# ISRT refuses to see my Samsung SM951 128GB M.2 drive



## RejZoR (Nov 28, 2015)

I've bought a speedy Samsung SM951 M.2 module (PCIe version that's using AHCI) to be used for HDD+SSD hybrid storage using Intel Rapid Storage Technology.

Basically ISRT only supports up to 64GB, the rest remains unused. But 64GB SM951 doesn't exist so this is what I got. The problem begins with Intel's sotware not even recognizing the drive for some weird reason. Windows sees it, UEFI BIOS sees it, I can manipulate the partitions and all, but I just can't see it listed in Intel Rapid Storage software. HDD is listed but not the M.2 module.

Before I had a 32GB SATA SSD and it was detected and listed. This one refuses to do that.

Is Intel X99 using a 3rd party controller for M.2 or something? I just can't seem to pair it for SSD caching using Intel RAID (ISRT).

So stupid, bought the drive specifically for this and now I can't use it. I do use it with eBoostr like I have before, but I'm experiencing bizarre system hangs/lockups and only thing that really changed since then is this M.2 module. Any ideas?


----------



## Jetster (Nov 28, 2015)

Did you try install ISRT directly from Intel? Double click the icon in the task bar?


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 28, 2015)

Yes I have. It's also strange that when I'm using normal storage mode AHCI (instead of RAID for ISRT) I see this in Device Manager:





For some reason my 2TB HDD is installed using Intel drivers, but the M.2 is apparently using standard SATA AHCI for some reason and not Intel driver. I'm guessing this is the reason why it's not listed in Rapid Storage software. But why do they advertise M.2 for ISRT then if it apparently doesn't work?





Apparently I found something and all I can say is FU Intel. At least make it clear that M.2 can't even fucking be used. Now I've basically wasted 100€ for a M.2 module that I have no use for.

https://communities.intel.com/thread/88408
http://www.win-raid.com/t829f16-No-...-and-SSHD-drives-show-up-as-regular-SATA.html

I understand that those drives connected to actual PCIe slots don't work this way, but one would assume M.2, despite using PCIe is wired differently and supported by the chipset. Apaprently not. This is retarded to the max. I've bought M.2 because it has insane performance compared to shitty SATA drives and now I'll have to sell this crap and buy a normal speedy SSD. Stupid.

I'd have to use a M.2 SATA module with shitty SATA speeds which would most likely be recognized by the ISRT, but not AHCI and NVMe modules. Right?

EDIT:
Is Samsung 850 Evo M.2 SATA any good? I know I'm restricted with SATA interface speeds then, but how is the rest?


----------



## erixx (Nov 28, 2015)

1) or it is Asus or it is the whole X99 family, I also have way more weirdness then I deserve, if you read me, you'll know. I was proud of my latest settings and OC, it worked well over a week, with multiple starts. Last night I wanted to game a little after dinner: again bios screen frozen... I started to tweak and tweak until I fell asleep... 
2) RAID: I had RAID last year but stopped using it, but I remember you could use windows software raid (Storage Spaces iirc). If it is not listed (the M2 drive) in Intels management tool, forget it. Herer, I am using everything drivers wise from Win10 install, except "unknown devices", like the chipset driver, and nothing else from Asus CD or website, I don't trust their QA processes... 
I have not done a hybrid system, mixing different buses and protocols with latest and greatest tech often has undesired SIDE-EFFECTS.... Think of people with SLI/XF and buying a M2 to learn their PCIE lanes get cut....


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 28, 2015)

Another confusing info for my Sabertooth X99 (taken from ASUS page):

*1 x M.2 Socket 3, graywith M Key, type 2242/2260/2280/22110 storage devices support (Support PCIE SSD only)*

Does this mean I can't stick a M.2 SATA module in the motherboard? F**king hell, so much variables NO ONE ever talks about.

No mentions there are three versions of M.2 modules (SATA, AHCI, NVMe), no mentions ISRT doesn't support AHCI and NVMe modules, no mentions about above specifics like PCIE only drives wtf?!


----------



## erixx (Nov 28, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Does this mean I can't stick a M.2 SATA module in the motherboard? F**king hell, so much variables NO ONE ever talks about.



I DID NOT SAY THAT TO NOT CALL YOU SILLY, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST QUESTION BEFORE BUYING! FEELING SORRY. RETURN IT, ASAP!


----------



## tabascosauz (Nov 28, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> I'd have to use a M.2 SATA module with shitty SATA speeds which would most likely be recognized by the ISRT, but not AHCI and NVMe modules. Right?
> 
> EDIT:
> Is Samsung 850 Evo M.2 SATA any good? I know I'm restricted with SATA interface speeds then, but how is the rest?



I would predict that the 850 EVO M.2 would be no different from the 2.5" version, which is pretty stellar in itself. Well, not XP941/SM951 kind of fast, but you get what I mean. I wonder if you could just buy one of those 64GB Sandisk drives (can't remember the exact line). They're pretty cheap nowadays.

If you want the PCIe speeds I guess you could keep the SM951 as a Windows drive? I dunno what you were on before the SM951.


----------



## erixx (Nov 28, 2015)

Rejzor, you could buy a cheap PCI-E adapter for the SM951.... SSD on PCIE is faster than SATA SSD


----------



## qubit (Nov 28, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Apparently I found something and all I can say is FU Intel. At least make it clear that M.2 can't even fucking be used. Now I've basically wasted 100€ for a M.2 module that I have no use for.
> 
> https://communities.intel.com/thread/88408
> http://www.win-raid.com/t829f16-No-...-and-SSHD-drives-show-up-as-regular-SATA.html
> ...


