Write Flushes for Read/Write Cache Topic is solved

[bhobba]

Hi All

I find that a 4GB set for combined read/write caching works well on my machine, even though I could allocate a lot more. But this has led me to two questions.

I have my write flushing set to buffer. Since the 4GB is used for reading and writing, when does it flush? Is it when the writes reach 40% of the 4 GB, and it flushes until the writes are 20% of the 4GB? If, so that is precisely what I would like it to do.

Secondly, I use prefetc,h, but not at Windows boot; it happens a bit later. I noticed what it prefetches is always less than what it has available to fetch. I suspect it because some have already been fetched during startup?

BTW, love the product.

Thanks
Bill

[Support]

I have my write flushing set to buffer. Since the 4GB is used for reading and writing, when does it flush? Is it when the writes reach 40% of the 4 GB, and it flushes until the writes are 20% of the 4GB? If, so that is precisely what I would like it to do.

Yes, that's correct. The calculation is based on the total 4GB cache size. The flush process begins when writes reach 40% (~1.6GB) and continues until they are reduced to 20% (~0.8GB). Please note:
1. By default, this type of flush is executed when Windows is idle. You can check the option "Ignore Windows Busy/Idle" if you want to flush even Windows is not idle.
2. A flush is also triggered when the write latency expires, unless it is set to INFINITE (which is generally not recommended)

Secondly, I use prefetc,h, but not at Windows boot; it happens a bit later. I noticed what it prefetches is always less than what it has available to fetch. I suspect it because some have already been fetched during startup?

Yes, that is mostly the case. Additionally, some data may not need to be prefetched because it has already been overwritten.

[bhobba]

Hi all,

Thank you for your response.

I initially tried using "infinite," but after some consideration, I realized it was risky. I am now using "idle-flush," which saves writes and is much safer.

Thanks again for your reply.

Thanks
Bill