Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > Storage

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old March 11, 2011, 09:30 AM
CMetaphor's Avatar
Quadfather
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 4,999

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowfat View Post
Because the files he are testing completely fits in the cache. Real world performance isn't going to be anywhere near like that. But it should still give a notable improvement.
In that case, here's a funny question:

What happens if you have, say, 16Gb of ram and dedicate 12Gb of it to the Cache of this program?
Would that make my lovely Raid-0 SSDs obsolete or something? lol
__________________
"Backed by common sense and physics!" -Squeetard
Opteron Server for Sale! http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...ade-ideas.html
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old March 11, 2011, 09:38 AM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,577
Default

unless you keep your computer on 24/7 and you can fit everything in those 12 gigs... then no.

you could almost classify this application as a combination of a smart ramdisk and cheaper, slower RAM using L2.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old January 17, 2012, 09:07 AM
Trial Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1
Smile happy to find a good solution

just started using version 0.7 of fancy cache. been using superspeed supercache but after several months of usage had multiple file corruption several times and had to reinstall os one time. and this is how i got here
at work i have a indilix gen1 ssd holding the os and apps, one hdd for visual studio's projects (here is my work data). using 500-700megs for level one r/w and 2gb for level 2 on my ssd. it takes a bit to prime the caches but after it all is warmed up then things go smooth. the machine becomes bottlencked by the intel i7 860 (3ghz+) cpu... this is actually good thing. :)
at home i have only a mechanical drive and use 1000megs for l1 cache r/w. it makes the experience a lot smoother. here i do not have much disk activity but apps that grind the drive (ymess, firefox etc) are a lot snappier.
so it's great when having bursty writes and to a lesser extent on the reads. windows 7 does good read caching anyway. i do not need sustained high read/write performance and this is what facycache does great.
after warming up the apps it all goes smooth. this matters to me most as i reboot seldomly but do actual work for hours. i think the after boot experience is what matters and less booting lightining fast. so it does not make the pc boot faster but it does provide a much smoother experience doing actual work, especially if you use a hdd.
i see this making a big difference on pc/laptop with hdd.
for me as a programmer i see the ideal setup (besides going for a super dooper 1tb, lighting fast ssd) is to have around 1-2gb ram for L1 cache and a small ssd (20-40gb) dedicated for L2 cache. a large hdd would hold the rest of the things. a variant (that i use) is to have a larger ssd (60gb-90gb) as boot drive and have several gigs dedicated to L2 cache.
to me the capabilities of this app are great, just hope the pricing will be sensible.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old January 18, 2012, 08:28 PM
lowfat's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grande Prairie, AB
Posts: 7,975

My System Specs

Default

I can't even get 0.7 beta to launch. Trial key is expired, even though the first time I ever installed it was yesterday.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HDD,ram and CPU Heatsinks soulbadguy New Builds 4 January 10, 2010 04:57 PM
[FS] HDD And DDR2-Ram and 32GB Ipod Touch Mindfield Buy/Sell & Trade 9 October 22, 2009 11:01 AM
Two SSDs in RAID 0, One HDD - help AmuseMe Storage 2 September 14, 2009 03:15 PM
Seeking advice - 775 Mobo, hdd's, ram mattydies CPU's and Motherboards 5 January 30, 2009 08:12 PM
16mb or 32mb hdd cache? rob123 Storage 6 June 14, 2008 11:07 PM