>two gigabyte Irams fitted wtih 4x 1GB ramsticks (DDR1)>both are the same size>serial ata connectors connected to raid setup (RAID level 0)now its 8GB sized volume with insane random access speedits faster than NVME SSDbut I dont kno what to do with such fast access speedsI see no real difference if I generate thumbnails for lots of 50 kb sized .jpg files in windows, versus nvme which is also faster than the eyebenchmark software can show iram to have faster access speed versus nvme but thats about it
Nice blog post, man.
>8GB sizedworthlessa PCIe bifurcation board that raid 0's together 4x nvme ssds will be faster and have way higher capacity
>>1098869648gb? Amazing, it's almost like it's nothing at all.
>>109886964>now its 8GB sized volume with insane random access speed>its faster than NVME SSDNope, it's heavily bottlenecked by SATA AHCI. Even a PCIe 3.0 NVMe SSD beats it, easily.
Usecase?
>>109887445no sir, it doesnt pci-e will be heavily bottlenecked by these:>gpu also uses pci-e>nvme needs to fight for the right to use the same busSATA completely goes around pci-e
>>109887458I am trying to figure out one
>>109887458You could use a script to boot your OS from a RAMdisk located on that module.
>>109887460>he doesn't know SATA also uses PCIe lanes, sometimes from the CPU but more often from the chipset
>>109887460Are you sniffing retards farts? SATA controllers are connected over PCIe, even internal ones in South Bridge ICs. Why would NVMe fight for PCIe with the GPU? It has it's own lanes, either directly to the CPU like the does or even if it's to the chipset, they still don't share lanes, unless you're retarded and put both your GPU and NVMe drives to the chipset. Pic related is a popular modern board. Even on some old board, PCIe 3.0 NVMe is going to do way better than a SATA controller doing RAID0 with DDR1.
>>109887460>>109887478People really overthink what PCIe lanes actually do.It's not some magical pool that be allocated whenever.It's fixed traces from the CPU or chipset that can only be redirected with PCIe mux/switch chips.Those chips are actually pretty expensive, Especially with PCIe gen4/gen5. So most motherboards don't have them or deploy them in very specific situations Most motherboards have zero way to redirect lanes from a GPU to an M.2. a good portion may have a way to redirect lanes from either a pair of sata ports to a slow boat gen3 x2 M.2 slot but even that's going away.IDK where this idea got started that you can steal lanes from a GPU because it it's completely irrelevant for 90% of boards and you have to pay $400-500 for the privilege.
>>109887480just for your info:>native SATA controllers on Intel Sandy Bridge systems (LGA1155 with 6-series/Cougar Point chipsets) were built directly into the Platform Controller Hub (PCH) and connected to the CPU via Intel's proprietary Direct Media Interface (DMI Gen2), rather than standard PCI Express (PCI-e) lanesa motherboard that has two 32-bit PCI slots (a requirement for I-RAM) certainly isnt gonna be a "modern board"
>>109886964Bullshit. It's SATA1, even two of them in RAID0 have a max theoretical of 300MB/s.>>109887445AHCI didn't even exist. It's literally just vanilla SATA1. It's worse than late SATA SSDs.
>>109887563What do Sandy Bridge systems have to do with anything here? Nobody was talking about them.
>>109887563AMD used HT too as a system bus over PCIe at one point, your point?
>>109887570show me a modern board with 2x 32-bit PCI slots then (for connecting two I-RAM)
>>109887564>even two of them in RAID0 have a max theoretical of 300MB/s.you are speaking of transfer throughput when OP explicitly talked about>insane random access speed
>>109886964zoomer-tard thread
>>109886964> but I dont kno what to do with such fast access speedscompiling stuff thereor use that as a very fast swap partitionbut an 8gb volume is miniscule
>>109887602>>insane random access speedSATA is still the bottleneck. This isn't even AHCI, the IOPS, queue depth, command queues and latency are laughable. There's 10 year old NVMe SSDs that have faster 4k random access than OP's max bandwidth. And if you mean latency, it's literally, like 200 µs vs 20 µs compared to NVMe.
>>109887595>show me a modern board with 2x 32-bit PCI slots thenConventional PCI to PCIe bridges are transparent. >(for connecting two I-RAM)i-RAM doesn't use PCI, it uses SATA.PCI is only used for power.
You would literally be better off with a DDR1 server board and a RAM disk compared to this retarded fuckery. Obviously OP is LARPing zoomer because they have literally zero idea about anything they are talking about.
>>109887649>>109887649show me how to obtain that power connecter in modern motherboardand I didnt claim it is required for anything other than for power
>>109887657But even easier would be just soldering a connector for 5V onto the card to one of the thru hole filtering caps.
>>109886964Idc what everyone is saying anon, i love 'junk' style setups like this.If i didn't live in Australia, where for some fucked up jewy reason we have the highest energy costs, I'd 100% have a 'junk' room of shelves and just collect every single piece of hardware i can get my hands on. Just to assemble and tinker with shit like this.My problem is always power efficiency/draw with older hardware. It's why i don't have a ps2/crt setup with some old sony stereo system.
>>109887723There's noting wrong with doing it but OP is just LARPing and lying.
>>109887736There's nothing wrong about LARPing and lying. If you removed those 2 things, and the associated 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc, order consequences from your life you'd be bored all day every day.There isn't a reasonable way for me to even verify you are a real person i am talking to, and vice versa.
>>109887789But that's boring compared to doing actual bonkers setups and sharing them.
