Failed to start cache at 0.9.1 Win 7 32 Ultimate Topic is solved

Found a bug? Report here
Post Reply
Stubi
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:36 pm

Failed to start cache at 0.9.1 Win 7 32 Ultimate

Post by Stubi »

Sometimes I get this message "Failed to start cache". This only if I DELETE a configuration (with the red X) and create a new one with different partitions. The system is Win 7 32 Ultimate all updates. I have several partitions. If I add some partitions to the cache after reboot it works. But if I delete this configuration and add other partitions to the cache it does not work anymore. Sometimes I get this message and sometimes it creates a cache but without ALL of the selected partitions - some are missing. I tried often but I was not able to find a clear rule for the bug. On top of missing partitions in the cache it also makes a difference if I change the cache strategy for instance from read only to read/write. I just selected C and D for read only - both are correctly cached. Then I changed to the strategy read/write with C and D selected. Now only C gets cached. D is not shown in the display. All this happens if you change the cache settings without a new reboot several times.
User avatar
Support
Support Team
Support Team
Posts: 3627
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:42 am

Re: Failed to start cache at 0.9.1 Win 7 32 Ultimate

Post by Support »

If your partition size is large, you may increase the block size. This will reduce overhead a lot. Usually "failed to start cache" issue is casued by small block size.
Stubi
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:36 pm

Re: Failed to start cache at 0.9.1 Win 7 32 Ultimate

Post by Stubi »

I have a system with the config shown in the picture. Then I delete this cache and try to add a new cache for partition J only - the partition has 360 GB. I just take the defaults for reading in the settings but with 1280 MB cache and press start and get this message "failed to start cache". There are many different possible versions for this error.

But it seems to be correct what you wrote. It has to do with the overhead. If I increase the block size from 4 to 8 then it works. But why? I create this cache with 1280 MB with configuration Improve Read Performance. When I set the block size to 8 then the overhead is 187.50MB. Should there not be enough space for the overhead with a cache of 1280 MB and a block size of 4?
Attachments
Cache 1.jpg
Cache 1.jpg (66.41 KiB) Viewed 4140 times
Post Reply