These two settings crashed my system totally - thanks.Need a complete reinstall of win7. bluescrrens when doing nothing, win drivers not found anymore and so on.
with fancycache (withourt l2) i never had this problems.
Primo isn't Beta, it's a Pre-Alpha.
Defer-Write and L2 Topic is solved
Re: Defer-Write and L2
I'm really sorry for the trouble caused 
Re: Defer-Write and L2
To be fair... it says that it's not a good idea to turn on these settings if you don't have a UPS. Even so, any blue screens or errors will be more ramped if Defer-Write is on.. I mean... that's kind of a duh logically thinking...thomas wrote:These two settings crashed my system totally - thanks.Need a complete reinstall of win7. bluescrrens when doing nothing, win drivers not found anymore and so on.
with fancycache (withourt l2) i never had this problems.
Primo isn't Beta, it's a Pre-Alpha.
I would put a warning when turning on these settings though support. A lot of people simply don't read warnings, read the manual, or think things out. They also don't fully understand what they are doing either when they want to try settings...
Best idea is to hide it, or simply; put it in some sort of advance settings menu so they know full and well what will happen if they "turn setting on."
Edit: I was a bit mean in the post. I just want to say sorry=/ But I do stand by that there should be more warnings so people can't just come in here and say that this program made them lose their data when it is beta... That's testing 101 and should be know to any beta test user... but a lot of people are coming in here not knowing how to actually beta test.
-
Incriminated
- Level 6
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 3:03 pm
Re: Defer-Write and L2
To be correct, neither does the online help nor the notes in the programm when configuring the cache explicitly recommend a UPS.
There is no mentioning an UPC exlicitly anywhere in PrimoCache.
This is any relevant info the programm or website exact tells you:
This explanation of defe-write tells us only source for fault is external, in terms of power outage or system-failure...... it does not tell us that the defer-write-feature can produces cache-failures. Why, because it makes the product look worse, but they could at least tell "power outage, system failure or cache fault might result in data loss..." to make it more clear that is "beta" is not only testing the "GUI" but the very fundament being worked on... something you too do NOT expect from something versioned 0.9.x... this implizit especially for computer-newcommers that this product is "nearly final"
In some way I agree that you always have maximum safety with UPS, but I don't see PrimoCache needing UPS in special so hardly. I think you should attach a UPS to the PC using PrimoCache when you would generally consider putting an UPS to the same mashine not running PrimoCache because of the importance of the data. So i would not like to consider a warning to use defer-write only with UPS.
Especially in this case an UPS entirely would NOT have helped. The BSOD still had occured and PrimoCache still would have lost all it's data.
UPS only help in case of power loss, non mem-page fault etc (system failure). A UPS is useless when a system-failure occurs.
From my point of view I see no real need for UPS only because of defer-write, since it depends on the duration of the defer-timeout how far you've been thrown back. Whatever, hard-resetting the computer during active cache with defer-write never gave me bluescreen on boot.
... no mentioning bluescreen or need of UPC explicitly for L2, rather reading "persistent.. across computer restart" for an unskilled-user might look like telling the data is at a very safe spot
I totally agree that warnings, especially when they tell the users, that a known issue with a certain function/feature can be reproduced to occur, should be maintained and highlighted public.... funny thing is that in the 0.9.2 release info thread where i ecplicitly wrote about supports duty to inform the users... on that thread you said that:
No metnion that you agree in more warnings at that thread!?
Whatever, here now you think it is good to hide these settings in deeper menu so the n00b needs to do few additional clicks, to claim the beta-make them lost their data, too, like before. There already is a configuration parameter info and it already tells you that defer-write is faster but risky.
All good here, no new warning neccessary except all reproducable issues... like WARNING: Defer and L2 are BSODing ... like when this guy started this thread and exactly that was missing, like many others started threads with the very same symptomatic.
It was that info that he was lacking (Defer and L2 having reproducable BSOD)....
Lots of data could have been "saved" during the last month if this known issue would have been properly communicated.
He didn't need the info to better put always a UPS on... that's useless... you find that info at any IT-beginners-course... whatever you need to go into such course, since you do't seem to know that UPS doesn't help on system failure... you sayin that, mr.mastermind, is pretty epic fail! This thread is about BSOD and not about power outage!!!
There is no mentioning an UPC exlicitly anywhere in PrimoCache.
