Suggestion for Primocache

[scorpion]

My system Specs:

OS: Windows 10x64 PRO Fall Creators Update Edition 1709 Build:16299.64
MB: MSI X99S Gaming 9 ACK (Bios 2.90) (Raid Modified)
CPU: I7-5960x [email protected] Liquid Cooled (NZXT Kraken X61)
MEMORY: HyperX Predator 64gb DDR4 3000 RAM CL15 (XMP)
GPU: (2) EVGA GTX 980 (Super Clocked) ACX 2.0 (SLI) (Bios Modified)
USB: The Motherbord supports USB 3.1
Drives: {System} (4) WDC WD1003FBYZ-480FB2-Enterprise 1tb RE SATA 6gb/s 7200 RPM 64mb Cache (Raid 10)
Drives: {Extra} (1) WDC WD20EZRZ-00Z5HB0-Desktop 2tb SATA 6gb/s 5400 RPM 64mb Cache
PS: EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 T2 80+ TITANIUM, 1000W ECO Mode Fully Modular
Display: Acer G276HL 27" Full HD
Tower: Corsair Graphite Series 760T Full Tower Windowed Case - Black
UPS: CyberPower CP1500 Watt

- So I was going to dedicate 16gb to the L1 cache
- Dedicate 32gb (USB 3.1) flash drive for the L2 and split it half Read/Write

I did set it up with default setting and was totally amazed at the scores I got in Crystal DiskMark6....But like anyone I WANT MORE!!!

I know there are alot of tuning options does anyone have some suggestions?

[idefix44]

May be to post it one time more can help...

[scorpion]

Sorry for the double post it has been deleted.....no reason to bust on me for it

[Support]

Could you upload a screenshot of the main dialog which shows the cache configuration and statistics?

[scorpion]

Here are the screen shots: (sorry had to do two replies)

C-Drive.jpg (215.48 KiB) Viewed 4120 times

Before PrimoCache.jpg (82.67 KiB) Viewed 4120 times

After PrimoCache.jpg (85.03 KiB) Viewed 4120 times

[scorpion]

Here are the rest:

D-Drive.jpg (213.53 KiB) Viewed 4120 times

B-Drive(USB).jpg (212.3 KiB) Viewed 4120 times

Local Disk-(USB Portable)-VeraCrypt Encrypted Drive.jpg (213.93 KiB) Viewed 4120 times

[Support]

1. I think you may try a bigger block size. Current block size causes 5.6GB memory overhead which seems big. Using a bigger block size can reduce memory overhead.
2. Please note the risk of defer-write. See
http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/prim ... on.html#dw
3. You assign many volumes that have big capacity to the cache task. So far it is ok because these volumes currently don't have much amount of data. However when data amount increases on these volumes, current cache size may not be enough to keep high performance. I think you may just focus on volumes which performance you mostly want to increase, instead of caching all volumes.