It sounds like the product isn't as described - can't be used in the way it's claimed - so you should be able to return it to the store for a full refund. Just make sure you supply the evidence in the fullest and clearest way possible so that they can't wriggle out of it.

If you bought it off a private individual, then you're likely out of luck.


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 28, 2015)

erixx said:


> Rejzor, you could buy a cheap PCI-E adapter for the SM951.... SSD on PCIE is faster than SATA SSD



I already have a motherboard with M.2 slot and a M.2 module that is using PCIe AHCI. I wouldn't benefit anything from buying a PCIe addin card.

I liked M.2 because it doesn't occupy my PCIe slots or slots in HDD bay (better airflow). That's why I've opted for speedy M.2 AHCI. But after looking at Sabertooth X99 specs, they say only PCIe SSD's are supported, meaning even if I buy M.2 SATA module, it won't work (apparently). Or would it? I don't want to buy another module and then find out it's not working again...

EDIT:
I can continue using eBoostr software, but I'm experiencing really bizarre system hangs and I'm suspecting this is the reason. It's more flexible than other solutions, but if it's hanging, that ain't good...


----------



## vega22 (Nov 28, 2015)

m2 sata is no faster than normal sata ssd :/

you want that sm951 in pcie mode to get the speeds which your m2 slot can not provide.

m2 sata/sata express should never of been a thing as it was instantly dead in the water with m2 pcie.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 28, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> I understand that those drives connected to actual PCIe slots don't work this way, but one would assume M.2, despite using PCIe is wired differently and supported by the chipset.


This is what happens when you assume things...
https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_X99/specifications/


			
				ASUS said:
			
		

> The PCIe x16_3 shares bandwidth with M.2 x4. When M.2 socket is occupied, the PCIe x16_3 slot will be disabled.


Which basically means that it's not attached to the PCH, nor could I find any mention on ASUS' site describing what you're trying to do. You know what they say about assuming.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 28, 2015)

marsey99 said:


> m2 sata is no faster than normal sata ssd :/
> 
> you want that sm951 in pcie mode to get the speeds which your m2 slot can not provide.
> 
> m2 sata/sata express should never of been a thing as it was instantly dead in the water with m2 pcie.



This + Caching is for noobs.


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 28, 2015)

No, M.2 AHCI (PCIe) works fine, it's what I'm using. SM951 is PCIe version. It works and it's ridiculously fast, but I can't use it with Intel Smart Response Technology (which is designed to pair your HDD and SSD drive into a hybrid caching RAID. Which gives you ability to use huge HDD with super fast SSD to boost performance of all data, not just system partition which is what you get when you install WIndows on small SSD and the rest on normal HDD.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 28, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> No, M.2 AHCI (PCIe) works fine, it's what I'm using. SM951 is PCIe version. It works and it's ridiculously fast, but I can't use it with Intel Smart Response Technology (which is designed to pair your HDD and SSD drive into a hybrid caching RAID. Which gives you ability to use huge HDD with super fast SSD to boost performance of all data, not just system partition which is what you get when you install WIndows on small SSD and the rest on normal HDD.


Except the part where nothing about your board seems to indicate that this can be done. Where did you learn that you could do this with your board?


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 28, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> This is what happens when you assume things...
> https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_X99/specifications/
> 
> Which basically means that it's not attached to the PCH, nor could I find any mention on ASUS' site describing what you're trying to do. You know what they say about assuming.



Yeah, but also no one explicitely says it's not connected. Either this is Sabertooth's specific design or they just do it this way on all boards and don't bother to say it. Whole ISRT point in the past was the use of M.2 modules, but granted, there were only M.2 SATA back then...


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 28, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Yeah, but also no one explicitely says it's not connected. Either this is Sabertooth's specific design or they just do it this way on all boards and don't bother to say it. Whole ISRT point in the past was the use of M.2 modules, but granted, there were only M.2 SATA back then...


So you're assuming that because it was an Intel board with an M.2 slot it would just work? Congratulations, next time do research before assuming something can just happen. 

Edit: The disk isn't formatted, correct? As I understand it, you can't accelerate with a M.2 that's already formatted. That's the only thing I can think of that would make it not show up but, I'm relatively confident that not going through the PCH has a lot of to do with it.


----------



## tabascosauz (Nov 28, 2015)

My understanding is that the inability to use PCIe caching is justified by the fact that at the end of the day, the target drive is still a HDD. Taking into account possibly severe latency since it's not a hardware solution, there's probably a good reason why caching SSDs are low end budget drives. Just because the SM951 is faster than SATA doesn't mean the caching would be that much faster than with a SATA drive.


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 28, 2015)

@Aquinus 
And you are the expert for everything or what? I'm not fucking dumb, but we are talking about crazy specifics here that aren't mentioned anywhere on the ASUS webpage (in a plain understandable way) or the motherboard manual. I've checked several reviews and pages and couldn't see any mentions of this "caveat". I know that external controllers (like the AsMedia, Marvell, Realtek and others) never fall within Intel functions, but last time I checked, M.2 support is native for X79 and X99 chipsets, it's not controlled by external 3rd party controller. It is part of the PCH, but since it's routed through the PCIe lanes, it's not recognized under IRST as data storage medium and as such fails to work under IRST. But hey, I realized that when I couldn't get the damn thing working. There is no way in knowing this without actually working with the hardware.

