Page 1 of 1

FancyCache Suggestion.

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:49 am
by Nekoman
Didn't see it suggested but could there possibly be a double/split cache system? For example set 512MB as Read-Only Cache and then an additional 1024MB as Write-Only Cache non shared memory space for for the same volume or disk cache? That way memory isn't shifted back and forth depending on how many reads or writes are done to cache and each volume/disk could have its own separate dedicated read and write cache space that doesn't share the same memory size and wont be reduced when you do more writes than reads or more reads than writes.

Right now if you set Read/Write and 1024MB that single chunk of memory holds read data and write data with with the space shifting back and forth with data depending on the number of reads and writes performed. If the memory was split and you could choose different memory values for read and write then more data could be cached at a time since the memory would be dedicated to each task. Is this a possible addition?

Re: FancyCache Suggestion.

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:17 am
by Support
Hi Nekoman,

Sorry for missing reply on this post. And thank you for your suggestion.

We'll consider it. But I'm afraid that it is not easy to be implemented so far.

Re: FancyCache Suggestion.

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:35 pm
by Violator
Very cool idea, reminds me about how you can balance memory usage on HP raid controllers, HP Smart Array P410 controller as example.

Re: FancyCache Suggestion.

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:31 pm
by inspron
The opposite of that is Dynamic Cache Allocation.

It would be great if I can assign says 2GB of L1 cache to FancyCache but have a 90% of ram limit. A common problem that I run into is as I run more programs concurrently, windows warns me that I am running out of memory, (because I have dedicated too much reserve for FancyCache). Wouldn't it be great if FancyCache can dynamically reduces the cache size given other programs demands? That way, I can set a large cache size to take advantage of all that unused Ram but also not have to worry when my usage pattern demands more ram.

Re: FancyCache Suggestion.

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:13 am
by sparkler
wouldn't work only the OS can do something like that if fancycache did that all the OS would see is a program using large amounts and the system running low on ram and will start paging stuff which doesn't = improved performance