Cache SSD+HDD (like Intel SRT) for old system?

[ZeroRift]

Depends on how you define "target," or a distinction between "target" and "source."

In this case, I'm referring to source files. My earlier comment in regards to cache-hit rate was meant to imply that a highly generalized cache, such as the Windows built-in cache, will likely have a lower hit rate, since you can't cache everything. Contrast this to a utility like primo-cache that will cache only the data you specify, thus greatly enhancing the hit rate in a circular sort of way.

I think the key thing to remember: the nephew's computer (which is i7/i5-etc. gen 1 or later) needs an SATA-III port and controller to really take advantage of any options -- caching or no caching. If not, there are quality, inexpensive controllers available -- at least a few offering the Hyper-Duo option as well as usefulness with PrimoCache. And I noted that my laptop system has only SATA-II, but the performance boost from a 3GB RAM-cache assignment can't be overlooked.

Bringing this back to the OP, this is one point I have to disagree with. Take the following counter example:

500GB SATA II HDD
128GB SATA II SSD

Setting the SSD up as a dedicated cache for the HDD will provide tangible performance increases as the HDD will have no chance of saturating SATA II, but the SSD should.

I also have to echo the cautionary statements of the other posters regarding L1 write-back. Data loss can be an ugly thing, and for games (which are nearly 100% read IO), it's really not required. (It sounds like the OP is not interested in this anyways, but it's worth calling out.)

As for L2 caching, it sounds like the OP has already made the decision I would recommend: Option 2 (or any SSD+HDD read cache option). Follow the KISS principal, and keep the nuts and bolts out of reach of the non-tech.

My questions were rhetorical.

Ah, sorry, I was focusing on the technical merits of the post, given that the social undertones may be lost on the less informed.

Anyway, Windows does not cache block operations. Windows file system cache is a file cache only.

Perhaps this is just an assumption on my part, but if files are not cached as raw 256KB blocks, how are they cached in memory?

Windows write cache on desktop systems is 1GB.

Are you referring to some write-specific caching mechanism? I'm referring to the System Cache, which contains the file look-aside table. The System Cache can be much, much larger than 1GB.

System cache virtual address space (physical size limited only by physical memory)

Limited by available kernel-mode virtual address space or the SystemCacheLimit registry key value.

Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2: 16 TB.

Windows Vista: Limited only by kernel mode virtual address space. Starting with Windows Vista with SP1, system cache virtual address space can also be limited by the SystemCacheLimit registry key value.

Windows Home Server, Windows Server 2003, and Windows XP: 860 MB with LargeSystemCache registry key set and without 4GT; up to 448 MB with 4GT.

 

[Ichinisan]

So your're thinking at replacing intel rst with a ram caching solution? If that's the case, I would chose a hardware implementation of caching(intel rst) instead of software anytime.

Not "RAM caching." No. I'm primarily talking about an SSD+HDD read-caching solution like Intel SRT, Marvell HyperDuo, etc. PrimoCache offers these features, but I think maybe some people incorrectly believe its only function is RAM/write caching...?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Not "RAM caching." No. I'm primarily talking about an SSD+HDD read-caching solution like Intel SRT, Marvell HyperDuo, etc. PrimoCache offers these features, but I think maybe some people incorrectly believe its only function is RAM/write caching...?

I think you're on the same frequency and wavelength (so to speak) as I and some others.

Just to recap, I had never considered before that the ISRT feature (starting with Intel Z68) could be implemented without hardware-specific features, but it seems more obvious now that both Intel and Samsung wanted to make their respective features "proprietary." Sometime within the last year, someone spoke to the Marvel "Hyper-Duo" alternative, suggesting that it had to "do something differently than Intel" because of patent infringement.

But it's now clear that the Marvel alternative can be implemented in both RAID-mode and AHCI, while Intel requires RAID-mode for ISRT.

The Romex and Superspeed software (Primocache and SuperCache) allows you to do this in either mode, with Intel, Marvel or any specific controller chip, with any SSD including Samsung and any HDD -- even if cabled to a different controller!

Also, ZeroRift justifiably corrected my earlier remark. You will get performance improvement even if the SSD (likely an SATA-III model) is connected to an SATA-II port as well as the HDD. The performance advantage is just not as great. With an SATA-III port for the caching SSD, you would get full performance (caching) potential from the SSD, and conversely, connecting the HDD to an SATA-II OR SATA-III port would show little difference because the HDD would otherwise perform at less than 300MB/s with either controller port.

