help setting up the parameters Topic is solved

[iskander]

Holly Crp! this is with the caching running and paused...

my-primocache-acelerated-benchmark.jpg (696.88 KiB) Viewed 4455 times

non-acelerated-benchmark.jpg (707.38 KiB) Viewed 4455 times

My motivation for this was to improve my 3Ds Max loading time, it kind of did but it only save a couple of seconds, now the rest of my programs improved up to another level, Audition and Embergen are loading instantly, other softs that were already fast are oppening in half the time or about

Evidently is working well, but there are lots of settings I don't understand, for example, cache hit rate, sometimes is 50% sometimes is 60%, but most of the time is 12% or below shouldn't that be higer?
any recommendation to keep the cache even after restarting the computer?
also what block size should I set? what are the effects of having less or more? tried to put 4kb but the memory overhead went like 3gb or so

[StarCaller]

view/edit configuration, prefetch last cache.

a lot of times it's like the smaller the block size, the faster it is.
(a lot of times, NOT always)
best thing is to just try different sizes.

this here is very helpful....
https://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/pri ... /help.html

[Support]

The benchmark test results actually reflect the performance of L1 cache (RAM cache). It seems that the C drive is also a fast nvme drive, so usually there is no need to set up L2 cache (ssd cache) which is for slow HDD or sata SSD. I see that you installed 128GB RAM, however, I cannot see your L1 cache size from your screenshots. Can you upload your cache configuration and stats by following the guidance in the link below?
https://kb.romexsoftware.com/en-us/2-pr ... leshooting

Regarding the cache hit rate, please see
https://kb.romexsoftware.com/en-us/2-pr ... e-hit-rate

Regarding the block size, 16KB is ok. Or you can try 32KB for most recent computers. Note: changing the block size will invalidate all cached data.

[iskander]

this pc has a 13900k and 128 gb ram but only added 10 gb, so would be recommended 32 instead of 16kb??
My idea adding an L2 cache was for the persistence, as when I need to restart for updates or something being able to fetch the data instead of needing to start from 0 again
I checked an option that does exactly that if I understand correctly
so my L1 cache is 10 gb and 672 MB Overhead
thanks for all the answers

[iskander]

c drive on this pc is super fast by itself, but still I can notice a general difference in responsiveness, and some softwares run instantly, crazy... I can only imagine the difference this would make for someone using a mechanical hdd

[iskander]

The benchmark test results actually reflect the performance of L1 cache (RAM cache). It seems that the C drive is also a fast nvme drive, so usually there is no need to set up L2 cache (ssd cache) which is for slow HDD or sata SSD. I see that you installed 128GB RAM, however, I cannot see your L1 cache size from your screenshots. Can you upload your cache configuration and stats by following the guidance in the link below?
https://kb.romexsoftware.com/en-us/2-pr ... leshooting

Regarding the cache hit rate, please see
https://kb.romexsoftware.com/en-us/2-pr ... e-hit-rate

Regarding the block size, 16KB is ok. Or you can try 32KB for most recent computers. Note: changing the block size will invalidate all cached data.

I thought I gave 10GB, but seems testing and changing settings I left it on 8 GB

printscreen-configuration.jpg (401.52 KiB) Viewed 4434 times

[Support]

My idea adding an L2 cache was for the persistence, as when I need to restart for updates or something being able to fetch the data instead of needing

If the L2 drive is slower than the target drive, even a 100% cache hit rate doesn't make sense. And the target drive will not speed up but slow down because the data is read from the slow drive.

[Support]

I thought I gave 10GB, but seems testing and changing settings I left it on 8 GB

Since you have lots of RAM installed, you can increase L1 cache.

[iskander]

Well maybe as the drive is almost empty I haven't noticed any slowdown yet, but if anything maybe I should have gone for the 32gb model instead of the 118gb, yesterday had to work with some heavy scenes on max and at the end of the day when I checked cache hit rate, it was 94% and all day long material gallery loading was the most responsive I've seen, and I needed to restart the pc after a studio drivers update but forgot to check right after that and now I think I shouldn't need to restart almost until friday or so, it's working so fine that I fear reset it and messing out something

Are you really sure that making the cache from scratch all over again is still faster than just fetching it from l2?? even if there's cache stored there from a software that I wont use until later?
another thing, optane may have smaller or less easy to market numbers, but is more responsive that anything I've tried before, well, after your ram cache obviously, but I mean that has to account up to something no?

this isn't the exact model, but I think they all perform about the same and can't find any benchmark or review on it

optane vs gen 5 ssd.jpg (215.96 KiB) Viewed 4405 times

[Support]

Are you really sure that making the cache from scratch all over again is still faster than just fetching it from l2?? even if there's cache stored there from a software that I wont use until later?
another thing, optane may have smaller or less easy to market numbers, but is more responsive that anything I've tried before, well, after your ram cache obviously, but I mean that has to account up to something no?

The benefit of prefetching from the L2 cache is that it can reduce the read operations of the target drive, which is especially useful at computer boot-up, because a large number of files needs to be read from the drive at the same time during the boot-up.
If you see currently your optane L2 make the system more responsive, then you can keep your current settings.