Testing eboostr on an older machine

December 31, 2008 at 2:56 pm 2 comments

I decided to try out the eboostr 3.0 beta to see if it can speed up my mom’s computer (an ancient eMachine T1221 with a Celeron 1.3 Ghz). Normally, adding more memory is best, but the machine is maxed out at 512Mb. I figured that adding a disk cache to an usb stick may be able to add additional performance. Apparently, I was wrong.

The machine is setup to use a 2Gb stick of Cruzer Micro (readyboost ready). HDtach returned about 27 Mb/s read speed with an access time of 0.6ms. The machine has an USB 2.0 card, so it should be fast enough.

I ran several test like startup, shutdown, opening different applications, opening web pages. All of the test were no faster than before eboostr. I examined the cache and noted that the files being opened are in the cache, it’s just that they didn’t return quickly enough. If it worked, it should be noticeable.

I decided to do some investigating and ran the eboostr speed test. It came back with a ratio of only speed ratio of 1.13 and 100% cache hit. A 13% speed bump is probably too slow to make a difference and this is with a reasonably fast stick. I installed eboostr and used memory as a cache, but the ratio only went up to 1.59. This is a lot better, but surprisingly low for a memory cache. Keep in mind that while it’s faster to find a file on the USB drive, the cpu cost for getting it is higher. HDtach indicated that it only use 5% CPU to read from the IDE drive and 19% CPU to read from the USB drive.

I also tried eboostr on an AMD 2600+ desktop with 2Gb of memory and allocated 1Gb of memory to cache. There was no noticable speed difference before and after eboostr. The speed test indicated that the speed ratio is only 1.89, which is better than the eMachine, but not good enough in my opinion.

eboostr did not work for the two older machines that we tried it on.


Entry filed under: XP.

How I selected my Antivirus software for Windows HP Photosmart C7280 driver install fails with an error registering hpbmiapi.dll failed to register

2 Comments Add your own

  • 1. hugo  |  July 14, 2010 at 11:33 am

    Hey bro, i make my own analisys, i used to be a FPS player, i habe only a 1gb ram, 256 video memory ati x800…

    i been installed eboostr on my machine to see if i had a better performance, o just a fast loading, but i get nothing, a! for eboostr i used a memory stick 4gb kingston, read speed of 15,555 kbps….

    šŸ˜¦ u have reason, there is no noticeable diference

  • 2. tito  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    eboostr has a 4.0v by now,, sure it canĀ“t do magic..
    with 512Mb of ram is not wise to use it for caching, you can try with a litle amount of it as to say 64Mb and never more than 128Mb but I donĀ“t thin will be enough, In your testing if you used USB AND ram the result is promediated. I suget you that if you use some RAM configure eboostr with one or two prioriti aplications. And Be sure to exclude your antivirus to check the USB stick. And a fine system tunning of course…
    For hugo, gaming will not be better with this un less you have a lot of ram to prefetch and cache the game.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


December 2008
« Nov   Mar »

Most Recent Posts

%d bloggers like this: