Is it worth getting 32 GB of ram if I plan to run VMs ?

[pcslookout]

My current processor is a i5 2500k I know is not meant for VMs.

I am thinking of running s few VMs is it worth getting 32 GB of ram if I do ?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Maybe.

Depends what you want the VMs to do, and how much RAM you have now.

 

[pcslookout]

Maybe.

Depends what you want the VMs to do, and how much RAM you have now.

8 GB

I want to run a small local server.

 

[pcslookout]

I want to run FreeNAS but not sure for what yet.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

8 GB

I want to run a small local server.

What kind of server?

If you're only talking a single server VM, 16 is probably adequate. (e.g., 12 for you, 4 for the VM.)

If you're running certain java applications in that server (say, Minecraft) you just need to allocate to the VM a bit more RAM than you're allocating to the JVM. (Say, 3GB for a Minecraft server with 2GBs allocated for the JVM.)

I run into this sometimes at work - users/devs want me to allocate eleventy-four GB of RAM to their server VMs because they're running out of RAM, but it turns out their java application is running with max heap set to 1GB or something.

 

[pcslookout]

What kind of server?

If you're only talking a single server VM, 16 is probably adequate. (e.g., 12 for you, 4 for the VM.)

If you're running certain java applications in that server (say, Minecraft) you just need to allocate to the VM a bit more RAM than you're allocating to the JVM. (Say, 3GB for a Minecraft server with 2GBs allocated for the JVM.)

I run into this sometimes at work - users/devs want me to allocate eleventy-four GB of RAM to their server VMs because they're running out of RAM, but it turns out their java application is running with max heap set to 1GB or something.

FreeNAS I think.

What other kind of servers can you run or that are useful on a VM ?

 

[Ketchup]

How many VMs?

What OSes will they running?

Does the host machine need to be able to perform other activities?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

FreeNAS I think.

Ah. Give it 8GB then.

What other kind of servers can you run or that are useful on a VM ?

Some applications, particularly some of those java applications I mentioned (like Minecraft) run better* in a Linux environment than Windows.**

* (IMHO)
** (Although they'll usually work ok in Windows too.)

If you were a software dev, you might run a private CI environment / dependency manager in a local VM on your desktop, for instance. Or virtualize multiple systems for building/testing cross platform apps. Or you might be running GNS/VirtualBox to simulate a Cisco networking environment for academic or testing purposes. Or you might...

Well, you know. Nerd stuff.

 

[pcslookout]

How many VMs?

What OSes will they running?

Does the host machine need to be able to perform other activities?

2 to 4.

Not sure yet.

Yes Windows 10.

 

[pcslookout]

Ah. Give it 8GB then.



Some applications, particularly some of those java applications I mentioned (like Minecraft) run better* in a Linux environment than Windows.**

* (IMHO)
** (Although they'll usually work ok in Windows too.)

If you were a software dev, you might run a private CI environment / dependency manager in a local VM on your desktop, for instance. Or virtualize multiple systems for building/testing cross platform apps. Or you might be running GNS/VirtualBox to simulate a Cisco networking environment for academic or testing purposes. Or you might...

Well, you know. Nerd stuff.

Ok thanks!

 

[Ketchup]

2 to 4.

Not sure yet.

Yes Windows 10.

I can't really say if you don't know what you are running. That is the important part of the equation. I will say that I have up to 3 VMs running at one time with up to 9 GB available RAM between the three and there is still enough RAM for the host machine to run fine, but the host (Windows 10) does get up to allocating almost all of it at peak times.

 

[tweakboy]

Go future proof , with 32GB Ram Set , you can launch a couple games at same time lol

 

[Laststop311]

I used yo be a believer of just buying the amount of ram that is more than enough for whats going on currently. But it seems ram use is growing at FAST paces. I recommend 2x16GB or 4x8GB in quad. You think 16GB is plenty but at the rate things are going if you can afford it 32GB is much safer.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I used yo be a believer of just buying the amount of ram that is more than enough for whats going on currently. But it seems ram use is growing at FAST paces. I recommend 2x16GB or 4x8GB in quad. You think 16GB is plenty but at the rate things are going if you can afford it 32GB is much safer.

No disagreement. Everybody has their own personal usage profile, their choice of applications and choice of data. Three years ago, I had the itch and first installed a second set of 2x4. Then, because I wanted faster speed by default rather than clocking the 4x4 set higher, I bought a 2x8. At that point, I almost felt guilty for having more than I can use.

But there was a peripheral history to this. I'd been using ISRT before buying a decent-sized SSD for a boot drive. Then, with Samsung 840, along comes RAPID. And I discover a nifty program that does it all without being bound to a certain brand (Intel or Samsung) of hardware: PrimoCache. It lets you slice and dice the memory into reserved pieces for different caching tasks. So I increased my RAM from 16 to 20, discovered that I can't run the RAM at CR=1 anymore. Since I now see that RAM-caching the boot drive as one task and a data drive (with SSD-caching) as another task, I need about 5 GB of RAM and no more. I can't really make up my mind to pull the 2x2 kit out, reset CR=1, and be comfortable with the limitation.