@tabascosauz
It is faster. A lot faster. Particularly when loading games where huge data is cached. With programs it's not so noticeable. And also write speed when building the cache. 32GB cache drive was a Sandisk's fork of USB thumbdrive. 500MB/s read with probably slightly lower IOPS and quite crappy write speed. SM951 has 2GB/s sequential, 600MB/s write and like 100.000 IOPS. Plus it's larger so it can cache more data. Even if I swap between few games, cache still isn't fully populated. Anyway, no matter how people call me stupid, I know caching works and I love it. 2TB storage with speeds of SSD for the price of highest end HDD. I have 2TB Samsung SSD's in my sight, but +700€ is still a bit much. Maybe 1-2 more years and prices should drop enough to grab one. Then I'll be using 100% SSD. Preferably as M.2 AHCI/NVMe and not as SATA...


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 28, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> And you are the expert for everything or what? I'm not fucking dumb, but we are talking about crazy specifics here that aren't mentioned anywhere on the ASUS webpage (in a plain understandable way) or the motherboard manual. I've checked several reviews and pages and couldn't see any mentions of this "caveat".


If you're so smart, why didn't you notice that the M.2 slot goes through the CPU according to the specs for your board? You whine without doing research.




I'm not claiming to know anything other than knowing how to read because a lot of other motherboards will actually say that the M.2 slot goes through the PCH like the Maximus VII Hero.


----------



## Pill Monster (Nov 28, 2015)

AthlonX2 said:


> Caching is for noobs.


This +1.


----------



## qubit (Nov 28, 2015)




----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 28, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> I understand that those drives connected to actual PCIe slots don't work this way, but one would assume M.2, despite using PCIe is wired differently and supported by the chipset. Apaprently not. This is retarded to the max.



I'm not sure why you'd assume this.  The entire idea of PCI-E 3.0 M.2 is to bypass the chipset, and the latencies and bottlenecks it creates.

As for the caching debate, it definitely does boost the speed of HHDs by a noticeable amount but it doesn't make the whole drive act like an SSD.  If you switch from one game to another often, like I do(still switching between GTA:V and Fallout 4 as well as a few Indie games) then the first time you play a different game, there is a good chance it isn't in the cache and can hitch.  This happens to be with both GTA:V and Fallout 4.  But after about 10 minutes of playing the hitching goes away.  Anyway, I do actually think SSD caching is nice to use though. I've started using PrimoCache.  It is $30, but has a free trial so you can try it if you want.  It has several advantages over RST.  The first big one being that you can use SSDs larger than 64GB.  The other one being that you can set the SSD to cache multiple hard drives if you have them.  The last being that the drives can be connected in any way to the system, so even if they are on different controllers, like on your system, you can still use the SSD to cache the HDD.


----------



## jsfitz54 (Nov 28, 2015)

Not sure if this helps but Samsung has a special NVMe driver for 950 Pro,  located here: http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/SSD/global/html/support/downloads.html


----------



## Pill Monster (Nov 28, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> I'm not sure why you'd assume this.  The entire idea of PCI-E 3.0 M.2 is to bypass the chipset, and the latencies and bottlenecks it creates.
> 
> As for the caching debate, it definitely does boost the speed of HHDs by a noticeable amount but it doesn't make the whole drive act like an SSD.  If you switch from one game to another often, like I do(still switching between GTA:V and Fallout 4 as well as a few Indie games) then the first time you play a different game, there is a good chance it isn't in the cache and can hitch.  This happens to be with both GTA:V and Fallout 4.  But after about 10 minutes of playing the hitching goes away.  Anyway, I do actually think SSD caching is nice to use though. I've started using PrimoCache.  It is $30, but has a free trial so you can try it if you want.  It has several advantages over RST.  The first big one being that you can use SSDs larger than 64GB.  The other one being that you can set the SSD to cache multiple hard drives if you have them.  The last being that the drives can be connected in any way to the system, so even if they are on different controllers, like on your system, you can still use the SSD to cache the HDD.


PrimoCache and FancyCache do not speed up drives, none of those apps do, they cache files in RAM. You're not acessing the drive you're acessing RAM. Windows does the exact same thing, I said this to you in the other thread.

If u want I can show you a screenshot right now of mapped files sitting in RAM.

If I was to make an educated guess I'd say the 64GB limit is because 64GB of RAM is all your system supports.

You're wasting your money mate.....that's my advice, take it or leave it.....


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 28, 2015)

Yeah, I know IRST it's limited to 64GB but SM951 doesn't come in smaller size so I figured I'll have the remaining 64GB as overprovisioning, extending the lifetime of the drive.

I currently regularly switch between 3 modern games (NS2:Combat, NS2 and CoD Black Ops 2) and they are all cached. When I change my gaming preference, games will re-cache by themselves. By using a dedicated install SSD I'd have to shuffle data around by hand. How is that better, I don't know... I mean, when cache is decently populated, cache/disk hit ratio is usually over 80% during regular PC usage. This means 80% of all read commands were performed from SSD and only 20% from actual HDD. While having 2TB of data storage available. Just a reminder, 2TB SSD costs over 700€. I've spent like 60€ for a cache that essentially gave me the same performance for everyday tasks. But hey, what do I know, right?

I might give PrimoCache a try. eBoostr is nice because it also allows exclusion of certain filetypes so they don't get populated in the cache like music, videos and other stuff that's sequential anyway and you don't really benefit from it other than wasting your cache space. But I think 120GB cache is causing problems to this app which essentially never was designed for this kind of use (even though it worked amazingly well with a 32GB cache). It's 30 bucks, I can deal with that.

