FancyCache / PrimoCache

Discussion in 'SSD and HDD storage' started by holystarlight, Aug 7, 2013.

  1. holystarlight

    holystarlight Master Guru

    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    Asus 1080 Strix SLI
    More Info here.

    I haven't seen any post about this program, for me it seems pretty useful when you got extra ram to burn,

    Download

    Here some benchmarks using it with my SSDs.
    [​IMG]

    This is what the program looks like when setting up caches for HDD/SSD
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2013
  2. tsunami231

    tsunami231 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,694
    Likes Received:
    18
    GPU:
    EVGA 660gtx sig2
    Ramdisk, nothing new about them
     
  3. holystarlight

    holystarlight Master Guru

    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    Asus 1080 Strix SLI
    It Actually works very differently to a ramdisk. it isn't used to store files at all, works more like a buffer to the SDD/HDD by dedicating a ram cache, Just like how mechanical HDD use 64mb cache buffer for example.
     
  4. tsunami231

    tsunami231 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,694
    Likes Received:
    18
    GPU:
    EVGA 660gtx sig2
    its ramdisk that only way ones gets those kind read/writes speeds
     

  5. holystarlight

    holystarlight Master Guru

    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    Asus 1080 Strix SLI
    [​IMG]

    Doesn't look like any ramdisk iv used, as you can see, from the image running a benchmark on my C: drive, as I explained before, its works more like a buffer than a ramdisk. anyway, gotta say this program does do some magic when transferring files from one HDD to another, and access times have improved greatly.
     
  6. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,102
    Likes Received:
    268
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    It's a RAMCache not a logical ramdisk, so yes this functions as a buffer.

    I'd be a bit careful though with power loss / unexpected resets / crashes as critical data will get lost when that happens. Other then that it indeed is that fastest cache you can create.
     
  7. Pill Monster

    Pill Monster Banned

    Messages:
    25,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    7950 Vapor-X 1100/1500
    I really doubt that considering your write speeds don't change - only read speed and access times.

    Fancy Cache is basically Superfetch with a few extra options.....
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2013
  8. FatBoyNL

    FatBoyNL Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,455
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G
    With 1 run of 50MB the HDD or SSD is not even used at all.
    Please try it again with multiple runs of blocks larger than the cache size. For example, test 4x 500MB. I wonder what results that would show.
     
  9. holystarlight

    holystarlight Master Guru

    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    Asus 1080 Strix SLI
    ill test
    Without Cache 4x 500mb
    [​IMG]

    with cache 4x 500mb
    [​IMG]

    And with 4x 2000mb
    [​IMG]

    4x 4000mb
    [​IMG]

    And with AS SSD bench
    [​IMG]

    Very impressive results, Cache size I'm using is 4096 with block size 16 on a SSD OCZ Agility 3.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013
  10. holystarlight

    holystarlight Master Guru

    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    Asus 1080 Strix SLI


    this is copying a 3.6gb ISO image from one HDD to another both HDD using a 4096 cache with block size 16. the file copies so quickly that kinda hard to screenshot it lol. so I did another test.

    [​IMG]

    Here is test done with and without the cache copying the same file to and from same locations, first copy is with the cache on, and the second is without.
    [​IMG]




    Also to note that primoCahce uses something called Defer-Write with a latency delay, which is customizable.

     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013

  11. FatBoyNL

    FatBoyNL Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,455
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G
    Those results look promising!
    But the improved reads will only shine when the data to be fetched has been cached already. A 40GB SSD cache drive using Intel Smart Response Technology will cache the most accessed data 'more permanently' (but a lot slower).
    PrimoCache probably does the same thing by software in RAM. Shutdows will be slower as the data has to be written to the HDD and startups will be slower due to starting caching the data from the disk. In the background probably.

    About the writes. When you copy a very large file from G- to C-drive, at what speed does the action end? The file still needs to be copied to the slower HDD, so I reckon the speed rate will fall dramatically at the end of the copying action (or at shutdown or other checkpoints).
    Please show us a screenshot of a 10GB copying action over those drives at 99% completion ;)

    I'm just kidding, I'm very interested about this topic. But from my (professional) experience, it's very hard to notice any improvement except for specific situations (which I haven't found yet really :().
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013
  12. holystarlight

    holystarlight Master Guru

    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    Asus 1080 Strix SLI
    The program does have a L2 cache that can be used on a dedicated SSD like how Intel Smart Response Technology works.
    Also you can choose which Algorithm the program uses
    but I haven't a spare SSD to test it out the L2 Cache, but I haven't noticed any slow shut downs or start up, Task manager doesn't show the program running in the background either,

    Ill test copying a larger file like 10gb but I haven't a 10gb to test with so ill make one and post a bench or two.

    with cache
    [​IMG]
    And without
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013
  13. Chillin

    Chillin Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,814
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    -
    While I'm usually skeptical about such programs, this one seems to be the real deal.

