MaXimus wrote:Then why do I need to purchase Primocache at all if SUPER FETCH does a better job? I don't see the point?
See my previous post for some potential benefits; whether they are depends on your perspective. While SuperFetch does do a good job you have more control over PrimoCache configuration if you wish to fine tune your system. Other potential benefits:
- PrimoCache can work against any disk; SuperFetch only operates against the system partition
- PrimoCache captures all disk operations (except the pagefile); SuperFetch only works against a small subset of system executables
- PrimoCache has more extensive options for cached writes; Windows write buffer is relatively small and flushed often
- PrimoCache supports L1 and L2 caches; SuperFetch only offers a L1 (ie: memory) cache. Note the Windows pagefile could be considered a L2 (ie: disk) cache of sorts
- SuperFetch cache will grow and shrink depending on system utilization. While normally this is a good thing it can, at times, shrink down to a non-beneficial size (rare but possible)
I am not trying to be a PrimoCache fanboy. It is not the right solution for everyone. If you do not have any mechanical drives in your system then PrimoCache will have little to no performance benefit. If you are not happy open a support case to explore the possibility of a refund.
thanks for the detailed explanation. I guess I'll try it. can't hurt
I am just confused about the initial setup it has some options that I've never heard of or know what they do...
Just accept the defaults to get started. The online help and these forums are pretty good when you are ready to dive into details. The Primocache monitor will give you a quick overview of current settings and their effectiveness as measured by the percentage of reads that pull from the cache (hit ratio). Post if you have questions on a specific setting. Someone is bound to know the answer (or have an opinion ).
Violator wrote:Then why do I need to purchase Primocache at all if SUPER FETCH does a better job? I don't see the point?<br abp="811"><br abp="812">I bought a license and haven't even activated it yet. I bought it in hate but now I am having double thoughts as I really fail to see how is Primocache better than SUPER FETCH or my SAMSUNG Evo`s RAPID mode which uses 1 GB.<br abp="813"><br abp="814">Please explain as I now have buyer's remorse
As I already explained, SuperFetch does not cache everything, so you can have benefits by it for applications that stream large files of disk without them doing any caching themselves etc.
I have a program that stream such a file which has the size of 20GB, to accelerate the streaming I have 2 options.
1. Use Primo Cache with slightly above 20GB while the program and it's file is on a separate partition or disk, nothing else from that disk or partition is loaded at the same time.
2. Use a ramdisk and junction or hardlink the file via a batch script upon program execution.
Primo Cache makes is the easiest and most hassle free option out of the two.
What data do you have on that Samsung EVO (TLC NAND) btw?
Davey126 wrote:
While I agree with optimization through the use of additional drive/partitions I would not go so far as to discourage the use of PrimoCache on the system partition. With a small write delay the amount of data written can be reduced 15-15% as PrimoCache discards redundant writes (much of it Windows busy work). I have yet to experience a performance hit with PrimoCache running against the system partition and feel some operations are a tad faster even with a high-end SSD as the primary drive. Obviously your mileage may vary .
I have yet to see some I/O bottle necks on my Windows drive, Windows 8.1 handles all caching and preloading pretty well, but I have nothing else on that disk, documents, games etc. are stored on other disks and a mirrored disk array for the most important data.
Besides that, in case of a system failure you might be unable to start the OS up if it crashes in the middle of a write operation with large deferred write enabled.
One of Primo Caches competitors even advises that their product shouldn't be used up against the system partition/disk, I would say only if you have it completely unredundant or if you frequently take backups.
Most users shouldn't though, since very few are aware of how to get their system back up running in case of a complete crash... on the other hand it gives butter on the bread for IT shops when they get such systems in for repair.
I setup a cache task for C: + D: read + write and the default size that primocache chose was 14 GB. My Cache hit rate is 4% so far. I assume that's bad. Didnt know how to play with the other settings I hope someone can help me via TeamViewer I can give you my ID / Pass via TeamViewer on an agreed time
Violator wrote:
I have yet to see some I/O bottle necks on my Windows drive, Windows 8.1 handles all caching and preloading pretty well, but I have nothing else on that disk, documents, games etc. are stored on other disks and a mirrored disk array for the most important data.
Besides that, in case of a system failure you might be unable to start the OS up if it crashes in the middle of a write operation with large deferred write enabled.
One of Primo Caches competitors even advises that their product shouldn't be used up against the system partition/disk, I would say only if you have it completely unredundant or if you frequently take backups.
Most users shouldn't though, since very few are aware of how to get their system back up running in case of a complete crash... on the other hand it gives butter on the bread for IT shops when they get such systems in for repair.
Yes - I agree with Violator that most mainstream users should not enable deferred writes on the system partition if they do not have a UPS or solid backup strategy (in my case I take frequent images and can easily recover from a complete system failure). My comments were aimed at IT types who understand the risks of deferred writes and have taken appropriate precautions. On the other hand a read cache is completely safe and can offer some modest performance benefits if the drive holding the system partition is mechanical, slow or heavily loaded. As previously noted SuperFetch does a pretty good job in most scenarios; if you are looking for a dramatic improvement in system partition performance (and have no other drives/partitions) PrimoCache is probably not the best solution.
MaXimus wrote:I setup a cache task for C: + D: read + write and the default size that primocache chose was 14 GB. My Cache hit rate is 4% so far. I assume that's bad. Didnt know how to play with the other settings I hope someone can help me via TeamViewer I can give you my ID / Pass via TeamViewer on an agreed time
Since you are using an EVO for the system, read+write caching might be a good idea to have those TLC chips to last longer, I would never use a TLC based SSD as system drive and especially not for important data.
MaXimus wrote:I setup a cache task for C: + D: read + write and the default size that primocache chose was 14 GB. My Cache hit rate is 4% so far. I assume that's bad. Didnt know how to play with the other settings I hope someone can help me via TeamViewer I can give you my ID / Pass via TeamViewer on an agreed time
Since you are using an EVO for the system, read+write caching might be a good idea to have those TLC chips to last longer, I would never use a TLC based SSD as system drive and especially not for important data.
after writing 10 TB to my Drive, the performance is still the same and the health is 100%. SSD Life Pro report sthe drive is good until 2022. I never keep hte same hardware for more than a year or two as I upgrade to the next best thing so this TLC vs MLC means nothing to meh. People worry about it too much as if the drive will die tomorrow if you copy stuff to it. I use it to the max potential.
MaXimus wrote:I setup a cache task for C: + D: read + write and the default size that primocache chose was 14 GB. My Cache hit rate is 4% so far. I assume that's bad. Didnt know how to play with the other settings I hope someone can help me via TeamViewer I can give you my ID / Pass via TeamViewer on an agreed time
Since you are using an EVO for the system, read+write caching might be a good idea to have those TLC chips to last longer, I would never use a TLC based SSD as system drive and especially not for important data.
after writing 10 TB to my Drive, the performance is still the same and the health is 100%. SSD Life Pro report sthe drive is good until 2022. I never keep hte same hardware for more than a year or two as I upgrade to the next best thing so this TLC vs MLC means nothing to meh. People worry about it too much as if the drive will die tomorrow if you copy stuff to it. I use it to the max potential.
Well, I use multiple SSD's so I really don't plan to switch any of them out before we get higher performance or if they break down, it's not like anyone will notice a huge difference on the last few MB/s missing up to 600, and if I need more space I got 4/10 SATA3 ports free anyway.
My own EVO is only used for things I can live without, did read to many post with people that had it's chips breaking down to take any risk.
).