@Pill Monster
This just shows you don't know what HDD+SSD hybrid cache is and how it works. And everyone is always so god damn smart about "how much it sucks" and they never actually tried it. PrimoCache is a block level caching software. It doesn't cache in RAM, it caches to SSD and then reads from it when apps request data. If data is cached of course. These caches are persistent and "survive" across system reboots. Meaning once it's populated, it gives significant boost for extended periods of time and is not just a one shot thing that makes low yields...


----------



## Pill Monster (Nov 28, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> @Pill Monster
> This just shows you don't know what HDD+SSD hybrid cache is and how it works. And everyone is always so god damn smart about "how much it sucks" and they never actually tried it. PrimoCache is a block level caching software. It doesn't cache in RAM, it caches to SSD and then reads from it when apps request data. If data is cached of course. *These caches are persistent and "survive" across system reboots.* Meaning once it's populated, it gives significant boost for extended periods of time and is not just a one shot thing that makes low yields...


Bullshit, nothing in RAM survives after a reboot, that's how cache is cleared.

If you wanna get condescending, so can I.  You have no idea how Windows Memory Management works, read Russunovich's Winternals then come back and we'll talk about it...

Firstly Primo Cache/Fancy Cache and caching on Hybrid SSD's have nothing to with each other.
Primo Cache is software which loads users files from any drive into RAM, just like Superfetch does, 

It can be used on any OS regardless of the type of drive, in fact the the slower the better. It does not cache files on the drive. 

The difference between Primo Cache and OS file caching is Primo preloads whatever u want whereas Windows caches when the file a acessed.. 

Hybrid SSD's are mechanical HDD's with a small flash memory cache.  ISRT caches a few prefetch files on the Hybrid's Non Volatile cache which allows persistence over a reboot. That is all. 

An SSD is basically the same as the cache on a Hybrid Drive, but a million times bigger, so it should be clear that Primo Cache doesn't help where SSD's are concerned.


With windows caching u have to acess the file before it's cached.

All other files are cached in RAM if you think otherwise you're only fooling youself, and being fooled.


Hell it says this right on Intel's site...


> *SSD caching reduces the time it takes to load commonly used programs, but there is a limit to the benefits. If the data is already stored in the computer's RAM, then SSD caching does not improve load times at all since the computer's RAM is much faster than even the fastest SSD drive currently on the market. The main advantage of SSD cache comes into play when booting into Windows or when a program is run for the first time after a reboot or power off.*


https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/How-it-Works-Intel-SSD-Caching-148/


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 28, 2015)

Oh my freaking god, the ignorance is just monumental. But hey, I have no clue despite the fact that I've just setup a hybrid HDD+SSD system using PrimoCache. I guess I'm just imagining things...




 
L1 cache means system RAM (which I'm not using at all that's why it says 0 under Free Cache), L2 cache is permanent cache which is using SSD drive (dedicated 100GB). Cache tasks on the left are partitions designated to be cached, the L2 right panel is the drive dedicated to SSD caching. Still so determined that I'm wrong and you're right? Sorry, but I'm using SSD caching for long enough to know my shit.


----------



## erixx (Nov 28, 2015)

Sorry, I searched some stuff I thought usefull for the M2 stick issues. Didn't know the party is now about caching ; )
SSD Guides on ROG site (were usefull for me when I bought of those)
All the options: http://rog.asus.com/308552014/label...a-and-sata-express-the-differences-explained/
Small differences: http://rog.asus.com/313352014/labels/guides/buying-an-m-2-ssd-how-to-tell-which-is-which/

Btw: I just checked my X99-S manual and all the time it speaks of M.2 it never says which mode it is. But the product website states the same as yours: "PCIE SSD".


----------



## Pill Monster (Nov 28, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Oh my freaking god, the ignorance is just monumental. But hey, I have no clue despite the fact that I've just setup a hybrid HDD+SSD system using PrimoCache. I guess I'm just imagining things...
> 
> View attachment 69534
> L1 cache means system RAM (which I'm not using at all that's why it says 0 under Free Cache), L2 cache is permanent cache which is using SSD drive (dedicated 100GB). Cache tasks on the left are partitions designated to be cached, the L2 right panel is the drive dedicated to SSD caching. Still so determined that I'm wrong and you're right? Sorry, but I'm using SSD caching for long enough to know my shit.


Jesus man L1 is not system RAM, it's CPU cache.  So yes I guess that makes you wrong. Happy?
I'd blame the software.




So there's no doubt what windows actually does, here is the proof.
This a shot of my system after rebooting and opening up PanzerCorps then closing it again. The game is not running. You see the cached amount im TM? Well that's 700MB of files from Panzer Corps plus a few system files..

The shot below is everything currently sitting in RAM, mapped files are files on the drive which have been accessed or used by a process and cached. This process here happens to be Panzer Corps.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 28, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> Bullshit, nothing in RAM survives after a reboot, that's how cache is cleared.



You should look at hos SSD caching works.  SSDs are not volatile, so the cache data is persistent across reboots.



Pill Monster said:


> Primo Cache is software which loads users files from any drive into RAM, just like Superfetch does



PimoCache uses either the RAM or an SSD, it has the option for both.  Superfetch doesn't help with things like game loading, because games are usually considered too big to cache, so Superfetch ignores them.  IRST and Primocache use SSDs to cache large things, and they do it in a way that is persistant.  Superfetch won't help with boot times, for example, IRST and PrimoCache will.



