Some guidance, please
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:48 pm
Hello All,
I've devoted a while reading the support information for FC as well as reading many of the posts here. I *think* that FC will work in my intended application, but would like to get some feedback from actual users in a couple of gray areas.
First, let me describe what I want to do: I have a file server machine running Windows7 tweaked for this purpose. It has a C2-Q8400 processor and 8GB RAM. It has a low-power profile that spins down all disks after 10 minutes. (I have no intention of changing this power profile due to the excessive power consumption caused by idle spinning disks.) System disk is an SSD. "User" disk (holds files frequently accessed such as DOCs, pictures, blah blah) is a 512GB SSD. Then there's a 1TB disk that holds a small video library. A 1TB disk that's used for automated backups of other machines on the LAN. And finally a 1TB disk (WD Black FAEX) that holds the software installation library (infrequently accessed) and the Music Library. The Music library is where I'm looking at using FC. It's a little under 400GB and 50,000 individual tracks. Due to the spindown setting, accesses of the hard drives often involves a wait to spin them up. In addition, I'm always doing some kind of maintenance on the music library (i.e. working on the tags) so it's not unusual to have to read the first few clusters of each music file, which as you can imagine, takes quite a while.
As it turns out, the SSDs work great as a system disk (no surprise there) and as the "User" disk which is frequently accessed. Even though they are powered-down too, they can resume R&W operation without any discernible pause.
The problem is the disk with the music files. Startup is annoyingly long, and the Tag-Reading operation (one small piece of each of ~50K files) takes forever. So there's this unused SATAII Force 120 SSD sitting here without a home. It seems that this, along with FC, may go a long way to dealing with the music files. 120GB ought to be enough to cache those files in their entirety that are frequently accessed, and (here's the tricky part) ought to be able to cache the first few clusters, that contain the tag information, of each of the ~50K files, without attempting to cache the entire file.
Will FC do this?
Also -- will FC have its cached information available without waiting for the HDD to spin up? I can't find any guidance on this issue at all. This is the Deal Breaker. If it's necessary to wait for HDD spinup to retrieve information that's already on the SSD, then this exercise probably isn't worth it.
So how does FC work in this situation? Can anyone clear this up for me?
Yes, I know that I could install it and try it, but TBH, I don't want to take any unnecessary software installation risk if there's no opportunity for a payoff in the first place. OTOH, if it looks like this is a viable use model, then I'll gladly wring it out and report back on the results.
BTW, it's really encouraging to see a small company like this go through the time/effort to interact with the user base to refine their product. There are way too many examples of the "Here it is, take it or leave it" approach, including many examples for this same type of product. Good for you, Romex. I'm hoping that this translates into a higher probability of getting something that works well in my situation. Which, BTW, I'll willingly pay for in its finished form.
I've devoted a while reading the support information for FC as well as reading many of the posts here. I *think* that FC will work in my intended application, but would like to get some feedback from actual users in a couple of gray areas.
First, let me describe what I want to do: I have a file server machine running Windows7 tweaked for this purpose. It has a C2-Q8400 processor and 8GB RAM. It has a low-power profile that spins down all disks after 10 minutes. (I have no intention of changing this power profile due to the excessive power consumption caused by idle spinning disks.) System disk is an SSD. "User" disk (holds files frequently accessed such as DOCs, pictures, blah blah) is a 512GB SSD. Then there's a 1TB disk that holds a small video library. A 1TB disk that's used for automated backups of other machines on the LAN. And finally a 1TB disk (WD Black FAEX) that holds the software installation library (infrequently accessed) and the Music Library. The Music library is where I'm looking at using FC. It's a little under 400GB and 50,000 individual tracks. Due to the spindown setting, accesses of the hard drives often involves a wait to spin them up. In addition, I'm always doing some kind of maintenance on the music library (i.e. working on the tags) so it's not unusual to have to read the first few clusters of each music file, which as you can imagine, takes quite a while.
As it turns out, the SSDs work great as a system disk (no surprise there) and as the "User" disk which is frequently accessed. Even though they are powered-down too, they can resume R&W operation without any discernible pause.
The problem is the disk with the music files. Startup is annoyingly long, and the Tag-Reading operation (one small piece of each of ~50K files) takes forever. So there's this unused SATAII Force 120 SSD sitting here without a home. It seems that this, along with FC, may go a long way to dealing with the music files. 120GB ought to be enough to cache those files in their entirety that are frequently accessed, and (here's the tricky part) ought to be able to cache the first few clusters, that contain the tag information, of each of the ~50K files, without attempting to cache the entire file.
Will FC do this?
Also -- will FC have its cached information available without waiting for the HDD to spin up? I can't find any guidance on this issue at all. This is the Deal Breaker. If it's necessary to wait for HDD spinup to retrieve information that's already on the SSD, then this exercise probably isn't worth it.
So how does FC work in this situation? Can anyone clear this up for me?
Yes, I know that I could install it and try it, but TBH, I don't want to take any unnecessary software installation risk if there's no opportunity for a payoff in the first place. OTOH, if it looks like this is a viable use model, then I'll gladly wring it out and report back on the results.
BTW, it's really encouraging to see a small company like this go through the time/effort to interact with the user base to refine their product. There are way too many examples of the "Here it is, take it or leave it" approach, including many examples for this same type of product. Good for you, Romex. I'm hoping that this translates into a higher probability of getting something that works well in my situation. Which, BTW, I'll willingly pay for in its finished form.