Should i buy primocache?

[S2G-Unit]

5. Upgrade to 64GB system RAM

Exactly where do you "feel" the need for speed on your PC? General use, or specific situations. A ramdisk for internet temps makes any browsing experience very snappy, and saves SSD thrashing. Booting into windows 0,5 second faster is a once-in-a-rare time event, whereas what you are doing all day makes a difference.

Just overall system speed, opening folders, programs I need for work/business. I did notice and really did enjoy the upgrade from a 860 EVO to the 990 Pro.

 

[Mussels]

A ramdisk for internet temps makes any browsing experience very snappy,

that's what the write cache is doing, since it can read from the cache and un-delete (Or never even write) at times, and you do feel it when it's working

 

[chrcoluk]

I have brought 3 licenses now, but whats interesting is the license only seems to update its status on a reboot, hibernate/sleep doesnt update it. So the trial could be run for a very long time.

 

[Mussels]

I have brought 3 licenses now, but whats interesting is the license only seems to update its status on a reboot, hibernate/sleep doesnt update it. So the trial could be run for a very long time.

There are always exploits to be ran with any software, but lets not cover that here.

 

[chrcoluk]

I disabled the flush on sleep option, noticed it seemed to flush on wakeup, rather than when going to sleep (either that or it doesnt update until after wakeup).

This dropped me down to around 50% writes.

 

[JLBENEDICT]

I bought this a long while back...
Debating on whether its useful here in 2023, with cheap 2TB nvme drives under $100.

 

[Mussels]

I bought this a long while back...
Debating on whether its useful here in 2023, with cheap 2TB nvme drives under $100.

moreso, those cheap drives have lower TBW than many old drives

 

[Belfaborac]

I've been reading this thread with great interest, as I've just upgraded to 64GB and also picked up PrimoCache and PrimoRamdisk. In regards to PrimoCache I'm hoping Mussels and lexluthermiester might give me some advice on how to best set it up, since you guys seem to have tested and used it more than any others I've come across.

The PC is a general purpose, gaming and media server machine with a total of 7 M.2 drives, 4 SSDs and 2 mechanical hard drives. OS+programs on one M.2, games on 4 M.2s, media (movies, series, etc) on 2 HDDs + 2 SSDs + 1 M.2 and then I use the remaining M.2 for downloads and as a temp drive for various programs. The last 2 SSDs are used for "incidental" and permanent storage of bits and bobs and shouldn't really need extra cache.

I have two main questions really:

1) Does it matter if the game drives are cached singly or together?

2) I assume there is little to no point in caching the media drives, given that they have "write once, read often" workloads?

As of now I'm thinking a 2GB write cache for the OS, 12GB for the game drives (which I hope can use one cache) and 8GB for the work/download drive. Along with the 8GB RAMdisk that should be 30GB and give me 34GB free memory.

Does this sound reasonable, or should I think differently?

 

[Shrek]

Primocache is $30; for $40 I got a 2TB SSD

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I've been reading this thread with great interest, as I've just upgraded to 64GB and also picked up PrimoCache and PrimoRamdisk. In regards to PrimoCache I'm hoping Mussels and lexluthermiester might give me some advice on how to best set it up, since you guys seem to have tested and used it more than any others I've come across.

The PC is a general purpose, gaming and media server machine with a total of 7 M.2 drives, 4 SSDs and 2 mechanical hard drives. OS+programs on one M.2, games on 4 M.2s, media (movies, series, etc) on 2 HDDs + 2 SSDs + 1 M.2 and then I use the remaining M.2 for downloads and as a temp drive for various programs. The last 2 SSDs are used for "incidental" and permanent storage of bits and bobs and shouldn't really need extra cache.

I have two main questions really:

1) Does it matter if the game drives are cached singly or together?

2) I assume there is little to no point in caching the media drives, given that they have "write once, read often" workloads?

As of now I'm thinking a 2GB write cache for the OS, 12GB for the game drives (which I hope can use one cache) and 8GB for the work/download drive. Along with the 8GB RAMdisk that should be 30GB and give me 34GB free memory.

Does this sound reasonable, or should I think differently?

After going nvme I ditched primo at your point you won't see much difference tbh.

 

[Belfaborac]

A bit late to the ball there mate, given that the programs have been bought already. I guess you'll simply have to take my word for it when I say I actually gave it a modicum of thought before splurging.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

A bit late to the ball there mate, given that the programs have been bought already. I guess you'll simply have to take my word for it when I say I actually gave it a modicum of thought before splurging.

I still own it too, and likely bought it for similar "wtf-not" reasons, good luck with your adventures.
So to help better.

1 yes cache the game drives separate for best performance.

2 hell no don't cache Media drives they won't benefit you.

