The point is:
You not explained why both is a bad idea
in a comprehensible way, no need to read agin (before you say it again).
You claim, the way I use both is a bad example, without a single argue at all, while you claim having said at least 5.
You cannot tell the people how to
accelerate the very 1st read of a specific application using only PrimoCache.
You cannot tell the people how to
accelerate system-I/O on overall-write and overall-2nd read using only PrimoRAM-disk.
Both are the right solution if you want BOTH, because no single one does BOTH!
You trying to persuade, not convice, people, that somehow running both affect your SSD/HDD-Input/Output negatively,
what I please you to proove, until then it will be a hoax for me.
Only thing you make clear is that you personally think that is a bad idea to put browser-cache on a RAM-disk (why, because you dont need it), what wasn't the hole point. I repeat, that I only mentioned that "use case" as an example, the point was about HOW to move an application to the RAM-disk the easiest way... what is: 1. creating RAM-disk 2. moving data to RAM-disk 3. symlink data on harddisk to new folder on RAM-disk.
What is your argue against it, please?
I documented for what case (specific application), why (boost 1st read) and how to move whatever application to a RAM-disk (symlink)... and I don't care what you find fault about it without an argue.
So this is still good:
What you can do instead is:
1. Run PrimoCache on your primary and/or Application-Partition.
2. Run a PrimoRamdisk for specific applications i.e. Browser-Cache.
You set it up like this way:
1. Run PrimoCache for System-Partition C.
2. Install your app, let's say Chrome in normal way and it goes to C:\Users\Me\AppData\Local\Chrome\
3. Copy C:\Users\Me\AppData\Local\Chrome\ to your RAMdrive R.
4. Open a MSDOS-Box and type: mklink /J R:\Chrome C:\Users\Me\AppData\Local\Chrome
5. Close and save and rerun the ram-drive and make it save every-time you shutdown reboot. Done.
So for my use case and your points 1 - 5:
1.) No problem. PrimoCache using 6GiB, PrimoRAM-Disk using 1GiB, some overhead, so OS has 8 GiB of blocks left to play with in middle of the runtime.
2.) No Problem. PrimoCache doesn't load any data on startup, PrimoRAM-DIsk loading up 1 GiB on startup... for me this is finished as soon as the system is usable (SSD).
3.) No problem. PrimoRAM-disk is limited to 1 GiB while my browser plus cache never ever hits 850mb, that's why I designed it that size.
4.) Still don't get this: "Programs are poorly written that it requires a RamDisk." No argue, not even english at all. So you say the hole software is pointless and that Primo-developers should leave the project and try to improve applications on the market so that these do not need a cache for benefit anymore, because anything that benefits from cache/ram-disk is "poorly written". Your logic is faulty.
5.) No problem. Running the browser in RAM-disk and another application read from PrimoCache the same time does not produce any single input output on the disk, that's exactly their very most purpose.
SO what?
Yeah both parting the RAM speeds both half down on simultaneous access, theoretically because in reallife simultaneous access barely happens, but even in that theoretical case of simultaneous access still the overall throughput stays the same, in means that there is no additional "overhead" slowdown for simultaneous access, so both PrimoCache and PrimoRAM-disk can deliver superiour performance at the very first time.
BTW: When browsers looses cache due to staying in RAM on a power loss... well who cares? I even copy the gigantic 1GiB RAM-disk-save-file to a backup-folder once a week, but it isn't neccessary since my browser sync's everything online... even on a loss.... reinstall... go - like before
P.S.: People, who need to count endless points without one single actual arguing content are usually wrong. YOu must be trying to confuse people with your buzz-word-flood. Repeating saying nonsense doesn't makes it the truth. Try to put your words into sentences that are comprehesible in means of spelling, grammar and syntax.. that way maybe someone takes your expressions seriously on the next try. The fact that you take the point of ram-disk takes time to load ram-device" drivers and mark ram as in use, what takes minimalistic time - lik eyou even said - as an argue against using RAM-disk in addition to Cache is ridicolous... since you think a 200millisecond faster boot is better that having the 1st-reads of your specific application accelerated ALL THE TIME additionally to your system-write and 2nd-read. That is out of all proportions... you considering such ridicolous argue makes it obvious how less real argues you have. Hopeless to give you a piece of mind.