http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/tags/cache-size Beta Testers Forum en-US Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:31:23 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/search.php http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/does-sombody-know-the-maximum-of-ram-cache-which-eboostr-can-handle#post-1144 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:27:43 +0000 carloblanco 1144@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Thank you very much for the reply ! </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/does-sombody-know-the-maximum-of-ram-cache-which-eboostr-can-handle#post-1137 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:10:41 +0000 Andrey Zarudnev 1137@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>There is no RAM cache size limit in version 4. Version 3 was limited to 4GB max. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/does-sombody-know-the-maximum-of-ram-cache-which-eboostr-can-handle#post-1102 Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:07:29 +0000 jujdred 1102@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I think it was 16gig, but not sure why on earth anyone would do that. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/does-sombody-know-the-maximum-of-ram-cache-which-eboostr-can-handle#post-994 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:12:49 +0000 mradr 994@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Idk, maybe try it out your self? Either it's unlimited or 4gb ram for system and 4gb cache is the max of most programs/ramdisk can usally do. I think its unlimied, but I could always be wrong :) Actully the max is how much your motherboard can even handle. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/does-sombody-know-the-maximum-of-ram-cache-which-eboostr-can-handle#post-993 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:50:57 +0000 carloblanco 993@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Somebody have an answer for this : with XP SP3 and 8192 MB RAM on board, what's the maximum RAM quantity I can use for cache ? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/cache-exclusions#post-406 Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:30:56 +0000 Andrey Zarudnev 406@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>If you need a list of files that are accessed by a certain application--you should use the "Cache Statistics Viewer" from the start menu (an additional application in the eBoostr group).</p> <p>Here is an example for Chrome on my desktop:<br /> <img src="/u/ebeta/2009/09/stat-viewer-application.png" alt="stat-viewer-application" title="stat-viewer-application" /> </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/cache-exclusions#post-405 Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:26:09 +0000 Andrey Zarudnev 405@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>This list indicates applications and processes that started (or accessed) file "chrome.exe" </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/cache-exclusions#post-376 Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:45:52 +0000 chooky 376@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I didn't know about the double click on the files in the cache list, thanks Robert! But I'm a little confused about what this list actually is? Here is a list for Google Chrome</p> <p><img src="http://pxve3w.blu.livefilestore.com/y1puT7bvEi8iwLp_g23nPvzlBe-0CC8uwXjCBcE0UhMetVwwdTTH6GVL3d0rPAlWbR0314NZLAI-XWHeDOFxK07rTS61JL1WH_e/google.PNG"></p> <p>A lot of those files are completely unrelated. Could Andrey or someone explain what this list is? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/cache-exclusions#post-375 Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:05:03 +0000 Robert Persons 375@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I added the catroot and catroot2 folders to the exclude list. But then I looked the cache statistics and found that PhotoShop was only 98% cached, and was surprised that it uses some files in the catroot directory (double click on the program path to get a list of all files that program uses). I took the catroots out of the exclude list, rebuilt the cache and then PhotoShop was then 100% cached. Since I use PhotoShop frequently this was better for me. I was surprised at how many files a program uses, and where they are located. Looking at this information might help people figure out which exlusions work best and which don't. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/cache-exclusions#post-362 Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:44:48 +0000 Art 362@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Hi mrad, I don't will create an exclusion.ini to everyone, was an example!!!<br /> Try to delete the filestat.dat and your problem is resolved. :) </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/cache-exclusions#post-340 Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:52:10 +0000 mradr 340@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>But you cant make a file that works for everyone Awmueller, aka...<br /> In the exclusion.ini I put the most useless files and entire drives like &gt; *.tmp, *.log, *.ini, *.psd, *.doc, *.jpg, c:\windows\temp ,d:, e:, f: ... but I don´t exclude program folders.</p> <p>I dont have a- d, e, or f... actully I have a c,t,k,b so that wont work on systems like mine. The only real way to do it is to have a simple add and delete screen thats either selection or text area. This way you can put in the ones you know not to be in there.