Give it time too, it takes a while to build up effective caches it's worth choosing to store the cached data on shut(phones damnit) down too, it slows shut downs and boots but makes the cache more worthwhile.

 

[Belfaborac]

It wasn't really a WTF-not purchase decision, but WTH.

Thanks for the advice though, much appreciated. One follow-up question however: given that separate caches for each game drive will mean ~2GB cache size per drive, how will that pan out vs an 8GB unified cache?

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

It wasn't really a WTF-not purchase decision, but WTH.

Thanks for the advice though, much appreciated. One follow-up question however: given that separate caches for each game drive will mean ~2GB cache size per drive, how will that pan out vs an 8GB unified cache?

That's what I meant I'm just more sweary .

I have to be honest I said separate for the reason of cache retention, it will work more effectively individually and I think from a caching pov will give fractionally Bett performance.

 

[Mussels]

I've been reading this thread with great interest, as I've just upgraded to 64GB and also picked up PrimoCache and PrimoRamdisk. In regards to PrimoCache I'm hoping Mussels and lexluthermiester might give me some advice on how to best set it up, since you guys seem to have tested and used it more than any others I've come across.

The PC is a general purpose, gaming and media server machine with a total of 7 M.2 drives, 4 SSDs and 2 mechanical hard drives. OS+programs on one M.2, games on 4 M.2s, media (movies, series, etc) on 2 HDDs + 2 SSDs + 1 M.2 and then I use the remaining M.2 for downloads and as a temp drive for various programs. The last 2 SSDs are used for "incidental" and permanent storage of bits and bobs and shouldn't really need extra cache.

I have two main questions really:

1) Does it matter if the game drives are cached singly or together?

2) I assume there is little to no point in caching the media drives, given that they have "write once, read often" workloads?

As of now I'm thinking a 2GB write cache for the OS, 12GB for the game drives (which I hope can use one cache) and 8GB for the work/download drive. Along with the 8GB RAMdisk that should be 30GB and give me 34GB free memory.

Does this sound reasonable, or should I think differently?

1. It depends on your usage - since the cache prefers small files i'd say shared, since it'll cache all the little things from both long before filling up. With a fast drive it may not be worth it.
With two caches and gaming, you're guaranteeing 50% of the cache will never be used at any given time, instead of being based on your usage.
Remember that windows will also cache things for you, so a smaller primocache to collect files from both still has windows doing it's own thing in the background.

2. None at all, although a write buffer may help if they're slow to write to. I do torrent some files onto my SN730 SSD, and i use the write cache to make sure it's buffered and minimise the wear.
That's more something you can fix in a program with preallocation, larger write buffers and so on... but clearly theres some limits to that like below with my C: drives reduced writes from just using a web browser.


I run 2GB write on the C: with a 60 second timer, and i did run a read cache on the games drive(s) but stopped doing that since windows 11 is doing incredibly well on the caching these days

53.1GB of my RAM is filled with cached content - i've only played borderlands 2 and techpowerup today.
Unlike primocache i can't control what's in the cache, but it can also free up instantly as needed.


Let me quit some programs and get a better idle usage screenshot and see if it fills it up with cached content quickly.


edit:

So this high *windows* cache usage is because the systems had 22 hours of uptime. Enough for windows to cache things and keep them while primocache will load em back up right away after booting.
It's the difference between repeat tasks that session being cached, and repeat tasks from LAST session being cached


63% writes on the C: drive is still amazing to see, anywhere from 33-50% reduction depending on the day (and things like browser usage)
Pointed out the deferred blocks to show it's not content in RAM waiting to be written, but actual savings.

 

[Belfaborac]

Thanks a lot Mussels, that's extremely helpful - if a somewhat less positive spin than I would ideally have hoped. Still, I have the programs (it turned out already owned PC from years ago, no fortune spent) so I may as well put them to use and see how things pan out.

I'll shamelessly copy your setup for the C: drive, set up a unified cache for the game drives and one for the download/work drive and monitor things from there. If nothing else I'll be interesting.

Thanks again, much appreciated!

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

3. Whenever you access any file, you're loading it into the Windows file cache anyway. So when you copy a file from SSD to RAMDisk, you're actually making two copies : 1. RAMDisk and 2. Windows file cache. And the first place Windows looks is the latter. So for many games you're not actually starting it from the RAMDisk but the cache. If you have a lot of RAM (16-32GB) and your game only uses say 6GB, then Windows will be holding it all in RAM anyway even without a RAMDisk even if you made a "null" file copy or simply "read" the files some other way, eg, MD5-ing the game folder will cache a game into RAM (Windows File Cache) even without a RAMDisk.

Except locations of Windows caches can be set to point to RAMDisk to prevent just that. Check Advanced System settings for Temp folders and $PATH$ environment variable. I also moved browser caches and a few other app specific settings.

