Effectively cache your frequently used applications, documents and other data into faster storage devices, accessing them at up to RAM-like or SSD-like speeds. Make your computer more responsive for creating, gaming and producing, with less boot and load times.
Super Cache Vs Primocache 28
DOWNLOAD: https://cinurl.com/2vEtHm
This application is a scam reminding me of the "RAMDoubler" application. It probably works by hooking the Windows IOControl for disk access, putting the content the data CrystalDiskMark into a cache and returning the call to this system function. The test does not verify if the test data is really located on the disk. As user253751 and Tetsujin already stated this is a kind of RAM test.
The software does intentionally cheat on a benchmark. The benchmark tries to measure the actual speed of a hard drive or SSD drive, not the speed of any RAM cache, and the software manages to work around that, tricking the benchmark into thinking you have a really fast hard drive.
I'd say try it out for free and find out if it helps with your usage. Then see the cost and use it or don't. And you want your data to be backed up: The OS will think that data is written when this software tells it is written. If you shut down your computer, most likely it will actually shut down when it thinks all caches are written to your drives. That could go wrong with this drive.
Let me sum it up, to be sure not to miss the point. You did not set up a cache on your SSD, you set up a cache on your HDD, and you copied a file from your SSD to your cached HDD.Two things to consider here:
I have tested this software extensively before buying it. I quickly gave up on CrytalMark that only shows irrelevant values. What matters to me is actual file operations. And I can testify that, as long as you keep in the limits of your cache, this software does what it tells it does.
But to answer completely to your questions, let me write a bit more about how I use this software.I have a SATA cacheless SSD, 16GB of RAM. Software engineering has been my main job for 20+ years.I have set up a 1.25GB of L1 Write Cache, with defer mode, buffer strategy, flush on sleep.I don't care that much on prefetching data. My main reads are loading the OS (un-cached), loading Eclipse (once a day, always-on then), launching and closing several Firefox/Chrome windows and tabs (could be cached, but Windows keeps the programs in memory, so irrelevant).I care a LOT about writing data.
Yes Sir, yes it does.I'm not the only one to say it. See Dave's video, retired Microsoft engineer, and author of an Amiga cache software Supercharging Windows Disk SpeedsIs it the product for you? Well, try the demo. 30 days is a good amount of time to make up your mind. Run your computer as usual (ie, no CrystalMark), and see.Then you could add your answer here ^^
It is highly useful software for knowledgeable power users, and for admins that run low-cost bare metal servers. It takes understanding of cache tiers and manual effort to set up, and is not important to most basic home users.
The difference will be minimal for the typical user. If you have the space available though, buying the larger SSD from this article, split partitioning it on say a 75/25 mix and using the lesser partition for a cache of your HDD that you just added for more capacity is ideal.
Ok I made up my mind by let the system as it is. On SC 2 128 I installed the system and let all doing windows. Neither i tweaked superfetch nor I established the system cache on HDD. I trust Windows to be smart enough to manage RAM SSD and HDD. All this tweaks to decrease the write access on the ssd are bullsh.. I think. I am a normal user and if the Supercache cant bear a write of say at least 200 TB (would be enough lifetime for me) than it is nothing worth as hardware anyway. Cheers
Intel Smart Response Technology and Condusiv's ExpressCache are similar products that around the same idea. They both use a fast SSD to cache data from a slower (but larger) traditional hard drive. There are some feature differences between the two. For example, ExpressCache has the ability to pin an application while with Intel SRT you have no control over the data cached, but otherwise they are similar in execution.
I fear you miss the larger benefit. I have a 8tb drive and a 1tb NVME. I can install all my games onto the 8tb and primocache will store the most accessed files on the nvme and rotate them out as my habits change. Now I can have way more than 1tb of games installed and play whatever I want whenever I want. It typically will have all the most loaded files on the L2 cache when playing that first time at that point.
Caching is essentially temporarily writing information to a much faster medium. Since the ssd will constantly be written to, the lifespan of the ssd will not be as long as if it were not used as a cache.
Who really cares? SSD's are so cheap, if it dies in 5 years you just buy a new one. And I can assure you it won't die in 5 years. Plus, when it does, it'll just read from HDD instead so nothing is lost. Not to mention, it doesn't really write all that much. Biggest waster of writes is cache purging on crashes because it'll repopulate the cache after every crash to ensure fresh and uncorrupted data in the cache. Other than that it'll be mostly doing reads, not writes.
Ah i see , but i dont use most of my 1tb like most of the times its just 50-60% full at max , so probably 120gb of cache should be enough? Also where should i put my OS? after caching i mean , in the free ssd partition or the cached hdd?
Also is it true , that when the PC crashes u lose all the cache? In that case I will probably still install the os and the drivers in the ssd ,like the 50-60gb remaining after caching the remaining 170 gb
Ahh that comment was really helpful , but in my case i got a 250gb , will it hurt it to partition into a 60gb for cache and remaining for storage? Also do u lose the data on cache if your pc crashes? Becoz then the next boot will be again slow as of normal hdd ,as no cache?
As for clearing of cache on crash, how often does your system crash? I only had problems with it when I was overclocking my CPU for the first time and it crashed a lot before I found the sweet spot. But I haven't really had a system crash for months now.
As for clearing of cache on crash, how often does your system crash? I only had problems with it when I was overclocking my CPU for the first time and it crashed a lot before I found the sweet spot. But I haven't really had a system crash for months now.
Thanks for sharing but I still wasn't able to find in your comments the basis that one SSD for OS and most used apps like video games plus one HDD for mass storage is a bad configuration other than your specific use case (and hate for people not doing it like you). Some people just don't need more cache (and not all of us are gamers)...
Sorry, but I really don't follow the logic here. What do you want to save any space of SSD for when there is 1TB of storage on the other end. You already have massive primary storage (HDD). Not giving it full potential by dedicating whole SSD space for cache is, well, just moronic.
People don't seem to grasp that sticking 256GB SSD cache to 1TB or 2TB HDD gives you 1TB or 2TB SSD from the use perspective. When you're using such storage it's nearly indistinguishable from native SSD experience (which can't be said for crappy SSHD's with tiny 8GB SSD cache). So, why wouldn't you want a 1TB or 2TB SSD experience? Why you all so care what's happening underneath on such hybrid systems instead of what kind of experience you'd be getting out of it? This is why it's so baffling to me when people so desperately cling to dumb retarded SSD boot drive setups. They make no sense.
I've used it for several years and it worked great. When people were using useless boot drive configurations I was using 2TB SSD so to speak. And that was my actual experience. I now have 2TB SSD, Samsung 850 Pro. The experience I had before quite frankly wasn't really any worse than SSD experience I have now in 100% native form. Same capacity. I literally went with such massive SSD because I sleep in same room as I have PC and HDD clicking was driving me nuts (although system was not clickity during use since most was read from cache) in the evening because I have my PC on 24/7. And because I felt it's time to throw out archaic spinning plates and have something modern in my system. But from experience itself, speeds I had with 2TB HDD and 256GB SSD fully dedicated as cache was basically the same as with my current full on SSD. So, please explain to me why you wouldn't want to have 2TB of storage at SSD speeds at all times? I can assure you, you can't explain it. And this is why I'm face palming every single time people keep on clinging to pointless SSD boot drives... 2ff7e9595c
Comments