Pill Monster said:


> Jesus man L1 is not system RAM, it's CPU cache. So yes I guess that makes you wrong. Happy?



OMG, why comment on something if you have no clue what you are talking about?  Primocache is a cache hierarchy.  In Primocache L1 cache is RAM and L2 cache is SSD.  L1 and L2 and L3 does not just have to refer to the CPU cache, it just stands for Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3.  It is used in a lot of different ways, in many different cache hierarchies.  GPUs have L1 and L2 cache too.  Anything with a cache generally uses L1 and L2 terms.  Even the SSHDs from Seagate and WD use an L1 and L2 cache.  The standard 64MB cache that is normally on all drives is considered L1 and the 8GB SSD is considered the L2.


----------



## Pill Monster (Nov 28, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> You should look at hos SSD caching works.  SSDs are not volatile, so the cache data is persistent across reboots.


You should take some reading lessons before posting again.

Nowhere did I say SSD's were volatile I said RAM is volatile, I also said clearly SSD's were NOT Volatile,  so stop talking shit.



Pill Monster said:


> nothing in *RAM* survives after a reboot, that's how cache is cleared.





Pill Monster said:


> ISRT caches a few prefetch files on the *Hybrid's Non Volatile cache which allows persistence over a reboot.*








newtekie1 said:


> PimoCache uses either the RAM or an SSD, it has the option for both.


Yes, and? You're repeating what I said already. 



newtekie1 said:


> Superfetch doesn't help with things like game loading, because games are usually considered too big to cache, so Superfetch ignores them.


Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Anything can be cached into RAM the only limit is how much RAM you have, Superfetch can cache as much as it wants., so can Primo, that's why Primo has a 64GB limit.



newtekie1 said:


> IRST and Primocache use SSDs to cache large things, and they do it in a way that is persistant.  Superfetch won't help with boot times, for example, IRST and PrimoCache will.


No, Primo does not make anything persistent, no software does. 
Persistence depends on the type of cache memory, not the algorythms used.
You obviously think anything Primo caches into RAM is persistent, wrong again.


I never said Superfetch helps with boot times either, I said Primo Cache works like Superfetch in that it caches files into RAM, which it does.  I never denied it could also cache to Hybrid flash so stop fabricating stuff.





newtekie1 said:


> OMG, why comment on something if you have no clue what you are talking about?  Primocache is a cache hierarchy.  In Primocache L1 cache is RAM and L2 cache is SSD.  L1 and L2 and L3 does not just have to refer to the CPU cache, it just stands for Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3.  It is used in a lot of different ways, in many different cache hierarchies.  GPUs have L1 and L2 cache too.  Anything with a cache generally uses L1 and L2 terms.  Even the SSHDs from Seagate and WD use an L1 and L2 cache.  The standard 64MB cache that is normally on all drives is considered L1 and the 8GB SSD is considered the L2.


Piss off mate, you're completely full of it...... read below, and welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 28, 2015)

You are arguing with newtekie using fun parts of the quote feature. No offense mate but did you even read his posts? I thought it was pretty clear he was talking about SSDs the entire time he never once confused persistence and ram or vice versa. You are literally correcting him on things he was not wrong about. You are simply wording it a different way and quoting him out of context.

The real issue here is WHY are you doing this? Threads like this provide a real value to the community and if you have a problem with a member (which I am going to imply given the ridiculous level of targeting that is oh so apparent in this thread) it would be more beneficial to report him or PM him or simply not reply. It takes away from the focus and the information. Not to mention its tiresome. Even if you were right it would have made sense a long time ago to simply put your post into thoughtful bullet points and leave it for the OP to decide whos judgement to trust instead of shitting all over a thread that could be beneficial to members seeking such information.

For shame for literally taking away from this community and thread in literally every possible way in the last few posts.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 28, 2015)

You guys are arguing in circles. Simple fact is that @newtekie1 and @RejZoR are right about this one. PrimoCache appears to use a kernel mode driver to intercept I/O requests from the disk. This means at this point, Windows file cache has already been missed and is going forward to get the data from the disk. Primo is simply caching to the SSD and utilizing it when the I/O requests fall through to the disk. It sits between Windows file cache and your spinning disk as a kernel mode driver. It's not a replacement for Windows file cache, it's just another level below it.

@Pill Monster : I would stop fighting this one as you're not only wrong, you're becoming belligerent. I would rather you concede that you misunderstood what they were talking about and leave it at that because your posts clearly indicate that you're missing the point that they're making.

Simple fact is that the cache levels in PrimoCache are not the same thing as CPU cache. It's just confusing because Primo used the same names which only makes matters worse. I would actually read up on the very thing you're saying it isn't...

https://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-cache/term-l2cache.html


----------



## Pill Monster (Nov 28, 2015)

Solaris17 said:


> You are arguing with newtekie using fun parts of the quote feature. No offense mate but did you even read his posts? I thought it was pretty clear he was talking about SSDs the entire time he never once confused persistence and ram or vice versa. You are literally correcting him on things he was not wrong about. You are simply wording it a different way and quoting him out of context.


No, I'm having 2 discussions with 2 people about different types of caching. Primo with new Tekkie and Hybrid with Rezjor... This topic stemmed from another thread with Newtekkie which is why it prob appears out of context. If anyone is quoting out of context it's NewTekkie.

I'm jumping out here anyway..  waste of time.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Nov 28, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> No, I'm having 2 discussions with 2 people about different types of caching. Primo with new Tekkie and Hybrid with Rezjor... This topic stemmed from another thread with Newtekkie which is why it prob appears out of context. If anyone is quoting out of context it's NewTekkie.
> 
> I'm jumping out here anyway..  waste of time.