I've been using RAMdisk for about 15 years ongoing for just that purpose. For SSD it has extra use to prevent unnecessary writes for files like that to extend its lifespan. I have no plans to install anything large in it otherwise. Having it cleared on shutdown is just convenience, as I don't exactly need those temp files to persist lol.

 

[Mussels]

Thanks a lot Mussels, that's extremely helpful - if a somewhat less positive spin than I would ideally have hoped. Still, I have the programs (it turned out already owned PC from years ago, no fortune spent) so I may as well put them to use and see how things pan out.

I'll shamelessly copy your setup for the C: drive, set up a unified cache for the game drives and one for the download/work drive and monitor things from there. If nothing else I'll be interesting.

Thanks again, much appreciated!

These are the cache settings i use on the C: drive
Thought it was 60 seconds, i must have set to 90 last time i adjusted things

You want to fix the worst performing parts of your drive setup (small reads/writes) rather than the things it's best at (large sequential transfers)
That means a read cache of even 2GB could be a huge help, because it focuses on multiple small files - the .dlls and .exes, the little things that are slowest to load and the big files are sequential.
Using mech drives, you use primocache to cache mech drives to an SSD, then RAM on top of that

 

[Belfaborac]

The mechs I'll be leaving well alone I think; time is something I've got a plentiful supply of so I don't particularly care if they chug along at 2-300 MB/s.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Primocache is $30; for $40 I got a 2TB SSD

And you can use both to good effect.

 

[Shrek]

Not on my wage

 

[lexluthermiester]

In regards to PrimoCache I'm hoping Mussels and lexluthermiester might give me some advice on how to best set it up, since you guys seem to have tested and used it more than any others I've come across.

Sorry for being a bit late to the party, have had a very busy week.

Back in 2021 when I did some benchmark runs, the general conclusion was that a 3GB or 4GB cache was the sweet spot. However, (IIRC)Mussels did some testing that showed that the more system RAM you have, the better benefit the you got from a larger cache, but with diminishing returns, as with my testing. 6GB seem to be the effective ceiling for most use-case scenario's.

After going nvme I ditched primo at your point you won't see much difference tbh.

Not completely true. There is still some benefit to be had, but it's more situational when ultra fast NVMe drives are the base drive.

 

[Shrek]

For me the risk is too high; if the machine crashes, the more that is still in RAM, the more that is lost.

My Micron/Crucial SSD actually has a "Momentum Cache" option, which is a RAM cache, but I didn't turn it on because of the hightened corruption risk.
"Using Momentum Cache without a battery backed power source is not recommended and you do so at your own risk."

 

[lexluthermiester]

For me the risk is too high; if the machine crashes, the more that is still in RAM, the more that is lost.

To be fair, full system crashes are very uncommon these days are are effectively a relic from a by-gone-age of computing.

My Micron/Crucial SSD actually has a "Momentum Cache" option, which is a RAM cache, but I didn't turn it on because of the hightened corruption risk.
"Using Momentum Cache without a battery backed power source is not recommended and you do so at your own risk."

If you use a UPS(and if you're not, WTAF?!?), power outages are just not a serious problem.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Just joining this thread, but I did go back to day 1, almost 2 years ago, and read it all.

I have to wonder if today, with a fully updated W10 and W11 system, if typical users would actually notice any improvement in a double-blind, side-by-side, A/B comparison? I suspect most will not because contrary to what many believe, Windows and most of today's major applications are actually very good at resource management.

There are exceptions, of course. I suspect if someone has gobs of RAM but a slow hard drive, they will notice a difference with some applications. But more and more computers are using SSDs, either exclusively or for the boot drive and even the slowest SSD will run circles around the fastest hard drive.

Another concern is the price. To me, no way is $49.95 for the "Pro" version worth it - so not even going to address that.

I personally do not think the $29.95 (for 1 computer) for the standard license is worth it either - after reading the License Limitations and Policies. The agreement in English loses something in translation, but the key points are, the license, when installed "offline", is inextricably tied to that original computer/motherboard - just like an OEM license. And it cannot be transferred to a new computer (or new motherboard). Period.

If you install using an "online" license, it seems you can transfer the license up to 5 times. HOWEVER, you can only do this by contacting Romax by email and request the transfer. At that time (if approved, I assume) they will deactivate the license, "then inform you."

I'm not sure what "then inform you" really means but this process concerns me because it would appear the online version is a bit different from the offline version. I note the following from that License Policies link,

offline key files can be used without an Internet connection and cannot be revoked.

This clearly suggests the online version, the only license transferable to a new computer, requires Internet access and apparently, uses some "cloud" or Romex based access. That does not sit well with me.