Primo Cache's cache on a RAMdisk?

FAQ, getting help, user experience about PrimoCache
Mradr
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:36 pm

Re: Primo Cache's cache on a RAMdisk?

Post by Mradr »

1)
"block-caching-layer into RAM, while PrimoRAM_Disk puts a logical-disk into RAM"
Please See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAM_drive
2.) PrimoCache takes a relative amount of time to start as does PrimoRAM-Disk. None takes longer each because the other one running. In fact you have the time it takes for PrimoCache to start plus additional the time PrimoRAM-DIsk needs to start. Nothing extra. Because the time for each to start up is short you wont even recognize a longer startup having both at all.
So you are saying that adding anything to the startup doesn't slow it down o.o;? lol
3.) PrimoCache space is limited too, the fact that it wont crash a programm because it runs full, doesn't make the PrimoCache-solution having no "issue" the issue with full PrimoCache is disk-bottlneck and that means in that situation, that PrimoCache is useless. Of cause the RAM-Disk is limited, thats why you make it large enough. The fact that you can assign to less space is not an "issue".
PrimoCache is cache... not data. Cache has no meaning in the programming world other than it's a strip down version of the data that the computer can only use in a real world way. Aka, if it's full we still have a option to clear it at run time to make more room or better yet, remove cache that isn't needed for your main program. PrimoRamDisk has this limitation because it keeps whole data meaning you are wasting more overhead along side the file system it self (Duh?). I never said assign less space was a issue... for that matter a larger one, but it's still limited it size that it can cause poorly written programs to crash out meaning data lose if that happens.
4.) Your argument is none. Your impression/opionion/rating doesn't count.
Only your opinion....
5.) Thats why each carries a different name. Input and Output on a partition is reducing throughput on that device, yeah, but RAM-DIsk IO do not reduce the IO of the disk-device. Why?
They each carry a different name because they are different programs for two different reasons. Yet, the new version can almost do what the older version can do.. A few new settings and you can replace the older version if they wanted too. The only thing is that they both hit the ram disk, BUT only after they hit the CPU first that then talks to the DRIVER that tells the CPU to get the data from RAM creating a almost 2x issue as now the data in the ramdisk is read and turn into cache that's loaded into system memory.
6.) Browser can be limiting everywhere, it depends on which task you use the browser. My system is not in a bad design state but as a matter of fact my 15 tabs load lots faster when carried the browser-cache on a RAM-disk. Despite you not see a slowdown with 30-tabs, maybe you'll see the a speedup, when putting your browsers-cache onto a RAM-disk.
I tested this a long time ago with other products. Ram disk are nothing new you know? The issue still exist with them back then as they do today. Primo has done a lot to help lowers these issues, but they still exist either way xD To me, it sounds like you have drive issues if putting the program data into ram it helping you at all. That, or you are choking your system somewhere. Browsers are 50% CPU, 30% GPU, 19 network, and only 1% Disk. If 1% is helping you at all.. then you have some really questionable issues going on man... The disk is only used to store cache of websites you go to... everything else was brought into ram on run xD or in case of IE, at start up.
7.) Thats totally wrong. A RAM-disk loads all the data on creation. So the very first read will be boosted, while with PrimoCache you only boost the 2nd read. To stay with the example, PrimoCache will never speedup my browser firing up 15 tabs on the very first time. I not go into your "poorly written program" argue.
No they do not? They load data into them... Unless you mean they create the "box" on creation? Yea they do that. Actually the very first read was from the disk into the ramdisk... so it's still the 2nd read. The only speed you get on fist is write speed. All others were process already at some point. Why wont you get into my poorly written program argument? Because you know I am right xD. There are a few reason why people have switch from IE to FireFox, so even MS can write very poor code. It just takes time to make code better. Time is something a lot of people simply skip over because they never see the time it took to get this far.
8.) You are arrogant, i have fun, you seem not to.
I am having fun breaking down your ignorance. xD
9) You do not need a UPS when runnning PrimoCache and PrimoRAM-Disk.
On a power loss you always loose non flushed blocks of PrimoCache defer-write and you always loose non-saved RAM-disk file.
Glad you agree to what is already known ^.^


