Slashdot Mirror
Is Video RAM a Good Swap Device?
sean4u writes "I use a 'lucky' (inexplicably still working) headless desktop PC to serve pages for a low-volume e-commerce site. I came across a gentoo-wiki.com page and this linuxnews.pl page that suggested the interesting possibility of using the Video RAM of the built-in video adapter as a swap device or RAM disk. The instructions worked a treat, but I'm curious as to how good a substitute this can be for swap space on disk. In my (amateurish) test, hdparm -t tells me the Video RAM block device is 3 times slower than the aging disk I currently use. If you've used this technique, what performance do you get? Is the poor performance report from hdparm a feature of the hardware, or the Memory Technology Device driver? What do you use to measure swap performance?"
Is your adapter an AGP or PCI-Express card? Because PCI-Express has fast lanes both ways, and AGP is not so fast in writing back. That could explain a part of the performance problems.
I'm assuming your ancient system uses an AGP interface for graphics, which has a very fast download rate, but very poor upload. The maximum performance of AGP uploading data from the card memory to the rest of the machine is pretty slow (less than 100MB/sec, IIRC), and it will vary depending on the implementation. This is probably the reason you got such slow benches.
PCIe will likely give you performance more in-line with main memory (most implementations now are hitting 1-2 GB/s).
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
This doesn't sound like the most stable thing to do especially if your running a server on the same computer. It sounds good on paper but implementing it is a whole different game. From my years in IT never try anything like this on production servers, thats what test servers are for.
Now if you want truly blazing speed, you can track down some of that dual-ported static RAM that came in 40-pin DIPs. Full random access on both ports would let you serve dynamic web pages while you run customer transactions, all with zero wait states on the ISA bus!
Uh... no. I've heard that argument before, but I don't buy it. An ideal system is one that doesn't page anything out to disk. In fact, I make it a point to always have enough memory that my pageout count does not increase during normal use. As soon as you page out anything, you're taking a performance hit. Period. Paging out data to disk in order to make room for disk cache is almost never a good idea, as the changes of needing to later access a data page page in an application are typically far greater than the chances of reusing a randomly read block on disk.
A disk cache (a limited amount of readahead notwithstanding) is only useful for data that is used more than once, which makes it a highly transient data store. Storing most data in cache longer than a few minutes usually doesn't buy you anything in terms of performance because if data isn't reused fairly soon after initial use, odds are it won't ever be.
By contrast, data explicitly loaded into RAM by an application (assuming the app is reasonably well written) is in memory for a reason, and if the data were transient, the app would have repeatedly reused a single chunk of temporary storage instead of keeping the data around. The odds that any data won't ever be used again should be vanishingly small unless an app is written poorly. For example, in a word processor, the majority of memory pages associated with a file will probably get touched when you save changes to disk even if you never actually scroll to the end of the file. Yes, there are ways to avoid that by manually organizing your data structures in memory, but it usually doesn't make sense to optimize memory organization that heavily.
In any case, regardless of memory organization, it is safe to assume that the vast majority of application data pages (not the actual executable code pages) will be reused at some point in the future. As such, paging out any of this data will require that the data be paged back in at some point, causing a noticeable stall for the user. This is slightly less significant for background daemons, but still true.
Thus, cache is a great example of the principe of diminishing returns. Doubling cache does not necessarily double the benefits. Once cache gets to a certain point, doubling it no longer significantly increases the number of additional hits in the cache. Every increase beyond that point will likely hurt performance by increasing the management overhead without actually increasing the number of successful hits.
Indeed, the only thing that makes sense to not keep in core is infrequently used code text, but that can be thrown away without ever paging it out; it can always be paged back in from the original executable if needed. Even then, an optimal system should not throw out anything except in small physical memory configurations. If you don't have enough RAM, increasing the inherently small disk cache by a small amount actually will result in a significant increase in hits and throwing out infrequently used code pages won't result in a significant performance penalty by comparison. In a large memory configuration, increasing the amount of disk cache won't have much benefit at all, and throwing out those pages probably has a much greater chance of resulting in a performance hit than throwing out a previously read random block on disk; if a page has been used once, the odds are better that it will be used again.
Note: this all assumes that your OS is smart enough to only load in application pages as they are used rather than loading the entire app in at launch. If it isn't, then you have bigger problems, of course.... :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Which is, of course, a completely useless and disingenuous answer to a person who already has the graphics memory sitting around, and wants to know if it is better than a hard drive.
You seem to be advocating wasting perfectly good VRAM in favor of buying more system RAM. If the VRAM is essentially free (ie. comes with the system no matter what), there is no good reason not to try to put it to good use.
Also, your "No" is completely unqualified. You offer no details of how VRAM performs worse as swap space than hard drives, let alone actual benchmarks or citations. (And I have the feeling that most graphics memory would be significantly better than your average IDE hard drive for swapping.)
Mod parent overrated.