    I have set up 512mb of cache to read only (I don't trust writes with a power failure risk) on a WD 1TB Caviar Black (first gen) and here are the results:

    Without:
    [​IMG]

    With:
    [​IMG]

    I'm going to see if I see any difference in BF3 map loading time.
     
  14. holystarlight

    holystarlight Master Guru

    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    Asus 1080 Strix SLI
    yeh it works a treat, for HDD, using read only mode like you, for my storage HDDs, iv noticed tomb raider loads a faster, but most games I play already load pretty quickly so hard to notice any improvements.
     
  15. sykozis

    sykozis Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    20,015
    Likes Received:
    30
    GPU:
    XFX RX 470
    I decided to give this a try. I setup a 512mb read "cache" for my data drive. Copied files ranging from 700mb to 4.5GB. On the 700mb files, it was roughly 1-2 sec faster. On the 4.5GB file, it was noticeable slower. I retested the 4.5GB file with a 1024mb read "cache" with no improvement. Since I tend to transfer several GB of data from drive to drive on a regular basis...this software appears to be pretty useless for me. Since most harddrive benchmarks are synthetic, their results are meaningless. According to the data transfer progress window, the data transfer rate was higher with this software.....but the actual data transfer TIME was noticeably slower with my 4.5GB file (which is actually the full OpenSuSE x64 disc ISO).
     

  16. holystarlight

    holystarlight Master Guru

    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    Asus 1080 Strix SLI
    I think you will only notice an improvement with the write cache on aswell, as read mode shouldn't really help with transferring files from one place to another.
    but iv been using an 8gb cache. As I got endless amount of ram, and I have noticed when copying a file larger than the cache, it will max out the cache then the latency kicks in to flush the cache to the HDD/SDD.
    so from my testing you get a burst of speed and if the cache maxes out, the transfer speed drops, as the cache is flushed to the HDD, then it spikes back up again. but using a large cache seems to limit that issue.

    Playing around with the latency option might help along with a larger cache.

    that's what I have engaged anyway, I might be mistaken.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2013
  17. Pill Monster

    Pill Monster Banned

    Messages:
    25,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    7950 Vapor-X 1100/1500
    Yeah to see an improvement the cache must be bigger than the file you're transferring, because once the cache fills up the data has to be written to disk - just like a normal drive.
    This would defeat the point of having fancycache. Fwiw write speeds are not increased. It looks that way in benches because the data is copied to ram first.
    However it still must be written to disk so the file transfer takes longer than without Fancy Cache.

    I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here but it's really an outdated concept that has been made redundant by SSD's and 64bit Windows.
    Even on X86 the "invisible ram" thing is a bit misleading due to AWE/PAE.
    It's silly to purchase 8-16GB of ram for cache when Bob Smith could buy an SSD for around the same price.

    And some people pay waaaaaay to much attention to benchmark scores......
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2013
  18. sykozis

    sykozis Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    20,015
    Likes Received:
    30
    GPU:
    XFX RX 470
    So, basically, what you're saying is.... the increase in file copy time using this software should be expected because I'm seeing the effect of what is actually happening.

    There's a reason I used file copies to test this software. Most benchmark software is synthetic and doesn't show "real-world" results. Synthetic benchmarks are easy to fool whereas using "real-world" scenarios....you get real world results. It's sorta like running 3DMark11 to determine how your system will perform in Battlefield 3....instead of using Battlefield 3 to determine how your system will perform in Battlefield 3....
     
  19. Pill Monster

    Pill Monster Banned

    Messages:
    25,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    7950 Vapor-X 1100/1500
    Yeah because you were writing 4.5GB to a disk with only 512Mb of cache. For the sake of simplicity your 512MB cache will now be called RAM:

    RAM simply acts as a buffer, so data is first copied to the 512MB of RAM u reserved, while simultaneously writing from RAM to the HDD.
    But data is copied to RAM faster than it can be written from RAM to the HDD so it takes only a few seconds for the 512MB RAM to fill up.
    Once that happens all data in RAM must be written to the HDD (buffer flushing), before new data can be copied to RAM. That's why your transfer times seemed slow, because they were. lol. Try again using an 8GB cache and you'll see lightning fast (reported) transfer times.

    So yeah the guys above who had huge caches will see very high benchmark numbers because as far as CrystalDisk is concerned, the transfer is complete as soon as the file is copied to RAM, not when it's written to disk.


    (Is this post really as long winded as it seems? lol)

    On a side note disabling Write Cache Buffer Flushing can improve HDD write speeds in Windows, however I don't recommend doing this on the system drive.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2013

Share This Page