1.) No problem. PrimoCache using 6GiB, PrimoRAM-Disk using 1GiB, some overhead, so OS has 8 GiB left to play with in middle of the runtime.
2.) No Problem. PrimoCache doesn't load any data on startup, PrimoRAM-DIsk loading up 1 GiB on startup... for me this is finished as soon as the system is usable.2
3.) No problem. PrimoRAM-disk is limited to 1 GiB while my browser plus cache never ever hit 850mb, that's why I designed it that size.
4.) Still don't get this: "Programs are poorly written that it requires a RamDisk." No argue, not even english at all. So you say Primo-developers should leave the project and try to improve applications on the market that these do not need a cache for benefit anymore, because anything that benefits from cache/ram-disk is "poorly written". Your logic is faulty.
5.) No problem. Running the browser in RAM-disk and another application read from PrimoCache the same time does not produce any single input output on the disk, that's exactly their very most purpose.
1) I would choose either cache or ramdisk... this way only one program is needed at start up and I don't have to fuse where each cache data setup.
2) I would setup cache to use 7GB of my ram if I know that no other program or os will use 8GB of my ram. (OS uses 2GB either way, so that only leaves my 6GB useable).
3) I tell cache to do either write, read, or both. Because I don't have a UPS or anyway to block a crash at the driver level, I am going to use it for my disk read.
4) I go on my happy way with 7GB of ram cache for read speeds. Because I don't shutdown my computer much, I already have first 1 read done at some point in the day.
5) Any poorly written code will still see performance boost while it creates it's own cache on my HDD so when I go back to a website; for example, I am not slow down at all as it'll already be there read to read from the cache :D

But to also answer your questions ^^
1) Ok, so you have a lot of ram... what's your point? Not everyone does and simply you don't seem to be running a lot in the background to take full usage of that ram unlike a lot of power users can. Aka, you got a monster computer and yet you don't know how to use it right.
2) You say as "soon as it's usable" wtf? So you agree it takes time for it to load... the point is not to take a lot of time for your computer to be useable xD
3) With a cache... I don't have to worry about it being limited :D as it'll clear room for the cache hits.
4) A program is a collection of commands written by a programmer. Sometimes that programmer makes mistakes, doesn't use all tools, or simply doesn't know how to write a program as there are a lot of "what-ifs" that goes into making a program. Do you ever program? You would know that half a programs size is the "what-if" code. If programmers didn't have to guess what could happen and users would follow suit, then you could cut almost half or more of a program at any time, but that's not realistic in a real world environment that changes. Aka, that's where Primo comes into play. To answer your question, yes, they are creating this program to do such a thing because they can and there is a market for it. Why? Because there are a LOT of bad programmers out there... even MS makes some pretty questionable code. Not that I am digging on them. I am a programmer too, so I know the hardships that go into each scrip that a programmer writes. It all comes down to time and a lot of trial and error.
5) You are wasting so much ram... it's silly and very risky to have no IO going to the disk xD.
Incriminated
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Primo Cache's cache on a RAMdisk?

Post by Incriminated »

YOu trying to bash with your answers not to put facts on the table.

There'ss so many things you not go into, like how you with only PrimoCache accelearate your favourite application read/write on the first access??????????????????????????????????????????????????

I said that cache and ram-disk is fine for me and that in general there is no special issue having both compared to single, but you only try to descredit my computer or what i use it for, whatever you might use it for.

In my constellation cache and ram-disk totally make sence and do not interfere with each other.

You still did not put a single argue against both. YOu count argues agains PrimoCache single and you put argues against Primo-RAM-disk single, but i still see no argue against both working on different ways to speed up application.

There is no ignorance except your own one!
Are you stupid or just not listening? My computer is usable when it plays the login-sound... after that my 1 GiB-RAM disk is fully loaded... and NO, without it it doesn't boot measurable faster.

I have enough disk-i/o hitting the disk... after 10 seconds for my cache-deferred writes and on a shutdown/restart even the ram-disk. When i press the reset-button, the mashine boots up normal and fast and i lost last runtimes-browser-cache-changes and any changes made within the last 10 seconds befpoore pressing the reset-button. No risk here, no waste of RAM.... instead not using RAM-disk putting RAM-space mor einto PrimoCache... THAT would be a waste of RAM-space.

