PDA

View Full Version : A "load all to memory" option


Sycraft
09-14-2012, 07:32 PM
I would be interested in seeing a setting that tells Play to not do any disk streaming, to load all samples to memory. While I realize this isn't feasible for all uses (hence it being a non-default option) particularly people with the new Hollywood series libraries, for those of us with older libraries it really is. You can get a desktop system with 64GB of RAM for not a lot of money these days and even my laptop has 32GB in it. I can easily load all the samples I use in to RAM and not hit the limit.

Not necessary, of course, but nice as it removes a potential bottleneck and it shouldn't be too much work to implement (since you already have the ability to do it after an instrument has been loaded). Just a setting you can change, perhaps with proper admonishment that it could prevent large samples from loading.

jspencer
09-17-2012, 02:55 PM
+1

Oblivion777
09-19-2012, 06:04 AM
That would be cool. +1 from me, too! ;)

TGV
09-21-2012, 12:41 PM
It doesn't sound that cool to me. Imagine how long it would take to load that. Max sustained reading speed from a normal disk is 30Mb/s, so that's at least 20 minutes to fill up your memory, probably going towards 30 when things are not optimal.

But you can already try to copy everything to a RAM disk, I think.

Sycraft
09-21-2012, 02:39 PM
Normal magnetic disks these days are usually in the realm of 80-110MB/sec, that's megabytes, not bits. SSDs are generally 200-550MB/sec.

So even presuming you had enough samples to fill 32GB of RAM it would take about 7 minutes to copy them all to RAM in the low case, and 1 minute in the low case.

Of course you probably wouldn't be using it in these large cases. It is for when you use smaller samples. Also often you load samples one at a time, which doesn't cut down on the total time but cuts down on the wait.

Basically what it comes down to is I have a lot of RAM in my system, and it sits pretty much unused for the most part.

TGV
09-21-2012, 11:12 PM
That would be an expensive hard disk, probably a RAID setup. A single normal disk scores a lot lower than that, certainly a laptop disk. And technically, it's not going to be easy. It would require limiting reading to a single thread to get a good performance.

Are you saying this because your laptop disk is too slow? In that case, you could consider attaching a USB3 SSD drive (supposing your laptop has USB3).

jspencer
09-22-2012, 03:58 PM
It doesn't sound that cool to me. Imagine how long it would take to load that. Max sustained reading speed from a normal disk is 30Mb/s, so that's at least 20 minutes to fill up your memory, probably going towards 30 when things are not optimal.

But you can already try to copy everything to a RAM disk, I think.

With SSD's, probably under 5 minutes. I'd love this feature.

Sycraft
09-25-2012, 04:14 AM
I don't use my laptop, I use my desktop and it has SSDs, two of them in fact. The figures I quoted aren't for special hard disks, just normal ones. I do computer support for a living, so I have a pretty good knowledge of what kind of speeds you can see out of things.

The point isn't so much that I need it, it is that I'd like to see it to make better use of my RAM. I realize SSDs usually have no trouble streaming samples, have RAM never has any trouble, as it is far faster. An SSD can be as fast as 550MB/sec, RAM in modern systems is 20GB/sec or more. SSD access time is generally in range of 30-500us, RAM is in the realm of 0.009-0.011us (9-11ns).

It is just nice to operate entirely from RAM, when you have sufficient RAM to do so. With RAM prices these days, it is very feasible. You can knock 32GB of high quality RAM in to a Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge desktop for $200 (gets you 4 sticks of 8GB 1866MHz DDR3 from Corsair) and the E-series will take 64GB.

As cheap as it is, it can be more feasible than getting an SSD. If you don't use a ton of samples per song, and not everyone does, then even 16GB of RAM can be more than plenty to hold them all. At $100 or less for 16GB, much cheaper than an SSD to hold libraries.

Plus for a laptop, USB3 external is not the way to go for samples. USB has a heavy processor load to do its transfers due to its design (it trades security and simplicity of devices for performance).

I'm not saying everyone would use it, nor would I turn it on by default. By default I'd have it stream from disk. However right now there's an option to load an instrument in to memory. This just takes it a step further and for those that wish, they can order Play to automatically load any instrument all in to memory. If that is useful is up to the individual.

lejmer
09-27-2012, 11:55 AM
I don't use my laptop, I use my desktop and it has SSDs, two of them in fact. The figures I quoted aren't for special hard disks, just normal ones. I do computer support for a living, so I have a pretty good knowledge of what kind of speeds you can see out of things.


What drives are you talking about? Normal 7200 rpm drives on sata 3 do maybe 70-80 megabytes per second. You'd need 10000 rpm drives to perform faster. And those are not "normal drives".

As cheap as it is, it can be more feasible than getting an SSD. If you don't use a ton of samples per song, and not everyone does, then even 16GB of RAM can be more than plenty to hold them all. At $100 or less for 16GB, much cheaper than an SSD to hold libraries.


How is 100 USD for 16 GB cheaper than an SSD? An SSD today costs about 150 USD for 60 GB. Sure, it's 50 USD more, but the price per GB is WAY lower for an SSD.

ozzietj
10-15-2012, 11:33 PM
Has EW released any data on how much a library uses without any of the other fluff associated? (not with this or that OS, DAW, etc.... just the library samples!)
Reason I ask, im looking to build a system purely for my EW products and would like to load every patch I have bought. I dont care if it takes half a day but when i select it i'd like to use it straight away.
So, seeing as theres something in the order of approx 400 GB of samples installed on the hard drive, i want to know exactly how much ram a library thats bought uses.
E.g.-->>
EWQLSO Platinum edition 24 bit = xx MB/GB RAM for ALL samples loaded
EWQLSO Gold edition 24 bit = xx MB/GB RAM for ALL samples loaded
EWQLSO Silver edition 24 bit = xx MB/GB RAM for ALL samples loaded

Pardon me if I got it incorrect about what versions have what 16/24/32 bit samples but you get the idea. This would also help future purchases.
Someone looking to buy a new hollywood strings diamond version, ok, if i want it all at my finger tips i better have X GB ram free, rather than purchasing and finding your system becoming rather asthmatic.

Hope this isn't too... off topic.... but I do want to Load all... and i want to know just how much i need. I've got VEPro, so how many machines do i need to spread this over? If it's going to take say... 100GB for Symphonic orchestra, ok... I'll build a machine with say 128 and it will just be the EWQLSO server. Next i might only need 20-30 GB for a smaller one like Silk, add in some more like RA, and Goliath. Fill up another 128GB ram server with those...
Anyone see where I'm going with this?