But this is just a case of a less-than-exotic use of RAM "growing at FAST paces." If I can think of something like the caching as a beneficial use of RAM, what will I think of next month? Next year? Who knows?

The biggest problems I see with getting more than you need is the time it takes to test it to a comfortable level of assurance.

 

[Aristotelian]

But this is just a case of a less-than-exotic use of RAM "growing at FAST paces." If I can think of something like the caching as a beneficial use of RAM, what will I think of next month? Next year? Who knows?

And that part is what motivates consumers like me. I was watching some computex videos on Youtube and came across one where a 128 gigabyte ram kit was on offer and the youtuber said "Yeah I want that. Why? Ramdisk", but I thought that ramdisks were a moot point now because SSDs themselves have become super fast and are also...solid state. So why would anyone need a ramdisk now?

But I'm posting everywhere on this forum that I'm going to go from a 2600k to a 6950X and from 8 gigabytes of ram to, I dunno, 32 or 64 I guess if I can find a nice kit. And why? What happens if I can think of even more creative things to do with my rig and the ram comes in handy? Not the most scientific of approaches of course, or the most cost-benefit linked, but peace of mind is worth something too, I guess.

 

[nerp]

32 GB? Probably overkill. But why not? Do it.

 

[sdifox]

Freenas wants lots of ram for best performance so get as much as you are willing to pay. I think the recommendation is 1GB ram per 1TB storage.

 

[rsutoratosu]

Yes, i have 256 gb on each server

 

[paperwastage]

if you're concerned with your budget, go for highest capacity dimms (2x8 over 4x4), and fill up the dimms later

if you haven't, buy& allocate separate drives(RAM Drives are really nice, SSDs preferable, HDDs) for each running VM

I believe 2500k maxes out at 32GB, so 2x8 seems ideal (if you have 4 dimms lots). Dno't think you can put 64GB ram on sandybridge, could be wrong

2500k doesn't support VT-d. might want to look at a non-K or xeon chip for VT-d support, might be able to reuse motherboard
(VT-d useful for direct PCI/SATA passthrough. if you don't know what it is, probably not useful for you, just keep your 2500k)

 

[KentState]

RAM is so cheap that I max my machines out, especially since I run multiple VM's on them. Being able to stand up 3-4 instances in the background without being worried about memory pressure is nice.

As far as other VM's, I have one for development applications, one for browsing unverified websites, another for utilities, web/db server and multiple for testing. It's liberating to not have to take over your main OS with a bunch of crap. Makes for a clean install that's easy to manage.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

And that part is what motivates consumers like me. I was watching some computex videos on Youtube and came across one where a 128 gigabyte ram kit was on offer and the youtuber said "Yeah I want that. Why? Ramdisk", but I thought that ramdisks were a moot point now because SSDs themselves have become super fast and are also...solid state. So why would anyone need a ramdisk now?

But I'm posting everywhere on this forum that I'm going to go from a 2600k to a 6950X and from 8 gigabytes of ram to, I dunno, 32 or 64 I guess if I can find a nice kit. And why? What happens if I can think of even more creative things to do with my rig and the ram comes in handy? Not the most scientific of approaches of course, or the most cost-benefit linked, but peace of mind is worth something too, I guess.

I'd posted my Anvil's SSD benchmark scores in at least one other thread recently to show what can be done with two-tiered caching that includes SSDs cached directly to RAM, HDDs cached to SSD and then cached to RAM. This is different than simply creating a RAM-disk and putting files on it. Whether or not the benchmarks "prove" anything in comparison to a standalone SSD or HDD has been a point of disagreement over ISRT and RAPID. But the PrimoCache software I use presents a real-time graph of the hit-rate on each cached configuration or task. If I leave the computer running for three or four days -- sleeping, hibernating and waking -- it eventually shows a hit-rate for the boot drive (SSD) of between 30 and 50%. The RAM-cached SSD-cached HDD shows a hit-rate of 98%: I've installed my Steam games on the HDD.

Regardless how much "improved performance" is real, this is the smoothest-running system I've ever had. No RAID is needed for any of it, with all drives SSD and HDD configured in AHCI storage mode. The only down-side of it: the caching system is configured (according to my choices) to save the RAM cache(s) to disk at Windows Shutdown/Restart. So there's a noticeable delay in shutting down, and a noticeable delay in booting to windows. In between those actions -- heh, heh -- there aren't any "delays."

Well . . . I'll post this, then I'm going to race my Turbo-GT Mustang at the Okutama Reservoir and Mizu Mountain. Hong-Kong "Peak Road descent" is also nice . . . .

 

[Aristotelian]

If you were serious about your racing - awesome. Glad to meet someone else with hobbies like that. I'm fond of countryside racing in rural Germany on a motorcycle.

I plan to be getting lots of fast ram in my new build as well as blisteringly fast SSDs (the fastest that are available at the time of purchase anyway, I can't wait for 3D NAND or whatever). I'll check out your post history and try to find links to what you say above - I'm looking for the amazingly quick new build here, happy to optimise it in every way.