Difference between Volume and Disk version?

[RAMbo]

What is the exact difference between FancyCache for Disks and for volumes?

Volumes are partitions. Correct?
If so why a disk version? A disk contains 1 or more volumes.

If you could explain it a little that would be great. Otherwise please advice which version is fastest for me.
I have 4 internal harddisks.
- 3 drives are not partitioned.
- 1 drive (System drive) has 2 partitions. See below.

I use Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate.
I never use partitions; but when Windows installed itself it created a 100MB partition that can only be seen in the Computer management.
It's a tiny partition but stil 2 partitions.


Which version (disk, volume) do you advise for the 3 drives?
Which version for the system drive.

Performance is the only issue for me. Extra memory usage is of zero importance.

Thanks for any advise you can give.

[Mradr]

I would just go for the disk version. That's the version I am using.

The different is you can select paritions instead of just the disk with the volume one. That could mean instead of caching both the data parition and os parition you can just select the data parition to increase the speed for your games and what not.

Disk only lets you select disk (SSD0-HDD1-HDD2) Witch is nice if you just want to speed up the whole disk instead of just small partitions.

No real speed boost from using one or the other as far as I know. Nothing can see that 100MB partition as far as I know. If windows doesn't give it a drive letter, then only programs design to look for that parition will see it or even know it is there.

[RAMbo]

Correct the 100Mb can't be seen. But still it exists. If it's rarely used I don't care. But if Windows accesses it often then it's important for the FC.
Using the disk vesion obviously includes the 100mb partition. So that's good.

No real speed boost from using one or the other as far as I know.

It's not that I don't trust your answer but I still hav esome doubts.
Obviously it takes time/money to maintain two versions of FC. But still Romex choses to do so.
So I would think there is a (theoretical) difference on certain system setups....?

[Mradr]

Correct the 100Mb can't be seen. But still it exists. If it's rarely used I don't care. But if Windows accesses it often then it's important for the FC.
Using the disk vesion obviously includes the 100mb partition. So that's good.

No real speed boost from using one or the other as far as I know.

It's not that I don't trust your answer but I still hav esome doubts.
Obviously it takes time/money to maintain two versions of FC. But still Romex choses to do so.
So I would think there is a (theoretical) difference on certain system setups....?

No, I'm right. You just skip over what I said xD I would grant your reasoning if they were a lot more different, but the different is only a few features.

The different is you can select paritions instead of just the disk with the volume one. That could mean instead of caching both the data parition and os parition you can just select the data parition to increase the speed for your games and what not.

Disk only lets you select disk (SSD0-HDD1-HDD2) Witch is nice if you just want to speed up the whole disk instead of just small partitions.

That is the reason they did it. So instead of caching both partitions on one disk... you can select what you want instead. This cuts down the overhead of caching the whole disk.

http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/fancy-cache/faq.html

Q: What is the difference between the Disk and Volume editions?

A: The Disk Edition is to cache for individual disks, while the Volume Edition for individual volumes/partitions.

[RAMbo]

That is the reason they did it. So instead of caching both partitions on one disk... you can select what you want instead. This cuts down the overhead of caching the whole disk.

There must be some communication error. Or a skipping error

I'll try to re-explain with an example.
2000 GB disk.
1900 GB partition.
100 GB partition.

Which FC-volume I can use FC on the 100GB and/or 1900GB
FC-disk can only use the whole drive (2000GB)
FC-volume clearly is more flexible in this situation.

--------------
2000GB disk
2000GB partition

FC-disk again monitors the whole 2000GB.
FC-volume monitors 1 partition which is the whole drive.
-------------

So the volume edition is clearly more flexible.
Ok, I understand the difference between the two editions is minimal but still that doesn't answer my question. Why 2 editions if volume can handle all situations?
I'm a performance geek so I just wanna know

[Mradr]

What's faster? Looking at 1 thing (Disk) or looking at 20 smaller things (Partitions)?

There are too many situations to say THIS is why (Again >.>; I've already gived one of the reasons why you would go for the disk vs the volume), but for your setup.. I would just go for disk... you're not using partitions, so there is no reason to use it.

The 100MB part. is for windows loader/startup btw... Normal it loads in .001 of a sec... and FC can't speed that up because that is before windows startup. Also, windows never writes or reads from it unless you do something werid to force windows to o.o;