Windows 10 Annual Updates. OneDrive Windows 7 and 8. Copy and Paste Between Android and Windows. Protect Windows 10 From Internet Explorer. Mozilla Fights Double Standard. Connect to a Hidden Wi-Fi Network. Change the Size of the Touch Keyboard. Reader Favorites Take Screenshot on Windows. Mount an ISO image in Windows. Boot Into Safe Mode. Where to Download Windows Legally. Find Your Lost Product Keys. Clean Install Windows 10 the Easy Way. The Best Tech Newsletter Anywhere Join , subscribers and get a daily digest of news, geek trivia, and our feature articles.
Disabling superfetch will stop it from repopulating the RAM after a background task has finished. Damn I'm getting a Gemstone Blue which is 4 gig Kittie Rose , Jun 13, You must log in or sign up to reply here.
Show Ignored Content. Similar Threads - Vista users turn. Replies: 4 Views: Replies: 9 Views: 2, Apple users where are the pitch forks, the claims of better security than android etc? Replies: 3 Views: 1, By disabling this feature, you free up your system memory. This is one of those tweaks that isn't universal to all SSDs. In fact, it's not recommended if you own an Intel drive, as it purportedly has a negative impact on performance.
If anything, take note of your storage subsystem's performance before and after this alteration to determine if it's something you really want to use or not.
Per Windows Help, "Write caching in a storage device refers to the use of high-speed volatile memory to collect write commands sent to data storage devices and cache them until the slower storage media either physical disks or low-cost flash memory can accommodate them. In the case of a hard drive, the operating system flushes commands to a disk's on-board cache. That doesn't mean it's safe yet, though. So, it waits for the drive to report back that cached data has been written to the magnetic media.
If you're more concerned with performance than the integrity of your data, turning off write-cache buffer flushing skips that extra command to flush the internal RAM buffer. For a more detailed explanation of flushing and the risks associated with turning it off, check out Microsoft employee Raymond Chen's personal blog post on the topic.
One could only hope for an actual benefit from preloaders if the preloader uses ONLY system resources that are idle at the time. There must be spare unused RAM and the CPU and disk must be idle when the pre-loader is operating, otherwise the preloader will reduce speed and responsiveness of the overall system where it supposed to be assisting. Managing memory in any way is expensive.
You have to manage that cache. Nothing is ever cost-free. This is nothing like Linux memory management. Old pages are paged to disk cache regularly.
So far, so good. With Linux, if you load something once and then again and it is still in the cache then great. Things will be faster.
However, it does not attempt to constantly fill and manage the cache based on its idea of what your usage pattern is. In theory, it would be great if you could get that right which is why people think this is such a great idea but in practice things are very different. Besides, with any form of caching the central point stands and this certainly stands with an additional service over and above caching such as Superfetch.
Whereas the cache itself might be relatively cost free given the benefits, if you start sticking a service on top that decides what should constantly be in the cache then you get a whole bunch of real unknowns.
It does moderate caching, leaving much of the system RAM free. SuperFetch just tries to use as much unused RAM as possible. It also drains battery life on laptops faster more stuff going on.
And of course, no caching is a bad idea, too. Caching, in a lot of areas, has proven to have speed benefits. Thus, the middle ground is the way to go. Linux takes the middle ground.
Now that is complete nonsense. Linux will gladly consume almost all available physical RAM for its pagecache. Case in point … I have a Linux 2. It currently has only 69M of RAM unused, with M used by applications, M used for kernel buffers largely attributable to the ext4 inode cache in my case and M cached! As the original poster alluded to, SuperFetch is a different kettle of fish. However, one could argue as to whether SuperFetch is worthwhile which, ultimately, is the topic under discussion here.
This story is full of comments by people indicating that it can be slower. If the priority system were not screwed, it could still be bad.