You're wrong man and your going about the right way to get yourself an infraction, go and actually READ the replies to you and you will see that you are talking about something completely different to the OP... good move walking away cause I can't see it ending good for you if you carry on down the road you are going... the threads been completely derailed because of you.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 29, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> You should take some reading lessons before posting again.
> 
> Nowhere did I say SSD's were volatile I said RAM is volatile, I also said clearly SSD's were NOT Volatile, so stop talking shit.



I should take reading leasons?  You can't even read how Primocache works.



Pill Monster said:


> Yes, and? You're repeating what I said already.



No, you seem to think Pimocache only use RAM.



Pill Monster said:


> Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
> Anything can be cached into RAM the only limit is how much RAM you have, Superfetch can cache as much as it wants., so can Primo, that's why Primo has a 64GB limit.



Superfetch is limited to a portion of your RAM, at most 50%.  Most people don't have the 128GB of RAM required to cache all the textures files for GTA:V, forget GTA:V and Fallout4.

Also, again you fail at reading, Primocache has no 64GB limit.  That is a IRST limit.  Try doing at least _a little_ research on the topic.



Pill Monster said:


> No, Primo does not make anything persistent, no software does.
> Persistence depends on the type of cache memory, not the algorythms used.
> You obviously think anything Primo caches into RAM is persistent, wrong again.



I never said things cached into RAM are persistent. Primocache uses SSD/s!  What is hard to understand about this?  SSDs are not volatile, therefor the cache is persistent.  So, yes, there is software that makes the cache persistent.  Both IRST and Primocache do.



Pill Monster said:


> I never said Superfetch helps with boot times either, I said Primo Cache works like Superfetch in that it caches files into RAM, which it does. I never denied it could also cache to Hybrid flash so stop fabricating stuff.



No, I said that the alternatives COULD.  That is the benefit of using them, and why Superfetch isn't as good.

You actually did deny that Primocache could cache to SSDs creating a hybrid setup.  Remember when you said Primocache, or any software, couldn't make any persistent cache?  Yeah, that is denying Primocache can use SSDs. 

Persistence depends on the type of cache memory. - You Said that, and it is correct.
I never denied it could also cache to Hybrid flash. - You said that again, though it caches to SSD, not exactly hybrid flash, but close enough.
Primo does not make anything persistent, no software does. - You again.  But see how this statement is directly contradicted by the previous 2...

Can you see how this makes it clear you have no clue what your talking about?



Pill Monster said:


> Piss off mate, you're completely full of it...... read below, and welcome to my ignore list.



So, you put up the cache heirachy for the Intel Haswell processor.  Good for you. Do you believe that the only thing that uses cache is the CPU?  I don't believe anyone could be that dense.


----------



## qubit (Nov 29, 2015)

@newtekie1 Thanks for mentioning PrimoCache which I'd not heard of.

While I've got a fast SSD as my boot drive, all my data resides on a 4TB WD Green, including my Steam games, so that obviously means slow loading times, which is a pain that this utility should help to alleviate. I know that Steam now also allows individual games to be stored in different places, so I could instead put a game I'm currently playing such as Black Ops 3, onto the SSD and enjoy max performance. Decisions! Decisions!


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 29, 2015)

qubit said:


> @newtekie1 Thanks for mentioning PrimoCache which I'd not heard of.
> 
> While I've got a fast SSD as my boot drive, all my data resides on a 4TB WD Green, including my Steam games, so that obviously means slow loading times, which is a pain that this utility should help to alleviate. I know that Steam now also allows individual games to be stored in different places, so I could instead put a game I'm currently playing such as Black Ops 3, onto the SSD and enjoy max performance. Decisions! Decisions!



I actually got it so I could put a 128GB cache on my server's RAID-5.  It uses WD Red, which are 5400RPM drives(WD doesn't officially list the RPM, but most agree it is 5400RPM).  The RAID-5 is fine for sequential read/write, easily capable of maxing out my gigabit network connection.  But when I start doing multiple read/writes at the same time, really hammering the array with random data, it starts to choke.  The 128GB cache really helps.


----------



## Pill Monster (Nov 29, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> You guys are arguing in circles. Simple fact is that @newtekie1 and @RejZoR are right about this one. PrimoCache appears to use a kernel mode driver to intercept I/O requests from the disk. This means at this point, Windows file cache has already been missed and is going forward to get the data from the disk. Primo is simply caching to the SSD and utilizing it when the I/O requests fall through to the disk. It sits between Windows file cache and your spinning disk as a kernel mode driver. It's not a replacement for Windows file cache, it's just another level below it.
> 
> @Pill Monster : I would stop fighting this one as you're not only wrong, you're becoming belligerent. I would rather you concede that you misunderstood what they were talking about and leave it at that because your posts clearly indicate that you're missing the point that they're making.
> 
> ...


My words are getting seriously twisted here.....that doesn't make me wrong mate. That is what makes me really annoyed.

I never said CPU cache is the only type of cache, and you know I don't believe that anyway because you and had this discussion, remember I told u CPU cache is not the only type of cache. My point was in the hierarchy L1 is CPU cache.... 

Primo Cache is still a waste of time and money. Anyway I'm dropping it so lets all move on.....


----------



## erixx (Nov 29, 2015)

Maybe we (I really mean I) should reread the original post. Does his SSD stick match or not his mobo?