How old is this nephew of yours?

 

[Ichinisan]

... How old is this nephew of yours?

Had to check. He's 20 now.

Time flies

I remember when he was 15 and spent a month with my brother and me. I introduced him to PC gaming and he got hooked on Half Life 2. Played all the way through it.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Had to check. He's 20 now.

Time flies

I remember when he was 15 and spent a month with my brother and me. I introduced him to PC gaming and he got hooked on Half Life 2. Played all the way through it.

If the computer or upgrade is not a gift of complete surprise, maybe you can ask him about his inclinations for not doing more than keeping an eye on the cache with the software occasionally, or reconfiguring to his liking according to the KISS principle.

As long as the hardware works according to spec, I'd think that a 20-year-old is capable of whatever maintenance is required.

I haven't done anything to change the RAM-caching arrangement with PRIMO on my laptop since I installed it. I've been testing the L2 feature with a 500GB HDD and 60GB Chronos SSD, and it's all tip-top solid. I'm extending the "Program Files" directories of the boot-SSD to the accelerated HDD with custom install "location" choices. As I said, GRID2 on the HDD has a 99% hit-rate in the cache.

Otherwise, you have so many options -- or enough options with this, it could be hard to decide what to do.

 

[PingSpike]

I can't even find a place to buy super cache. The reseller link they have only has one North American entity with a website and their brand doesn't even seem to be in the list when I go there. In addition the licensing restriction of your computer name seems silly, going by the description you will need to name your computer the same thing for all eternity even if you use their uninstaller. I don't even know what the software will cost either and apparently can't easily purchase it. I already do not have a good feeling about it.

I'm not sure about the licensing restrictions on primocache. $30 a copy is acceptable, but I don't want to end up with my PC hosed and then the software lost. That seems like a real concern with superspeeds licensing implementation.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I can't even find a place to buy super cache. The reseller link they have only has one North American entity with a website and their brand doesn't even seem to be in the list when I go there. In addition the licensing restriction of your computer name seems silly, going by the description you will need to name your computer the same thing for all eternity even if you use their uninstaller. I don't even know what the software will cost either and apparently can't easily purchase it. I already do not have a good feeling about it.

I'm not sure about the licensing restrictions on primocache. $30 a copy is acceptable, but I don't want to end up with my PC hosed and then the software lost. That seems like a real concern with superspeeds licensing implementation.

You went through some of the same conniptions that I also had. I didn't like the licensing restrictions or the singular requirement for my "computer name." I would -- or am -- surprised that you can't download the SuperCache trial. However, I can only say that I did give that one a try; it was OK, but didn't have the Primocache features, and I felt uncomfortable about the licensing requirements.

I will try to dispel your concerns about "hosing your system" with either one. Three computers later, it never happened to me. One of those systems had a bad power supply -- proven through swapping it into a box with new parts, so I replaced the PSU and the new parts replaced the old LGA-775 mobo, RAM and processor. The successor system was reinstalled with Primo and is tip-top.

A 90-day trial would give you a great chance to try it without having to buy it. Again, as I said, Primo is working well on a laptop and a current desktop, and worked well as could be expected on the LGA-775 system. That latter system had shown signs of OS corruption due to the PSU long before I installed the trial Primo on it. It had two sticks of bad RAM, probably caused by the dying PSU, which I replaced before I uncovered the real problem. That was before the Primo trial install, as I said.

I'm pretty sure it's the sort of software installation that would allow you to move it freely from one system to the next, as long as you stay within the 1 PC or 3PC requirement.

As for the LGA-775 parts, I figured it was about time to pass them on to a friend. I wouldn't be so candid about this unless I was sure in my diagnosis -- 6-year-old PSU gone south. It just wasn't the Primo Trial that caused it.

 

[PingSpike]

On superspeeds website I can see where I can download the trial, but if the software costs $900 a copy I'm not interested in even trying it.

I wasn't so much concerned about the software hosing the system as I was something else hosing the install such that I couldn't run the installer to regain an activation. I read nothing on superspeeds website that lead me to believe there was a way out of that standard software activation pitfall.

primocache might have the same problem, but I didn't infer it as very likely from the information available.