In theory, low priority IOs should be issued to disk on a 1-in basis when normal priority IO exists. If your normal pri IO is sequential, that low priority IO can still trigger a seek and slow it down. And yes, IO priorities are far from perfect. In Vista, no priority boosting was performed if a regular priority thread was waiting on activity performed by a low priority thread. It could stall on a collided pagefault needs the data prefetch is fetching or on any lock in the IO path prefetch has a lock held, issued low pri IO that takes seconds to complete, and the foreground apps wait for the lock.
In Win7 boosting is implemented and will be performed if a normal pri thread waits on many common locks but not all held by a low pri thread. Disclaimer: I am an MS engineer who worked on making the priority system work properly, but have not worked on SF itself. To be fair to the SF crew, Vista was finished under considerable time pressure. Changing every lock in the IO path to be low priority aware is a huge job.
They were faced with the choice of shipping with no IO priority, shipping with IO priority in the disk scheduler that can invert in higher levels, or spending years making it perfect. They chose the middle option, presumably as a compromise.
It still gives some benefit, but also has some inversion problems. Resources are always finite. That would make sense if you are a small startup that needs to release the product or go bankrupt. This is dramatically oversimplified. Superfetch is a generating IO to load all that data in; b consuming memory to load it to and c guessing about what data will be used next. If it guesses right, you get a speedup. Vista added low priority IO and low page priority in part to limit the damage superfetch can do in those negative cases.
But it can still do damage, believe me. I used to build overnight. Outlook generates plenty of IO and uses plenty of RAM on its own, so superfetch was hurting my foreground task to benefit a task which was no longer occurring. In the end, I killed superfetch in frustration, and now accessing email in the morning is painless.
I should also add that tracking usage patterns is not free. There is a component in Vista fileinfo that does this tracking. Essentially, every time you open a file is needs to look up the name of the file in order to record access information about it.
Benchmarking superfetch reliably requires removing fileinfo to generate an apples to apples comparison. Perhaps not. In reality it will take longer.
Since RAM is increasing faster than disk bandwidth, the sky is the limit for how long this process can take. If you boot, run a random app, and shut it down, SF is generating IO that is of no benefit to you, and may be negatively impactful. With any heuristic, the user relies on the guess being correct. Guess right, perf goes up. Guess wrong, perf goes down. By nature, superfetch cannot be right all the time. This is why opinions on this feature are so varied on the internet — every user is different.
However, I have never noticed any performance increase due to Superfetch. That additional load is going to offset any perceived benefit. Perhaps the timing of that load needs to be better allocated.
With Superfetch, Windows Search, Windows Defender and your anti-virus of choice all competing for the most limited bandwidth on your hardware has to take a hit. In Vista, superfetch starts before you log into your system. For a single user, it actually does work well at least for me, and depending on how much RAM you have for superfetch to preload. In Windows 7, microsoft is further lowering the priority of the superfetch thread, and also delaying it from starting until after the desktop has been loaded.
Windows 7 also in general just has less processes and services at startup, with a rewritten service stack with better delayed loading partial loading on demand. When I upgraded to a 10K rpm Raptor, I can now boot windows and pretty much immediately open any application.
A typical rpm is at least twice as slow, and a is even slower. Most laptops of course using the slowest option, sometimes even a rpm, or a poor SSD.
But for more generic hard drives of the rpm variety, I have seen Superfetch make the machine unbearable to use during boot. Superfetch tries to guess what one is going to do and autonomously allocates resources accordingly.
Sounds good on the surface. But on a deeper level, offends my design sensibilities. Includes range of applications: wordprocessors, spreadsheets, internet browsers, games and image editors.
Extra software in the form of dotpets. There is a Puppy Software Installer included. Puppy is easy to use and little technical knowledge is assumed. Hardware is automatically detected. Once it has booted and loaded itself entirely into RAM, it is super fast, as you might imagine. Anything over that, you are laughing!
It was kinda slow, and the disk would thrash for minutes after the desktop appeared. I was trying to find out what was hitting the hard disk and when, using my trusty optical detectors, so I turned off Superfetch.
Microsoft, on the other hand, went the Rube Goldberg route, apparently compelled to build a rather complex caching scheme which tries to predict what you will do.
0コメント