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 29, 2015)

SSD (Samsung SM951) works fine, I did that much research. I didn't expect absolute lack of support for it for the Intel Smart Response Technology however because it's going through PCIe lane and not SATA. Meaning I'm not able to pair it with the HDD to boost performance through caching. I'm sure it could be done and it would make sense because of insane speeds these M.2 drives can output, but at the moment it just doesn't work and you have to use a software solution. It may just as well happen that Intel will wait for so long that SSD caching won't make much sense anymore (it does now, but once high capacity SSD's get cheaper, it won't make any sense anymore). For now, I still believe it does.

I was using eBoostr before and it worked fine, but it has some quirks with avast! where it just caches stuff that I don't need just because avast! scanned the files and eBoostr adds it tot he SSD cache. It gets thrown out eventually, but it's unnecessary work done on SSD. PrimoCache is an interesting alternative. Has it's own quirks like not being immune to defragmentation since it works on block level and I can't exclude certain files from being cached like in eBoostr, but for now it seems to work fine, without any system hangs. Will test with it some more...


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 29, 2015)

I dont know why you would want to waste a m.2 and the performance they hold by using it to cache a HDD. Caching is dead it was only around to satisfy the consumer that couldn't afford to buy high capacity SSDs in the early days.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 29, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> My words are getting seriously twisted here.....that doesn't make me wrong mate. That is what makes me really annoyed.
> 
> I never said CPU cache is the only type of cache, and you know I don't believe that anyway because you and had this discussion, remember I told u CPU cache is not the only type of cache. My point was in the hierarchy L1 is CPU cache....
> 
> Primo Cache is still a waste of time and money. Anyway I'm dropping it so lets all move on.....



Again, you seem to think that the CPU cache hierarchy is the only cache hierarchy.  I've never seen someone directly contradict themselves so many times in such short statements.

First you say you never said CPU cache is the only type of cache(which I don't believe you ever did actually), then on the EXACT SAME LINE OF TEXT you said L1 is CPU cache...

Sorry, you're 100% wrong.  In the Primocache heirachy L1 is system RAM, and L2 is SSD. No one is twisting your words, you're just full of crap.


----------



## 95Viper (Nov 29, 2015)

At OP:  You may want to use that Samsung SM951 M.2 as an OS drive.
Make sure you have the latest bios and have the bios settings right.

How to Install Windows on an M.2 SSD SM951 or XP941

How to set up your M.2 Solid State Drive SSD Z97 

Some info here; and, the comments at the end may be of help:  Samsung XP941 & Plextor PX-G256 M6e M.2 Qualification

How to install Windows 7/8.1/10 on the Samsung XP941 / SM951 SSD


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 29, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Sorry, you're 100% wrong. In the Primocache heirachy L1 is system RAM, and L2 is SSD. No one is twisting your words, you're just full of crap.





Pill Monster said:


> My point was in the hierarchy L1 is CPU cache....


@Pill Monster : Read this before posting again, please. The terms newtekie are using are specific to this software. It's not talking about any cache level except for its own. I'm getting really tired of repeating myself...
https://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-cache/term-l2cache.html


			
				PrimoCache said:
			
		

> This topic gives a detailed explanation of level-2 cache. As you may know, PrimoCache implements a two-level caching architecture consisting of level-1 cache and level-2 cache. Level-1 cache is composed of physical memory while level-2 typically resides on a solid-state drive or flash drive. The purpose of level-2 cache is to increase the read speed of traditional mechanical hard disks.


----------



## Pill Monster (Nov 29, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Again, you seem to think that the CPU cache hierarchy is the only cache hierarchy.  I've never seen someone directly contradict themselves so many times in such short statements.


I would appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about what I think, and if you're going to accuse me of contradicting myself, at least have the decency to quote me.

There is only *1* Cache Hierarchy. The "Hierarchy" is every level of cache on the platform, it always starts with CPU which is Level 1 (L1) and steps down from there, L1, L2, L3, L4, RAM, Drive Cache and so on, like a chain. Fastest to slowest.



newtekie1 said:


> First you say you say you never said CPU cache is the only type of cache(which I don't believe you ever did actually), then on the EXACT SAME LINE OF TEXT you said L1 is CPU cache...


 Of course CPU cache isn't the only type of cache, I'm not that stupid. Ask Aquinus about the discussion he and I had a while back....  Ironically my argument to him was that exact point....that there is more than one type of cache.



newtekie1 said:


> Sorry, you're 100% wrong.  In the Primocache heirachy L1 is system RAM, and L2 is SSD. No one is twisting your words, you're just full of crap.



OK, so I'm 100% wrong because of what u see in Primo Cache?
If that's the argument you're standing on, I was wrong about you twisting my words, it's more a case of you not understanding the OS fundamentals. And I don't mean that to sound condescending in any way at all.

As I said above, L1 is CPU cache, there is no other type of L1.  It doesn't matter what you see in PrimoCache, it's not correct, particularly since the drive is connected as part of a platform.

Anyone who knows Windows will tell you caching software is snake oil - to quote what someone posted earlier :"caching is for noobs". I could show you Primo Cache is wrong from reliable sources like Microsoft, but I'm not sure you'd be convinced.

Feel free to reply, however I'm not taking this discussion any further with you....sorry.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 29, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> I would appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about what I think, and if you're going to accuse me of contradicting myself, at least have the decency to quote me.
> 
> There is only *1* Cache Hierarchy. The "Hierarchy" is every level of cache on the platform, it always starts with CPU which is Level 1 (L1) and steps down from there, L1, L2, L3, L4, RAM, Drive Cache and so on, like a chain. Fastest to slowest.
> 
> ...


