Romex Software Forum

Two points: - I use TC as well on some partitions and have been a tester of this FC since 0.2 (I think). Never had corruption due to any of the FC versions thus far. Used the DISK edition when I needed caching of encrypted partitions, as my drives would not show up in the VOLUME version. This leads ...

Wow, its been a while but for completion I will still respond to the thread: 1. Fancycache DISK 2. Been using both R/W, R only, W only at some points in time. All depending on the main activities I undertake. Generally I run it most often at R/W, or W only using between 2-4GB. (12GB RAM, Win2008R2, ...

Guys, just installed the FC Disk 0.6 on the aforementioned configuration, and I still get solid results from all partitions (regular and encrypted). Sustained copy transfer rates of ~130MB/s and once cached, it even flies up to 600MB-1.7GB Don't have disk bench software on the rig right now, so cant...

Let me also pose this to the group: those who use TrueCrypt, will know that there are (encrypted) volumes without drive letters, until they are mounted.
So maybe someone can speak to that scenario as well. (I run TC, but with FC DISK).

Okay, I will post some tests-results on the matter of FancyCache being used on encrypted (namely TrueCrypt) partitions. I have been using FC since version 0.3 beta, on volume sizes from 1TB and up, containing various TC partitions. My current setup: FC DISK 0.5 beta, Win7x64, 12GB Ram, 2TB Raid - so...

I have been running 0.2 for Disk with occasional dead-lock problems (was reported to Romex). 0.3 for Disk proved to be more stable, and currently run 0.4 for Volume with no problems. As I plan to upgrade (6GB->12GB, 1.6TB->3.6TB) for video and photo editing, and run a fresh win7 copy with 0.4.1 it s...

Can provide Dutch if needed.