I dont know why you not seeing that having probably 200ms slower boot up and 1 seconds slower shutdown - wich both mostly will not even negatively noticed at all - is not worth having an important application read/write EVERYTIME with RAM-speed from the very beginning, especially when someone - like you - is not rebooting so often. Are you blind???

YOu must be crazy continuing the discussion for the fun of "breaking down my ignorance" in this point. I guarantee you that regarding this, every user here has fun with your ignorance. YOu even seem not to realize that Cache is impossible to accelate the first read-access, while a seperated RAM-drive is impossible to cache the system-r/w. Respond if you got over it.
Last edited by Incriminated on Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
Mradr
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:36 pm

Re: Primo Cache's cache on a RAMdisk?

Post by Mradr »

Incriminated wrote:YOu trying to bash with your answers not to put facts on the table.

There'ss so many things you not go into, like how you with only PrimoCache accelearate your favourite application read/write on the first access??????????????????????????????????????????????????

I said that cache and ram-disk is fine for me and that in general there is no special issue having both compared to single, but you only try to descredit my computer or what i use it for, whatever you might use it for.

In my constellation cache and ram-disk totally make sence and do not interfere with each other.

You still did not put a single argue against both. YOu count argues agains PrimoCache single and you put argues against Primo-RAM-disk single, but i still see no argue against both working on different ways to speed up application.

There is no ignorance except your own one!
Are you stupid or just not listening? My computer is usable when it plays the login-sound... after that my 1 GiB-RAM disk is fully loaded... and NO, without it it doesn't boot measurable faster.

P.S: I have enough disk-i/o hitting the disk... after 10 seconds for my cache-deferred writes and on a shutdown/restart even the ram-disk. When i press the reset-button, the mashine boots up normal and fast and i lost last runtimes-browser-cache-changes and any changes made within the last 10 seconds befpoore pressing the reset-button. No risk here, no waste of RAM.... instead not using RAM-disk putting RAM-space mor einto PrimoCache... THAT would be a waste of RAM-space.

I dont know why you not seeing that having probably 200ms slower boot up and 1 seconds slower shutdown - wich both mostly will not even negatively noticed at all - is not worth having an important application read/write EVERYTIME with RAM-speed from the very beginning, especially when someone - like you - is not rebooting so often. Are you blind???

YOu must be crazy continuing the discussion for the fun of "breaking down my ignorance" in this point. I guarantee you that regarding this, every user here has fun with your ignorance. YOu even seem not to realize that Cache is impossible to accelate the first read-access, while a seperated RAM-drive is impossible to cache the system-r/w. Respond if you got over it.
I guess the crazy ones are always the smart ones as no one else understands them at all xD

But I am not bashing you at all really :D It only sounds like I am because my answer are right ^.^ Or I guess the more popular term is now... You mad bro? I put up a lot of facts and corrected a lot of your facts from your understand of what a ramdisk is to that adding anything to the startup over all adds to the start up. Your the only one bashing with your comments by saying "Your argument is none. Your impression/opionion/rating doesn't count." ^^ I am open to all thoughts and arguments. I think everyone opinions count, but I guess you don't see it that way ^^
There'ss so many things you not go into, like how you with only PrimoCache accelearate your favourite application read/write on the first access??????????????????????????????????????????????????
I did xD I said I have them load up once, but because I leave my computer running, the 2nd time around it will always be there ^^ Programs like IE also create a cache of websites that I go to. Instead of clearing that off as much, it stays on my hard drive where I can use it later again ^^, but that data is already cache in primo, so it reads from RAM instead.
I said that cache and ram-disk is fine for me and that in general there is no special issue having both compared to single, but you only try to descredit my computer or what i use it for, [to] whatever you might use it for.
Yes, no issues, but you are using it wrong xD witch is my point. I said so in 1-5 already :D I am not going to repeat myself every post because you can't remember the past.
You still did not put a single argue against both. YOu count argues agains PrimoCache single and you put argues against Primo-RAM-disk single, but i still see no argue against both working on different ways to speed up application.
Why? Because I said you could use them both if you want ^.^ it's on page 1 last post, but you have to understand the usage of both to see the gain. Aka, the way you are using it would slow you down over all or use more ram to performance ratio... witch I covered in 1-5 xD The program you wanna ram cache has to be small-ish and not increase itself over time. How is that hard to understand? lol.
There is no ignorance except your own one!
Are you stupid or just not listening?
Such name calling o.o why are you soo angry?