Once again, you're not reading or doing any research on the software that you're talking about. Your ignorance is beyond astonishing and your back-peddling is pissing me off. I have a lot of things I want to say right now, but they're all going to land me infractions. Simple fact is that your ignorance doesn't make you right and the point you have been making has no proof and is merely anecdotal.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 29, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> I would appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about what I think, and if you're going to accuse me of contradicting myself, at least have the decency to quote me.


I did quote you, I quoted your entire post, including the line of text where the second half directly contradicts the first. Perhaps it is time you go back to grade school and learn to read, though it probably wouldn't help much since you seem completely incapable of comprehending new information.



Pill Monster said:


> There is only *1* Cache Hierarchy.





Pill Monster said:


> I never said CPU cache is the only type of cache


Are you really that dense.  Literally one post apart from you, completely contradicting yourself.  No one can be this dumb...

I will say it one last time.  There are multiple cache hierarchies in a computer system.  The storage hierarchy is separate from the CPU.  The normal cache on the drive(even SSDs have this) is the L1 cache in the storage hierarchy, the 8GB MLC SSD is consider the L2.  In the Primocache hierarchy system RAM is L1 and SSD/Flash is L2.  In the GPU hierarchy there is an L1 and often an L2 on the GPU, and the VRAM is the next level after that, usually L3.


Pill Monster said:


> OK, so I'm 100% wrong because of what u see in Primo Cache?
> As I said above, L1 is CPU cache, there is no other type of L1.


No, you are 100% wrong because you are still arguing that the CPU is the only thing that can have an L1 cache.

OMG, what is that?!  Is that a GPU block diagram? Is that L1 and L2 cache listed there?!  How is that possible? Pill Monster says that can't happen! The CPU is the only thing that can have an L1 cache.  He knows all!  There is no way he could possible be wrong!  This breaks the laws of computing! The world is going to end!!!!1!!!


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 29, 2015)

Arguing how PrimoCache doesn't use SSD and I'm enjoying blazing fast game load times using SSD. I don't think I need or miss ISRT anymore. Plus it gives me some more insight what's happening with the cache and from checking the specs, PrimoCache even supports TRIM, something that I know isn't supported in ISRT.


----------



## Frick (Nov 29, 2015)

Communication is so fascinating (especially when Pill Monster is involved).

PrimoCache sound really interesting, might have to look it up.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 29, 2015)

One or two of you seem to enjoy once again completely hijacking a thread and shifting the emphasis to personal arguments containing insults, so I will say this just this once, Stop it now and get back to discussing the specifics of the Op, anymore of this crap and my patience will have abandoned me for good, gentlemen......... take it to PM!!! ...... thank you.


----------



## Pill Monster (Nov 30, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> You guys are arguing in circles. Simple fact is that @newtekie1 and @RejZoR are right about this one. PrimoCache appears to use a kernel mode driver to intercept I/O requests from the disk. This means at this point, Windows file cache has already been missed and is going forward to get the data from the disk. Primo is simply caching to the SSD and utilizing it when the I/O requests fall through to the disk. It sits between Windows file cache and your spinning disk as a kernel mode driver. It's not a replacement for Windows file cache, it's just another level below it.
> 
> @Pill Monster : I would stop fighting this one as you're not only wrong, you're becoming belligerent. I would rather you concede that you misunderstood what they were talking about and leave it at that because your posts clearly indicate that you're missing the point that they're making.
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Hey man I totally missed the last part of this post yesterday, I wish I'd seen it but I was getting pretty frustrated and prob skipped it.

What you say could well be true, it may be able to cache to SSD as well, however that makes my point even more valid.

Windows already caches files to RAM, this is why I posted the screenshot yesterday with memory mapped files from Panzer Corps displayed. Those are cached files sitting in physical RAM, after opening Panzer Corps then closing it again.
It's a rough example, but one I thought was clear... Windows will keep on caching to RAM until it either runs out of space or room is needed for higher priority pages. Cache doesn't count against the system Commit Charge.

So instead of just doing the same job as Windows, Primo actually does a worse job because it's caching to SSD when Windows is already caching the files to RAM. Hence the snakeoil.

Primo has been around for years...I've been involved in a few discussions regarding it's effectiveness.  I can even link you to Guru3D where Hilbert eventually chimed in and agreed it was no better than Windows' own caching.



Tbh I'm starting to think there's something wrong with my communication skills.....I can't figure out exactly what though.  I wish I knew....seriously.



Using spoiler to avoid thread hijacking.


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 30, 2015)

Oh my god. OH MY GOD. You have to populate RAM cache on EVERY system reboot. SSD cache is ready at any time. Why do people buy SSD drives if you can have HDD and it's anyway all cached to RAM? See, that logic doesn't float for long.

And while I have 32GB of RAM, most users have only like 8GB. Not enough to cache 2-3 modern games entirely and still have all the RAM available. With SSD cache, you can. I really don't understand what's so difficult to understand about SSD caching. It's a HDD that becomes nearly as fast as SSD. For lower price and higher capacity with limitation that it doesn't work straight away like SSD, but it needs 1 or 2 runs of the app first and then it's boosted permanently.


----------



## squeezehat (Dec 1, 2015)

He always talks about B when everybody else talks about A.

Also memory mapped files don't mean files that are cached. A memory mapped file means a file that is loaded into memory by addressing it like addressing memory - or modified/saved, if you write to the mapped area.


----------