This is any relevant info the programm or website exact tells you:
... rearly no mentioning bluescreens or need of UPC, only thing is "no chance to write data back", so technically from this explanation you would expect to fall-back to the last flushed state before bluescreen. You do not expect bluescreens in beta-software but in alpha, thus it does not mean it could not happen... seeing BSOD in final product across the market in various application type.Defer-Write: ... However, a power outage or system failure might result in data loss or corruption because in such scenarios the cache has no chance to write data back to the disk. Based on the consideration above, it is recommended that you may only enable Defer-Write on volumes where temporary, unimportant or reproducible data is to be stored.
This explanation of defe-write tells us only source for fault is external, in terms of power outage or system-failure...... it does not tell us that the defer-write-feature can produces cache-failures. Why, because it makes the product look worse, but they could at least tell "power outage, system failure or cache fault might result in data loss..." to make it more clear that is "beta" is not only testing the "GUI" but the very fundament being worked on... something you too do NOT expect from something versioned 0.9.x... this implizit especially for computer-newcommers that this product is "nearly final"
In some way I agree that you always have maximum safety with UPS, but I don't see PrimoCache needing UPS in special so hardly. I think you should attach a UPS to the PC using PrimoCache when you would generally consider putting an UPS to the same mashine not running PrimoCache because of the importance of the data. So i would not like to consider a warning to use defer-write only with UPS.
Especially in this case an UPS entirely would NOT have helped. The BSOD still had occured and PrimoCache still would have lost all it's data.
UPS only help in case of power loss, non mem-page fault etc (system failure). A UPS is useless when a system-failure occurs.
From my point of view I see no real need for UPS only because of defer-write, since it depends on the duration of the defer-timeout how far you've been thrown back. Whatever, hard-resetting the computer during active cache with defer-write never gave me bluescreen on boot.
Level-2 (L2) Cache: ... Cache contents stored in level-2 cache are persistent across computer restarts.
... no mentioning bluescreen or need of UPC explicitly for L2, rather reading "persistent.. across computer restart" for an unskilled-user might look like telling the data is at a very safe spot
I totally agree that warnings, especially when they tell the users, that a known issue with a certain function/feature can be reproduced to occur, should be maintained and highlighted public.... funny thing is that in the 0.9.2 release info thread where i ecplicitly wrote about supports duty to inform the users... on that thread you said that:
^^ Token??? Come on ... fistpalm? fistpalm? ^^Than again.. you should also take a look at the forum when you know full on well it's a beta atm... I mean it's in the name alone. If you want to "test" a beta program... you should be ready and have token precautions to save any data before using it. Testing 101... Lots of different OS, type of OS, and devices you have to be ready for... this all cost time and money. In the end... that's why you (AT YOUR OWN RISK) are testing the program so problems like these don't show up in the final product. Plus, you can't take every bug as a known issue... it could be a one time case because we're dealing with ram.... a device that can actually go bad and write things out wrong.
No metnion that you agree in more warnings at that thread!?
Whatever, here now you think it is good to hide these settings in deeper menu so the n00b needs to do few additional clicks, to claim the beta-make them lost their data, too, like before. There already is a configuration parameter info and it already tells you that defer-write is faster but risky.
All good here, no new warning neccessary except all reproducable issues... like WARNING: Defer and L2 are BSODing ... like when this guy started this thread and exactly that was missing, like many others started threads with the very same symptomatic.
It was that info that he was lacking (Defer and L2 having reproducable BSOD)....
Lots of data could have been "saved" during the last month if this known issue would have been properly communicated.
He didn't need the info to better put always a UPS on... that's useless... you find that info at any IT-beginners-course... whatever you need to go into such course, since you do't seem to know that UPS doesn't help on system failure... you sayin that, mr.mastermind, is pretty epic fail! This thread is about BSOD and not about power outage!!!
-
InquiringMind
- Level SS
- Posts: 477
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:10 pm
Re: Defer-Write and L2
Presumably Thomas' problem was due to the bug fixed in 0.9.2, which others have reported too. If so, a UPS would have been of no help - but the software is beta so it isn't prudent to use it without proper precautions, like taking a full backup first. Romex might want to consider including a warning in their installer (if they haven't one already - I can't remember) but the current documentation on defer-write seems adequate.
And yes, Thomas, sorry about the problems you encountered. But do also consider this a good time to plan regular backups, since odds are that you (and everyone else) will have hardware failure, malware infection and simple accidents (like overwriting the wrong file) causing data loss in future.
And yes, Thomas, sorry about the problems you encountered. But do also consider this a good time to plan regular backups, since odds are that you (and everyone else) will have hardware failure, malware infection and simple accidents (like overwriting the wrong file) causing data loss in future.
Re: Defer-Write and L2
This issue is fixed in version 1.0.1. Thanks.