- PrimoCache caches blocks of linked partition, so that from the 2nd-read on and with defer-write overall write is accelerated to RAM-Speed.
- PrimoRAM-disk creates a RAM-disk-device and loads and saves data in it. The biggest difference is you accelerate the 1st-read also.
- when moving data from a "cached partition-block-device" to a "ram-disk" you exlude that data from cache entirely making it exlusivly handled by "ram-disk"
Not true ^^ When you moved that data into the ram disk you did preprocessing of the data.. aka you did a read once at sometime in the past. That data is then saved to the ramdisk. The ramdisk then can be saved to the disk. It did it's read once, but the data it kept around. Saving data is the same as reading it as far as loading data is censuring. 100101010 is the same if you write or read it. The only different is when it's read or how many times. A cache builds it on the fly while a ramdisk will build on write or from when it's loaded at the startup.
Last edited by Mradr on Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Incriminated
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Primo Cache's cache on a RAMdisk?

Post by Incriminated »

I am open to all thoughts and arguments. I think everyone opinions count, but I guess you don't see it that way ^^
Then why do you bash and not answering or arguing the important points. YOu simply miss them out everytime.
I did xD I said I have them load up once, but because I leave my computer running, the 2nd time around it will always be there ^^ Programs like IE also create a cache of websites that I go to. Instead of clearing that off as much, it stays on my hard drive where I can use it later again ^^, but that data is already cache in primo, so it reads from RAM instead.
See this is what i mean, you believe to tell other what is right or wrong, based on what is right and wrong for you (less restarts). SO you "Did not", you should explain how to make EVERYONE accelearate the 1st read... not how you merely have no 1st read because you try to avoid booting. That is exactly what is mean with: you have no real argue.
Yes, no issues, but you are using it wrong xD witch is my point. I said so in 1-5 already :D I am not going to repeat myself every post because you can't remember the past.
What you said in 1-5??? I disprove your claims 1-5, see above. SO tell me now, WHY am i using wrong... or: How would you use both right? I dont think you have an answer, because you dont think at all that using both at all could be right. Pretty biased.
but you have to understand the usage of both to see the gain. Aka, the way you are using it would slow you down over all or use more ram to performance ratio... witch I covered in 1-5 xD
I understand the usage and the technical level of both and i taking full advantage of both gains. Why you claim the way i actually use it (was is pretty fast, faster then only one of each) would slow me down. Stop telling you cavered anything with 1-5... i already ripped that bad english apart... it does not telling anything.

- PrimoCache caches blocks of linked partition, so that from the 2nd-read on and with defer-write overall write is accelerated to RAM-Speed.
- PrimoRAM-disk creates a RAM-disk-device and loads and saves data in it. The biggest difference is you accelerate the 1st-read also.
- when moving data from a "cached partition-block-device" to a "ram-disk" you exlude that data from cache entirely making it exlusivly handled by "ram-disk"

Lets make a new series of arguments:

1. Only PrimoCache can accelerate overall system reads as of 2nd and overall write as of 1st.
2. Only PrimoRAM-disk can accelerate a specific application's read as of 1st.
3. Using both does not consume double space, data on the ram-disc-device is seperated from the cache's partition.
4. None is slower than alone runing the other one in addition.
5. Nothing interferes during cache-flush when placing the RAM-disk disk-file onto PrimoCache's partition
6. Both do the same "risky" job together then each would do single.

SO while RAM-disk has to load your RAM-disk even when use it without PrimoCache... and that will always take some time dpending on your disk-speed and your RAM-disk size, why not recommend using both?

Limited RAM? Probably consider none of both.

If mine setup is so wrong, then tell me how to make it right... and now please don't tell me to remove RAM-disc and put more RAM-space into PrimoCache, that would be fool.

