New bladebit 2.0 vs madmax+ramcache #186
Replies: 5 comments 7 replies
-
MAdmax win on RAM cache 120Gb : 387Gb < 520Gb write to drive. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I still use madmax because 128G RAM is much more easier than 512G ram,I use 5950X and 7980X, with 128G RAM they all work well |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I just gave it a shot and got this error terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::logic_error' |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Alpha 2 bladebit madmax+ram 110GB ram-disk bladebit alpha --cache 100GB MAdmax win on ssd write : 387GB < 434GB, but bladebit faster. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Threadripper Pro 3955wx 128GB 3200MHz memory Total plot I/O wait time: 40.98 seconds. Best prior MM plotting 21.5 min (typical) w/2TB t1 & 1TB t2 Sam 980 Pros
Plot Log >> best 14.8 min k32 BB Disk V2 plot log.txt |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I have 5900x ryzen with 64gb ram and made some test.
I monitor writen gb of data on ssd drive through S.M.A.R.T /
madmax+ramcache 55gb , one ssd divided on
-2 = 128gb partition with 55 gb cache
-t = big volume on same drive
Plot time 42 min and 816Gb write
bladebit alpha --cache 55gb
Plot time 41 min and 831Gb write
So we have same write amount and same plot time. Not bad for alpha.
bladebit minus - it peak consamption 440Gb on ssd drive vs 260Gb by madmax, but it not critical in most cases.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions