Beta trial has expired. Any word on a new release?
OOPS! Found the key at http://www.romexsoftware.com/download/t ... 123-97.key
Thanks!
Search found 73 matches
- Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:18 am
- Forum: Latest News
- Topic: [Aug 29] FancyCache Beta 0.7.0 published
- Replies: 7
- Views: 23363
- Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:44 am
- Forum: Bug Report and Suggestion
- Topic: Suggestion: performance data for Writes
- Replies: 6
- Views: 5960
Re: Suggestion: performance data for Writes
Yeah, I guess it would be kinda hard... Unless the value is only updated when the cache is flushed... But still the issue with a paused cache... :) Hmmm... Actually, even if the write cache is paused, the writes prevented percentage would be accurate on flush since there are writes happening outside...
- Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:21 am
- Forum: Latest News
- Topic: [Mar. 22] FancyCache Beta 0.6.1 published
- Replies: 4
- Views: 19527
Re: [Mar. 22] FancyCache Beta 0.6.1 published
This one is a DEFINATE WINNER!!!!!!!!
VERY GOOD WORK!
VERY GOOD WORK!
- Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:20 am
- Forum: Bug Report and Suggestion
- Topic: Suggestion: performance data for Writes
- Replies: 6
- Views: 5960
Re: Suggestion: performance data for Writes
Thank you... I did notice one thing... One of the big selling points in Fancycache -VS- the 'other' cache software is that only FancyCache recognized TRIM, using it to reduce the writes to the SSD for cached data as well as saving on other writes. I think it might be better to either: Have the write...
- Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:26 pm
- Forum: Bug Report and Suggestion
- Topic: Read only 2nd level Cache
- Replies: 2
- Views: 3118
Re: Read only 2nd level Cache
Hi I am using WinXP SP3 x86 with 8GB installed Memeory. 3GB are available to Windows by default. I have bought Romex RamDrive to get the 5GB of invisiable Memory available. I get an performance bosst by putting a 4GB Windows Pagefile onto the Ramdrive. Now I put a FancyCache 1GB 2nd Level Cache Fil...
- Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:57 am
- Forum: Technical Support
- Topic: have a question
- Replies: 1
- Views: 2690
Re: have a question
i had been using 4k( the 'default 4k) for Block Size,however,is there any harmful for my SSD? Not at all. It just adds a little overhead and uses a bit more memory, but for ME, is a bit faster. The optimum size is to match FancyCache with the cluster (block) size of your SSD. Mine is an OCZ vertex ...
- Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:57 am
- Forum: Bug Report and Suggestion
- Topic: SLOW writing to SSD...
- Replies: 17
- Views: 15823
Re: SLOW writing to SSD...
Well, I tried 0.6.0 with the reduced latency, but all the jobs I do need the latency at 600 seconds... 0.5.0 worked so perfect for me, but 0.6.0 causes more writes due to the way my work flows with the new algorythm. I tried to reinstall 0.5.0 but got the error ox80041010 which I believe means it ex...
- Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 am
- Forum: Technical Support
- Topic: can i have tips or suggestions?
- Replies: 2
- Views: 3263
Re: can i have tips or suggestions?
I am now using a 4 gig cache... No RAM DISK. Everything is fast and I love it.
For you, I would set up a 4 gig cache for the VMWARE and normal file server operations and set up a 2 gig Ram disk for the virtual box to use (if it can be ran from Ram disk).
For you, I would set up a 4 gig cache for the VMWARE and normal file server operations and set up a 2 gig Ram disk for the virtual box to use (if it can be ran from Ram disk).
- Sun Mar 13, 2011 3:06 am
- Forum: Bug Report and Suggestion
- Topic: SLOW writing to SSD...
- Replies: 17
- Views: 15823
Re: SLOW writing to SSD...
I am using fancyCache for Volume, write only, 40000 sec latency. I only flush the writes before doing a back up or on shut down. With ver .6 when I click on flush writes, it will write a few hundred megs then stop. I have to reboot to force fancy cache to finish flushing the cache so that I can do ...
- Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:27 am
- Forum: Bug Report and Suggestion
- Topic: SLOW writing to SSD...
- Replies: 17
- Views: 15823
Re: SLOW writing to SSD...
I also notice that since I have my latency optimized for my work load, that this new algorythm results in more deferred urgent writes as opposed to 0 in 0.5.0 with the same latency (600 seconds) How about reducing the latency? Perhaps you might try the half of the old latency, that is 300 seconds? ...