Next Version? Topic is solved

FAQ, getting help, user experience about FancyCache
RickH
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:00 pm

Re: Next Version?

Post by RickH »

BSOD report: I've been using PrimoCache 0.9.0 for a couple of days now without any problems, but a while ago when I tried to adjust the cache size by stopping it and starting a new one, it crashed at the moment I hit the Start button after setting the parameters. After rebooting and checking the drives, I tried it again with the same new settings just like before, and this time it worked. I had previously changed the settings 3 or 4 times without problems, and have rebooted the system a few times also without problems, so no idea why just this one time it crashed on starting the new cache task.

Crash report from WhoCrashed analyzer:
This was likely caused by the following module: rxfcv.sys
Bugcheck code: 0x1000007E (0xFFFFFFFFC0000005, 0xFFFFF88001C36F3E, 0xFFFFF8808D69C9F8, 0xFFFFF8808D69C250)
Error: SYSTEM_THREAD_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED_M
Dump file: C:\Windows\Minidump\063013-17550-01.dmp
file path: C:\Windows\system32\drivers\rxfcv.sys
product: PrimoCache (Beta)
company: Romex Software
description: PrimoCache Driver

Cache settings:
L1 size 2048MB, 4KB blocks, LFU-R, R/W, deferred 60s, L2 disabled
System specs:
Win7 Pro x64, P7P55D-E Pro, using Intel SATA AHCI, MBR, NTFS, caching 2TB HD with 2 equal partitions, both selected

On the good side, PrimoCache doesn't seem to have the problem that FancyCache did where it would crash when my ShadowProtect backups would try to back up the system drive if it was cached, so it looks like the new design fixed that one.
User avatar
Support
Support Team
Support Team
Posts: 3014
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:42 am

Re: Next Version?

Post by Support »

@RickH,

Could you send this dump file to us (support@romexsoftware.com)?
C:\Windows\Minidump\063013-17550-01.dmp

Thanks in advance.
Gidde
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:11 am

Re: Next Version?

Post by Gidde »

support wrote:@Gidde,

Thanks for the feedback.

This issue seems not same as previous problems. May I have your cache settings? And your disk and memory information?
Gidde wrote:I am having the same problem as a previous poster, where PrimoCache would crash instantly upon starting it with the following error message:
http://imgur.com/gYSh9Xf
The previous version, FancyCache 0.8, works without problems.
I am not at home until the weekend, but..
I am running 6x2GB (12GB) DDR3-1600 by Corsair. No overclocks on the memory or CPU, memory is set in BIOS to go by XMP (Intel Extreme Memory Profile). My OS drive is an Intel SSD 330 180GB with the release firmware (no update has been released). I have WD 1TB Green drive also. Both drives are connected to the SATA 3Gbps Intel ports on my motherboard.

I installed PrimoCache the following way:
1) Uninstalled FancyCache 0.8 and rebooted
2) Installed PrimoCache 0.9 and rebooted
I did not and have not manually tried to remove the fancycache driver before installing PrimoCache. It should be done by the uninstaller automatically, I assume. I cannot recall whether I stopped the cache I had configured in FancyCache prior to uninstalling it.
turkina
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:56 pm

Re: Next Version?

Post by turkina »

minhgi wrote:
turkina wrote:
minhgi wrote:I think I have found out way my computer is crashing on my Raid 5. Primocache driver seem like it can not handle large overhead memory consumption. When I lower the cluster size to 8k, the overhead memory requirement is at a staggering 2.7GB of physical memory. Primocache did not crash. If I lower the cluster size to 16k, the overhead is 1.4GB. My guess is when I set the cluster to 4k, it should be at 5.4GB for the overhead and my computer would crash.

If I set my partition to 4TB, the 4k overhead is 3.7GB and not crash. Primocache should have been able to handle such a large overhead without any problem.
My Primocache currently has 7.81GB of overhead and hasn't crashed since I set it up on release day.
Am not sure why it crash, but if I set my Raid5 to 4k it crash. All other cluster size works for me. Why is your overhead so large?
5 volumes with PrimoCache enabled (3x 700GB, 2x 500GB all Storage Spaces vDisks), each using 64KB NTFS clusters, 20GB L1 cache and 220GB L2 cache.

The 3x700GB volumes are running VMs right now from my ESXi cluster over iSCSI using Starwind as the iSCSI target. Great cache hit rates: 68%, 60%, and 95%! Really speeding up my VMs.
petesky
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:48 am

Re: Next Version?

Post by petesky »

As on XP also on Windows 2003 x86 the NEXT button is greyed out and i cannot setup a cache.
User avatar
Support
Support Team
Support Team
Posts: 3014
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:42 am

Re: Next Version?

Post by Support »

Windows OS prior to Vista will be supported in the next version. Thanks.
petesky wrote:As on XP also on Windows 2003 x86 the NEXT button is greyed out and i cannot setup a cache.
Tomal
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:33 pm

Re: Next Version?

Post by Tomal »

Hi.

I started using Primo Cache 0.9 today. So far it works beautifully. After 2 hours of usage and 3 reboots, I'm getting 90% cache hit rate :) However, I'm only using "read-only" caching strategy. The main reason for that is that the software is still in beta, and I'm using it on my main home machine, so I want to minimize the risk of losing my data. But since I don't plan on enabling "Defer-Write", maybe the "Read/Write" cache strategy is not dangerous? Will it increase the performance of my system greatly even if I don't do much writing myself? (most of my write operations are initiated by the OS or by the applications upon opening or close etc).

One small issues I noticed so far is that in System Resource Monitor when I look at my Disk utilization, I can see the overall Disk read/write speed, but it shows zero for individual files. So I can hear my disks working, I can see the overall disk read speeds, but I cannot see which files are being accessed. I didn't really spend too much time looking into it, but maybe you guys could take a look at this during your internal testing just pass this information to your QA team).

Here is my system: Vista 64, 2x512GB HDD in RAID 1 (Intel Matrix Storage 8.9.0.1023), Crucial M4 SSD 64GB, 8GB RAM, Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3R.

I configured my whole SSD to be L2-cache (60000MB) and I set block size to 16KB (The software recommended 4KB by default, but with my 60GB cache the memory overhead was just too high, so I changed it to 16KB). Would decreasing it to 4KB or 8KB really make a big performance improvements in my setup? Do you guys have any performance comparisons with different settings?
dustyny
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 12:54 am

Re: Next Version?

Post by dustyny »

I started using Primo Cache 0.9 today.
Why are there so many Primo Cache posts in this section? Wouldn't it be better to move them to the Primo Cache Forum instead of the FancyCache forum? :?:
minhgi
Level 10
Level 10
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: Next Version?

Post by minhgi »

I think Primocache beta was not release yet. This release is just a preview and not an official one.
petesky
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:48 am

Re: Next Version?

Post by petesky »

Any news about 0.9.1 ?
Post Reply