I was expecting to include graphs with how the cache gets better over time, but that just wasn't the case-maybe when it's turned on it already knows which blocks are best to cache? I'm not a storage guru, but I do know how to hit the 'Run Benchmark' button There was no consistent trend with run order (other than the fact that the 2nd run at each cache size was almost always worse than the 1st run). Between each size I would stop caching and restart the whole system. Settings: read/write, 16kb blocks, LFU-R, 30s deferred write.Įach test was run three times and the average was taken. Focused on overall score, Productivity score (usually my favorite), and the HDD score. So it goes along with that (or at least it's not much of a greater assumption) that Fanc圜ache would be good at caching database/workfiles etc etc while Windows wouldn't.ĭid some low-effort PCMark testing on my laptop. Windows doesn't seem to cache media files, at least for me, Fanc圜ache would. I feel your second usage pattern is where Fanc圜ache would really shine. I will be doing some tests.Even if they are not the same, I don't believe the block level vs file level would make a significant difference would it? At the end of the day both Windows and Fanc圜ache would cash the same data, all be it in different ways. I'm currently evaluating hybrid controllers from LSI and Adaptec but it looks like FC may be a cheaper and more effective alternative. I'm with Halk in that I won't be slumming it w/HDDs on any of my workstations but for a server with 256gb of RAM and terabytes of storage it's simply too costly to go pure SSD. A developer from the FC forum says 'windows caching is file-level caching, ours is block-level caching.

Superspeed supercache error