[2012-02-27] FancyCache Beta 0.7.2 published

First hand news related to FancyCache
onder
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:33 pm

Re: [2012-02-27] FancyCache Beta 0.7.2 published

Post by onder »

Thanks for the C1 explanations.

Anyway, I installed the 0.7.2 version and everything works fine.

Yes, I am definitelly interested in final version.

Any date for final release yet?

minhgi
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: [2012-02-27] FancyCache Beta 0.7.2 published

Post by minhgi »

Seem like a new .10 version is release every three months, we may be looking at a winter release and just in time for Christmas again.

Gil
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:46 am

Re: [2012-02-27] FancyCache Beta 0.7.2 published

Post by Gil »

Hi!
I'm new on this forum. I use Fancy cache since 1 month and I am very pleased of the performances on my desktop PC as well as on my laptop.

I do not care if the software is beta or not, as long as there is no bugs ;-) witch is the case for me...

On negative comment is on your online documentation: It is not up to date and it is very short: Ne real explanation of "Averaging Write Amount" and "Overcome HDD C1 Issue" options. I am caching a RevoDrive Hybrid volume and a RAID disk, should I use these option or not? Perhaps it is your secret, but it would be nice to know a little bit more on the caching "algorithms" (I have sometime the impression that the cache has not the correct data in it or is trying to cache huge video files). Last comment on the documentation, on the statistic windows, I'm not sure to understand the write part especially the deferring...

Thank you for this excellent and still free product!
Best regards

User avatar
support
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:42 am

Re: [2012-02-27] FancyCache Beta 0.7.2 published

Post by support »

We have updated the help documentation, adding the explanations for these two options.

Thank you.
Primo Ramdisk | PrimoCache
Romex Software Support

onder
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:33 pm

Re: [2012-02-27] FancyCache Beta 0.7.2 published

Post by onder »

Gentlemen,

I suggest to add option for volume and disk version of fancycache to exclude some files which do not need to be cache like the *.avi files *.mp3 files etc.

This can be very good solution I asume.

fsommer1968
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: [2012-02-27] FancyCache Beta 0.7.2 published

Post by fsommer1968 »

Interesting to see how a block filter device can be aware of files.

Gil
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:46 am

Re: [2012-02-27] FancyCache Beta 0.7.2 published

Post by Gil »

support wrote:We have updated the help documentation, adding the explanations for these two options.
Thank you.
Hi,
Thank you for the documentation concerning the options.
But the write part of the statistics windows is still not clear for me... Btw, the screen capture is not up to date.

onder
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:33 pm

Re: [2012-02-27] FancyCache Beta 0.7.2 published

Post by onder »

fsommer1968 wrote:Interesting to see how a block filter device can be aware of files.
I am not a programmer or better to say I do not know exactly what the software does, how it interacts with the OS or Apps accessing disk files.

Maybe I am wrong in the assumption below:
As MBR or MPT exists to describe the location of the master boot record and the partition layouts the exists (in case of NTFS) MFT - master file table which holds directory and file structure, location of the file on the HDD (first cluster number), maybe file metadata, file ACL lists for NTFS etc.

I asume that only the first cluster number of the file is in the MFT and some data in this cluster points to second cluster etc. To actually read part of the file which has bigger size it has to go thorough several clusters to get the requested data.
If this is true what I wrote above (go ahead and correct me if I am wrong with the assumptions) that depending on how the supercaching algorithm works, each cluster is written into the allocated memory.

So from my point of view there should be the possibility to determine what kind of files should and should not be loaded into the supercaching software allocated memory. This of course is correct if my assumptions above are correct.

I am open technical explanation and correction in my above assumption.

Thank you.

Dubiaku
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:15 am

Re: [2012-02-27] FancyCache Beta 0.7.2 published

Post by Dubiaku »

No, that's not the way it works. The MFT contains small files in their entirety. They are not located anywhere else. For larger ones, it contains the locations of all sectors occupied by that file. There is no serial retieving or pointers from one sector to the next. The data may not even be gathered sequentially, but according to algorithms that determine the fastest path to accessing all the needed data in order to put it together as the final file.

And I'm not sure what that has to do with programming. Programmers need know next to nothing about file systems, and they can be completely opaque to them.

In any case, the documentation and forum posts offer just about all the information that anyone could want or need. The details of NTFS are a trade secret (of course, or security would be worthless), but many of its more salient characteristics can be found widely, including Wikipedia.

onder
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:33 pm

Re: [2012-02-27] FancyCache Beta 0.7.2 published

Post by onder »

Thanks to Dubiaku to clearing the MFT content for me.

Nevertheless, the programmers should have at least some knowledge of the filesystems to get the program working as best as it can from my point of view.

So at the end when the MFT contains localization of all sectors for accessed files, the FancyCache algorithm can definitely check what kind of file is accessed and an exception can be set which files should be cached or not.

Post Reply