Furthermore, primocache seemed to have lifetime upgrades whereas I think superspeed was just (assumed minor/bugfix) updates to the version purchased...which I suppose might be the better deal provided I had any idea what that software cost.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

On superspeeds website I can see where I can download the trial, but if the software costs $900 a copy I'm not interested in even trying it.

I wasn't so much concerned about the software hosing the system as I was something else hosing the install such that I couldn't run the installer to regain an activation. I read nothing on superspeeds website that lead me to believe there was a way out of that standard software activation pitfall.

primocache might have the same problem, but I didn't infer it as very likely from the information available.

Furthermore, primocache seemed to have lifetime upgrades whereas I think superspeed was just (assumed minor/bugfix) updates to the version purchased...which I suppose might be the better deal provided I had any idea what that software cost.

No such problems with Primo. On most software in general, I've seldom had any problem if a system went south losing the boot/system disk and software installs, for reinstalling software. But it isn't a problem with Primo. Put it another way: I replaced the LGA-775 system with a skt-1155, and didn't bother "uninstalling" software from the old system. No problem.

I think SuperCache was about $80 for a single PC. Primo is $30 for one, or $80 for 3 PCs.

 

[velis]

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that Primo only supports write-back on the L1 cache. That makes Intel's Smart Response pretty much the only "cheap" solution if your workload isn't just movies and games.
Romex guys say they are working on this, but it might be tricky to support such a feature in software only. You never know what the OS does with disk before your driver loads... That's why Intel insists on hardware support (the right chipset) for its solution.

 

[PingSpike]

That's a good piece of information velis, it wasn't clear to me but when reading the primo FAQ I was starting to get that impression.

L1 is ram cache right?

 

[ashetos]

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that Primo only supports write-back on the L1 cache. That makes Intel's Smart Response pretty much the only "cheap" solution if your workload isn't just movies and games.
Romex guys say they are working on this, but it might be tricky to support such a feature in software only. You never know what the OS does with disk before your driver loads... That's why Intel insists on hardware support (the right chipset) for its solution.

I've heard the rumor that Intel Smart Response is really a software solution. There is evidence supporting that, for instance, in Linux you see both drives (HDD + SSD).

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I've heard the rumor that Intel Smart Response is really a software solution. There is evidence supporting that, for instance, in Linux you see both drives (HDD + SSD).

Here, I can only speculate, but my speculations are grounded in general economic behavior. Start with the old premise about "free markets" and "clearing" through demand-supply equilibrium. We lose perspective on the old classical economic model when we forget that the primary benefit of "free markets" has always been "competitive" markets and especially "perfect competition: no barriers to entry; many buyers AND MANY sellers.

But markets are not "moral" instruments; human behavior or greed does not facilitate benefits to society as a whole without at least an ideal of "perfect competition." With patent-law, we chose to depart somewhat from the open competition model by granting intellectual property rights, and a certain monopoly power through those rights. In order to surmount these "barriers," someone must come up with an alternative design which leaves those "rights" intact.

Intel is not a "perfect competitor;" it is a dominant firm, which has certain monopoly aspects. Similarly with M$. And in some respects, monopolies also may offer better "customer support" to maintain a customer base that would otherwise dwindle, since any barriers to entry are not locational (like the old pre-cell, pre-microwave telephone companies), and not "physical" in the sense of physical property ownership, and only a matter of intellectual property -- which can be surmounted by design and innovation -- new patents. Thus, after Windows, we have Linux and other options. With Intel, there is -- at least -- AMD, but several other possibilities.

So both Intel and Samsung have an incentive to provide "features" which only "seem" to work exclusively with their hardware. They're trying to send a message that their hardware has these exclusive features, but it doesn't.

Romex makes that abundantly clear. If Intel promotes ISRT as only exclusive to Z68 and later chipsets, or Samsung tells us you don't get RAPID for drives other than the 840 and 850 product lines, their understandable attempt at a "snow-job" melts and evaporates with the simple fact that you can have caching with an LGA-775 or old NVidia chipset, or an SSD other than Samsung.

 

[velis]

L1 is ram cache right?

Yes

I've heard the rumor that Intel Smart Response is really a software solution. There is evidence supporting that, for instance, in Linux you see both drives (HDD + SSD).

Even if it is, it's Intel's driver and Windows won't do anything with the drive that might change its working state before the driver is loaded and active. It dowsn't matter if true HW support is required or not. As pointed out by BonzaiDuck, Intel may have chosen compliant chipsets for marketing reasons.