You must know that i restart my PC plenty times a day and the most running application is the web-browser with checking a large series of already cached-websites? So any way you - the godfather of pain in the a** - could make my "config" right? Rhetorical question, only morons answer!
Last edited by Incriminated on Mon Nov 04, 2013 6:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mradr
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:36 pm

Re: Primo Cache's cache on a RAMdisk?

Post by Mradr »

Incriminated wrote:
I am open to all thoughts and arguments. I think everyone opinions count, but I guess you don't see it that way ^^
Then why do you bash and not answering or arguing the important points. YOu simply miss them out everytime.
I did xD I said I have them load up once, but because I leave my computer running, the 2nd time around it will always be there ^^ Programs like IE also create a cache of websites that I go to. Instead of clearing that off as much, it stays on my hard drive where I can use it later again ^^, but that data is already cache in primo, so it reads from RAM instead.
See this is what i mean, you believe to tell other what is right or wrong, based on what is right and wrong for you (less restarts). SO you "Did not", you should explain how to make EVERYONE accelearate the 1st read... not how you merely have no 1st read because you try to avoid booting. That is exactly what is mean with: you have no real argue.
Na... you simply are not making any points xD Make your points in a TDR... spit them out! Other wise I answered your questions :D Unless this is what you mean by a point? O.o 1st read happens on first read... it depends on where it comes from yes, but not so much after. By keeping it in a ramdisk you simple speed up first run (yet, if this was a catch from a image that was loaded into your ramdisk... you already did one read)... after that a cache can load it just as fast, but you never removed it from your ram disk... so now you are wasting ram again... witch I said 1-5.


Yes, no issues, but you are using it wrong xD witch is my point. I said so in 1-5 already :D I am not going to repeat myself every post because you can't remember the past.
What you said in 1-5??? I disprove your claims 1-5, see above. SO tell me now, WHY am i using wrong... or: How would you use both right? I dont think you have an answer, because you dont think at all that using both at all could be right. Pretty biased.
but you have to understand the usage of both to see the gain. Aka, the way you are using it would slow you down over all or use more ram to performance ratio... witch I covered in 1-5 xD
I understand the usage and the technical level of both and i taking full advantage of both gains. Why you claim the way i actually use it (was is pretty fast, faster then only one of each) would slow me down. Stop telling you cavered anything with 1-5... i already ripped that bad english apart... it does not telling anything.
Really? Where at? Because I said I had to recover what I said again like 3 times and rip your whole post down to lines just to explain it to you xD
Last edited by Mradr on Mon Nov 04, 2013 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Incriminated
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Primo Cache's cache on a RAMdisk?

Post by Incriminated »

you simple speed up first run... after that a cache can load it just as fast, but you never removed it from your ram disk... so now you are wasting ram again... witch I said 1-5.
after that? For me there is no after that. AFter my first read of every single cached website I close the browser and shut down the pc.... See your arrogant way of assuming your "solution of setup" is the only way that makes sense for everyone is bullsh*t! It does not even make sense for the majority.
Really? Where at?

See above (last page). I showed in detail that 1-5 are no issue and not affecting me in any ways, same for most of the users. YOu didn't even showed how 1-5 is practically affecting anything. WHat you claimed to be argue 1-5 is just blahblah.

Your way of having a discussion is so weak, unfair and technical uninformed, so arrogant and so insular, that i would not like to continue from this point on. Im glad everyone sees your attitude and is free to choose the right decision for his specific usecase.
Last edited by Incriminated on Mon Nov 04, 2013 6:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mradr
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:36 pm

Re: Primo Cache's cache on a RAMdisk?

