]

Is 4G RAM now the top of the line?

 

[WoodPeckr]

Is 4G RAM now the top of the line?

It is unclear. What do you mean?

 

[SkyRider]

It is unclear. What do you mean?

If I go shopping for a new consumer P.C. to-day, is 4G of RAM the most that I need? Is more than 4G available or needed?

I need a computer that can handle 1080p video. Is 4G of RAM sufficient?

 

[WoodPeckr]

Depends on your OS

A 32 bit OS will use no more than 4GB.
A 64 bit OS (which you want) will utilize up to 16GB or more depending how it is configured. More RAM is always better. You can never have too much RAM.

 

[Powershot]

If I go shopping for a new consumer P.C. to-day, is 4G of RAM the most that I need? Is more than 4G available or needed?

I need a computer that can handle 1080p video. Is 4G of RAM sufficient?

4gb is plenty to play 1080p video playback which is more dependent on your video card and processor (any modern new $500 PC will handle it).. editing is another story, you want more.

 

[The Options Menu]

A 32 bit OS will use no more than 4GB.
A 64 bit OS (which you want) will utilize up to 16GB or more depending how it is configured. More RAM is always better. You can never have too much RAM.

Well, depending on the platform and the architecture. After you've loaded every system library and every executable in whatever your platform's boot sequence is, and then load every bit of software you'll ever use concurrently, get everything cached that's going to be cached, and then make sure nothing guests swapped out, any free ram too much after that is 'wasted', or 'free future proofing'.

IE- At the moment I'm running a full Debian / KDE 4 desktop with a lot of services turned on, playing mp3s in a 'heavy' media player (Amarok), with two different web browsers open, a terminal connected to a remote server, while browsing a remote share on a Windows system from a graphical file manager.

On a 2 GB system I have about 1/2 a gig of non-buffer, non-cached, and non-shared memory free. I could make a real case I have 1/2 a gig too much memory. That's pretty much the sweet spot for this system, in this configuration, with this software stack, for this use. Any memory, beyond the memory I have would be a waste.

The only real way to tell if you have enough memory is to cold boot a system (right off then back on), wait for it to fully load, load up every app you'll use concurrently (with data / media), then measure the memory usage build build in a fudge of maybe 20 - 25% for a desktop system (if you want). Every OS has a free tool for this. The goal for a desktop should be to never 'hit swap' just loading your highest normal workload. The further beyond that you get, the greater the chance any additional RAM you buy will never be saturated before you replace the computer.

Then again, RAM is cheap these days, so it doesn't matter that much, and you'll always do better to err on the side of more. (I just don't want to see any more grannies get ripped of.)

 

[Cobster]

Errrr wow wtth? Lol

 

[Cobster]

I have awhile ago already, along with an SSD.

 

[Cobster]

I bought a new SSD hard-drive (installed myself) and did a fresh install of Windows 7 - runs beautifully.
Fresh installs are very easy if you have the original disk.

 

[The Options Menu]

I have awhile ago already, along with an SSD.

SSDs have gotten good with your OS / System files. You just can't beat them. If you have a lot of personal files throw them on a RAID 1 and set 'no delete' permissions, AND / OR backup regularly. My current rig has a 32 GB SSD for '/' (or the OS / Programs / System Files) and a 2 TB RAID 1 that's encrypted for user and shared data. The 2 TB RAID gets backed up weekly.

Laptops and other devices, basically connect to the RAID, and I only keep minimal personal data on them. (iTunes on Windows will happily load a Linux hosted media library on a Samba share.)


** A RAID setup basically uses multiple redundant disks controlled by hardware or software to make sure your data is never just on 1 drive. In a RAID 1, drives are 1:1 mirrored, so if a drive dies you just pop a new one in and sync them up. You also get a bit more read / write performance when files are copied to and from memory, as you can be reading or writing in more places at a time. For me losing an OS isn't a big deal, but my data is precious, hence the RAID and the backups, and not giving normal users, including myself, more than read permission. I'd do this SSDs but 2 TB of SSDs still cost a little too much.

