Miguel have you actually tried to run a large data set using your RAM disk? You MAY find that when using such a "small" swap space that the improvements in your real-world data sets are not as great as shown by the PixInsight benchmark. Note what the PI team said (post #56) about swap space...
I don't know, but 8GB of RAM disk is a long way from a minimum recommendation of 60GB. It's also possible that you will have runtime issues when using that small of a swap space. But, these problems may only show up after long sessions in PixInsight, meaning several hours with large data sets.
But, once again I question whether it is economically wise to do hardware upgrades that may only save a few seconds here and there in operation.
We are also talking about a benchmark that processes continuously, one thing to the next without any pauses. So it is bound to spike CPU usage the entire duration. It is like a user moving their fingers across the keyboard and mouse so fast that it's all just a blur.
No one can process an image like the benchmark does. So we are talking 30, 60, 90 seconds of TOTAL compute time across the entire workflow, all merged together into one continuous, non-stop process run in the benchmark. That is so unrealistic and doesn't even remotely represent what a real-world experience going through a PI workflow is actually like.
The difference between 90 seconds and even 20 seconds, when all that processing time is distributed out across 30, 60, 90 MINUTES of actual human-interactive processing time, the differences are all but meaningless.
I think the last time I ran the benchmark I was around 70 seconds or so. My swap speed is poor in the grand scheme of things. So I sit for 15-20 seconds some times while TGV is running. Maybe 30 seconds for a high iteration count deconvolution. These little periods though, only occur once when I apply the final settings to my whole image. Usually, when I am fiddling, I work with tiny previews that process almost instantly. So overall computer performance, particularly the difference between 1000mb/s, 3000mb/s and 5000mb/s just don't actually come up as a meaningful issue when you are actually sitting there processing an image yourself...100x more slowly than the benchmark.
Edited by Jon Rista, 19 September 2019 - 03:08 PM.