My system disk is monitored by PrimoCache.
On that disk is a certain folder that has very high number of one time writes. And a lesser number of one time reads.
Is it beneficial to move that folder to a disk that's not monitored by PrimoCache?
I ask because I see two possible dangers:
1] No matter how high the quality of the PrimoCache programming is, monitoring useless activity is still wasting CPU cycles.
2] It may flush out other blocks from the cache.
Number 2 may require extra information. That folder is constantly filled with little blocks incoming data and glued to what's allready there. If done it's moved out of that folder. The same data never returns.
On an SSD there is something like wear leveling so data after that likely is written on different sectors (if the disk isn't nearly full).
Not sure how a HDD handles it. Anyway my thought/fear is that PrimoCache gets tricked into thinking the sectors 'in' that folder are extremely busy, so very worthwhile caching them. But in reality they are the most useless of the whole disk, because they only exist between 0-60 seconds...
PrimoCache performance and many one time writes
PrimoCache performance and many one time writes
Last edited by RAMbo on Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:57 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Re: PrimoCache performance and many one time writes
I think it might depend on your scenario. If you enable the defer-write feature for the system disk and also want to improve the write performance for this folder and reduce SSD wear, you may leave it be. With defer-write, since incoming write-data will be moved out later, they probably will not be written to the disk in the end. See the following link for your reference.
http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/prim ... -wear.html
If incoming data amount is little, they will not flush out other cached blocks too much, if file system in the drive is NTFS. Because when they are moved out of that folder, the corresponding cache space also will be released. If you still worry about it, you may split cache space into dedicated read-cache and write-cache, so incoming write-data will not flush cached data in the read-cache.
In the scenario that you don't want to enable defer-write for this folder, then yes, it shall be beneficial to move out that folder from caching. Of course, another solution is to set the whole cache space to store read-data only, so the write-data will not be cached.
Hope these help.
http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/prim ... -wear.html
If incoming data amount is little, they will not flush out other cached blocks too much, if file system in the drive is NTFS. Because when they are moved out of that folder, the corresponding cache space also will be released. If you still worry about it, you may split cache space into dedicated read-cache and write-cache, so incoming write-data will not flush cached data in the read-cache.
In the scenario that you don't want to enable defer-write for this folder, then yes, it shall be beneficial to move out that folder from caching. Of course, another solution is to set the whole cache space to store read-data only, so the write-data will not be cached.
Hope these help.