 

[WoodPeckr]

** A RAID setup basically uses multiple redundant disks controlled by hardware or software to make sure your data is never just on 1 drive. In a RAID 1, drives are 1:1 mirrored, so if a drive dies you just pop a new one in and sync them up.

This seems like the best solution.
However I've read the two drives have to identically match in RAID 1. Will this be a problem if say one drive fails after several years and those particular drives are no longer being made?

 

[WoodPeckr]

Don't need to match. Ideally, same rpm speed is recommended but again, not a must. The available volume is the size of the smallest drive so if you replace a failed 1TB drive in 2014 with a cheap 2TB drive, it will match up with the original 1TB still in operation and the additional platter space will be unavailable (don't think it will show up as an additional partition for example).

Thanks for the info. It's just that I've always been told in RAID 1 you have to match drive size and even the manufacturer for RAID 1 to work.

This begs another question? What will happen, say in 2017 when the original 1TB drive fails and you replace it with another 2TB drive. Will it still be limited to 1TB availability or will it now see all 2TB?

 

[WoodPeckr]

You would hopefully be able to backup all the data (temp) to an external drive, build a brand new 2TB RAID1 and put the data back on from the external source.

There it is.
Always felt RAID 1 is a best way to effortlessly backup data and you just showed an easy way to accomplish this for the long term.

Cheers....

 

[The Options Menu]

This seems like the best solution.
However I've read the two drives have to identically match in RAID 1. Will this be a problem if say one drive fails after several years and those particular drives are no longer being made?

Two partitions have to match for most software RAID setups. Hardware RAID depends on the hardware. I actually prefer software RAID under LINUX, just because the hardware RAID controller itself might fail. (Seen it happen.) Of course, in a RAID 1, you are bound to the smallest size, so as long as you partition to match you aren't wasting space.

As for your next posts, the simplest way not to delete your data by accident is to not give yourself permissions to delete the data. I keep a shared media / data partition, that only a special user and the administrator can delete from it. If you're still twitchy (I am) you should also do regular automated backups, and maybe once a year move a backup to a secondary secure location. (In my case a closet at my parents house.)

RAID 1 has been great. It'll save your bacon. Even if your drives were damaged during a power surge, as long as they weren't damaged identically and they aren't 100% fried, they should be able to reconstruct themselves. There are even more exotic RAID setups, but for home a RAID 1 with only a special user to delete any shared media and regular backups is about as safe as any normal user will need to be.

 

[Anynym]

There are ways of allowing the system to make use of additional memory (beyond the 3-something Gig limit usually imposed by 32-bit OSs). One way would be to upgrade to a 64-bit OS, but there are other options as well.

As for using RAID, yes, disk mirroring (RAID-1) is a good way to ensure you have a good backup disk. But I'd prefer a Journalling File System, although I can't find a good one for Linux . And rather than mirroring, I'll set up a periodic backup of my files from one drive to the other. The backup isn't as instantaneous as it would be under RAID, but since I keep my drives in USB-connected external shells it's more convenient for me that way.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Linux ROCKS

As for using RAID, yes, disk mirroring (RAID-1) is a good way to ensure you have a good backup disk. But I'd prefer a Journalling File System, although I can't find a good one for Linux.

Really?
I've been using one (ext3) for years before moving to improved (ext4) now. Never had a problem with either.

Anatomy of Linux journaling file systems

Journaling today and tomorrow
M. Tim Jones, Consultant Engineer, Emulex Corp.

Summary: In recent history, journaling file systems were viewed as an oddity and thought of primarily in terms of research. But today, a journaling file system (ext3) is the default in Linux®. Discover the ideas behind journaling file systems, and learn how they provide better integrity in the face of a power failure or system crash. Learn about the various journaling file systems in use today, and peek into the next generation of journaling file systems.... [more]