Post by Mradr »

See above (last page). I showed in detail that 1-5 are no issue and not affecting me in any ways, same for most of the users. YOu didn't even showed how 1-5 is practically affecting anything. WHat you claimed to be argue 1-5 is just blahblah.
Anything can be bla bla bla if you don't put two and two together or even understand what you are being told. Not my problem if you don't understand what's going on here or not. Your only goal is speed/performance. I understand that, so please don't treat others that DO understand what's going on under the hood with such intent of anger.
Incriminated wrote:
you simple speed up first run... after that a cache can load it just as fast, but you never removed it from your ram disk... so now you are wasting ram again... witch I said 1-5.
after that? For me there is no after that. AFter my first read i close the browser and shut down the pc.... See your arrogant way of assuming your "solution of setup" is the only way that makes sense is bullsh*t!
So this is your only point? Haha xD ok I can answer this one easy :D
1) First off... you are actually loading the program two times. Once from the image of the ramdisk at startup and once again when you run the program. The time you run the program, it'll be really fast because it's in the ramdisk now.
2) The answer? Save that bad boy's cache/data to the SSD so that any reads are very fast! As there wont be any need to read it two times... just the once when you call it as it'll load from the SSD (the cache) and into the ram way faster than loading data would be ^^

Primo Cache is getting a new feature soon that will do this automatically ^^ it'll be so much better and on the fly! Less having to install programs and create links around the hard drive.

But to be really on the ball here... there isn't really a good way to speed up 1st read. Why? Because HDD/SSD are still very slow compare to ram speeds. You can't speed up 1st read without having the data in hand at one point. Until ram or some other REALLY fast device comes out that is non-volatile there isn't really any real way to speed up first reads without reading it first in some form or at some time.
Incriminated
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Primo Cache's cache on a RAMdisk?

Post by Incriminated »

you are actually loading the program two times. Once from the image of the ramdisk at startup and once again when you run the program. The time you run the program, it'll be really fast because it's in the ramdisk now.
Thats wrong. I only load the program one single times from disk.
Exactly at the moment when my PC starts up and it reads the RAM-Disk-File from harddisk (SSD) into memory.
Then it's get copied from one RAM-Cache to RAM-disk at RAM-speed, or even simple remap, whatsoever.
Same when i actually run the programm, i only "load" from RAM, so still no disk-I/O during runtime.

At this point PrimoCache is also maintaining that FIle, but since I use LFU-R that is no problem. The RAMSpace for caching the RAM-DIsk-File (which is only loaded one time at boot) does not get priorized before any other read or in other words as soon as any other read is reclaiming cache, the RAM-Disk-File is cleared from cache.

Yes it will be really fast because it is in the RAM-disk now... that is exactly what i want, because i shut the PC down after 1st reading a bunch of browser-work.
Save that bad boy's cache/data to the SSD so that any reads are very fast! As there wont be any need to read it two times... just the once when you call it as it'll load from the SSD (the cache) and into the ram way faster than loading data would be ^^
From what i read - goddamn try comprehesive english please - you simply say stop PrimoRAM-disk, but this way any reads WONT be very fast... they will be just fast... but exactly NOT very fast... but RAM-disk is very fast.... HELLO MCFLY!!!! SSD speed is not enough for me... if SSD would be enough i would not use PrimoCache and not use PrimoRAM-disk.... whats the point?

There is no way, your "right way" for it would be better for me. Give it up!

I mean two pages and I still see no reason why both together are not right. Everything here is 100% working alright. None of what you claimed beeing an issue for me is a real issue. You seem to be unable to make it clear whats the downside in my specific usecase. Well sombody would have been supporting your claims by now, but only one I see at all next to me arguing against you was InquiringMind on the last page.... since then you provided some thousand words. But none made it obvious that i have serious problem here. The fact is, my browser is faster than on SSD, my system-partition is faster than on SSD. I still have RAM left, even for demanding games... having no DPC-Latency problems and no I/O-spikes.... so i wish you fun in convincing yourself of your myths.
Last edited by Incriminated on Mon Nov 04, 2013 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mradr
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:36 pm

Re: Primo Cache's cache on a RAMdisk?

Post by Mradr »

Incriminated wrote:
you are actually loading the program two times. Once from the image of the ramdisk at startup and once again when you run the program. The time you run the program, it'll be really fast because it's in the ramdisk now.
Thats wrong. I only load the program one single times from disk.
Exactly at the moment when my PC starts up and it reads the RAM-Disk-File from harddisk (SSD) into memory.

At this point PrimoCache is also maintaining that FIle, but since I use LFU-R that is no problem. The RAMSpace for caching the RAM-DIsk-File (which is only loaded one time at boot) does not get priorized before any other read or in other words as soon as any other read is reclaiming cache, the RAM-Disk-File is cleared from cache.

Yes it will be really fast because it is in the RAM-disk now... that is exactly what i want, because i shut the PC down after 1st reading a bunch of browser-work.
Save that bad boy's cache/data to the SSD so that any reads are very fast! As there wont be any need to read it two times... just the once when you call it as it'll load from the SSD (the cache) and into the ram way faster than loading data would be ^^
From what i read - goddamn try comprehesive english please - you simply say stop PrimoRAM-disk, but this way any reads WONT be very fast... there will be just fasd... but RAM-disk is very fast.... HELLO MCFLY!!!! SSD SPEED ISN'T ENOUGH FOR ME DON'T YOU GET IT???
*sigh* you don't get it because you don't understand the terms:
Data = Holds all data, data that has comments, commands, the langue code, and w/e else. VERY large compare to cache.
Cache = Simline of the data... no comments just commands that only the computer understands. Very small compare to data.

Yes, stop using Ram-Disk for this and use something else or wait for Primiocache new feature. It'll handle first reads for you instead of having to load DATA... >.>
Incriminated wrote:
you are actually loading the program two times. Once from the image of the ramdisk at startup and once again when you run the program. The time you run the program, it'll be really fast because it's in the ramdisk now.
Thats wrong. I only load the program one single times from disk.
Exactly at the moment when my PC starts up and it reads the RAM-Disk-File from harddisk (SSD) into memory.
Yes... once at start up and once at run time... >.>
Startup - when the computer boots from a cold restart.
Run time - The time between when a computer it active. This falls between Startup and Shutdown.
Meaning it's read 2x times >.< You read it at startup (because it has to load into a ramdisk) and again when you click the freakin BLUE E! >.> So that means it's already cache/read once from startup and your 2nd read will come from ram. PrimoCache does the same thing >.> but only in run time... So in the end... you didn't "speed up" your first read... you only slow down your startup by having to load that data when your OS could've used that time (however small or large that is) from starting up as fast. So by forth you are wasting ram because now that data is in your ram when it could've been cache instead.

|OS RAM | Program RAM | OS Cache | RamDisk | Disk Cache | Device Ram | Free Ram |<--- SEE?
Remove the ram disk and allow that DATA to be turn into CACHE you would end up with a smaller memory overhead with more free ram that the program's can use without any performance drop other than that you still would have to startup your program 2x times either way you look at it until Primo adds hot data to L2 or somehow some device that's really faster becomes none-volatile. Aka, it's slower because it has to load DATA and then process the data into ram vs clicking that only loads a process version of it self in the CPU and then cache in the ram creating both a faster and smaller foot print on your system in a total run time design.
Last edited by Mradr on Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:01 am, edited 3 times in total.
Incriminated
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Primo Cache's cache on a RAMdisk?

Post by Incriminated »

S.o. "blah blah look at me, i explain terms, I'm so intelligentm, and other people are fool, I try to avoid arguing blahblah, said nothing in the matter"

No i dont press the freaking blue E... that freak must be you! NOt that i told, ya which browser i use, i guess it-'s just your 2 brain cells commuicating.....

Again the second read you claim - what i say is the first data-access from user perspective is only from RAM at RAM speed (1st read).
When i not use RAM-disk, then the 1st read comes from SSD... THAT IS SLOWER, that is cached by PrimoCache, reloading the TAB in the browser (2nd read) then would speed up.

SO no you are wrong. PrimoCache does not do the same job and you still dont get it xD

I put the argue, that i do not 2nd read my data because i shutdown after 1st read (from user perspective) and you - knowing that you have no argue against that - interprete it persnicketinessly and pull out a wall of text to appear next to teach me stuff. Oh my god, you are such a little wiener!

I mean really... you tell me now, because RAM-disk reads the file from disk during boot up, that when i access it would be the 2nd read. Well technically yes, but again you are just talking rubbish not facing an argue, because THSI is exavcly what i want.

I want it to 1st read the data into RAM on boot, so when I 1st read it (technically 2nd read) it will be at full RAM-speed.

Listen carefully: PrimoCache does not accelearate the very first time that the user access the data. DIscussion over!
Post Reply