</p> <p>The only real way to even have this work for others is to just make a forum thats... all that is... people that post things that they feel that they do not need to be in the cache. This way users like me can pick the ones I feel I dont need to be cache either, while others, like my images, are still cache cus you know, I like to look at images all day (for a example I really dont, music, but yea you get what I mean). </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/cache-exclusions#post-336 Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:26:04 +0000 Art 336@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Hi,<br /> I agree whit your suggestion but my suggestion is to create a easier form to exclude and manage the statistics collection.<br /> I use the eboostr cache in RAM around 1 GB and it´s great!!! But whit some work!</p> <p>First I exclude the filestat.dat in eboost alluser subfolder and check the exclude.ini.<br /> In the exclusion.ini I put the most useless files and entire drives like &gt; *.tmp, *.log, *.ini, *.psd, *.doc, *.jpg, c:\windows\temp ,d:, e:, f: ... but I don´t exclude program folders.<br /> Then I open and close several times the most important programs or work some hours only whit this programs. After this exercise the filestat.dat have only the really important information and it´s ready to create a clean-small cache.<br /> Att.<br /> Art </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/why-have-no-sense-to-use-more-than-16gb-of-hard-disk#post-220 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:19:26 +0000 Zeioth 220@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Thank you for your reply Andrey is very interesting. Also i tested the difference for myself and this is the results:</p> <p>-16 gb hd: 7300 kb/s<br /> -6 gb hd: 12100 kb/s </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/why-have-no-sense-to-use-more-than-16gb-of-hard-disk#post-151 Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:56:41 +0000 Andrey Zarudnev 151@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Actually the use of another hard disk for caching will not give you the best performance increase cause this device has the same physical read latencies due to mechanical nature.</p> <p>16GB sized cache makes no sense on any device (SSD or USB flash drives has much more capacity currently) cause most probably you do not have such an amount of frequently used files, so all these space will be filled with unneded files.</p> <p>2-4GB is an optimal cache size and you can increase it if you are using dozen of applications every day. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/cache-exclusions#post-139 Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:00:52 +0000 mradr 139@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I dont think so. Maybe more a general file mask like for music, images, vidoes. Not everyone going to have thos files and not everyone going to have a 64 bit system (aka thos files names) so you cant really give a default file exclude. Now they could make it more easy to exclude file by havign a windows pop up then select files or file types to be exclude or a more open text boxs so you can put in whats needs to be excluded faster but having a default setup like that wont really help. + What if I want my games and antivruis to be cache? I like to go fast seeing as I can setup 1.5g ram and a 4g usb.</p> <p>Now i'm not saying you could have a more open user one on the forum or something so others could see maybe what to exclude but having one all ready built in one sorta useless. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/cache-exclusions#post-137 Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:40:57 +0000 chooky 137@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Is there an advantage in having *.lnk files eg. Start menu items and desktop shortcuts cached? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/cache-exclusions#post-136 Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:32:05 +0000 hadi_rena 136@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I also suggest cache exclusions also support using environment variable like %TEMP% which differ for each user and if possible also include this as default one. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/cache-exclusions#post-134 Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:22:11 +0000 chooky 134@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I am using a 2GB RAM cache. I have found that I need to exclude a lot of programs and folders that really don't require cacheing such as uninstall programs, utilities, benchmarks and windows update files. This allows more of the programs I want to be faster to be cached. May I suggest eBoostr installs with a default exclusion list. This would give users who don't tweak a better experience.</p> <p>Here is what I have excluded so far:<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\APPTIMER<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\CCLEANER<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\EBOOSTR\LANG<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\ELECTRONIC ARTS\CRYTEK<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\IOBIT<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\TWEAKNOW POWERPACK 2009<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\OZONE3D<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES\FRAPS<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES\PERFORMANCETEST<br /> D:\<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\NVIDIA CORPORATION\NVIDIA PHYSX\DEMOS<br /> uninstall.EXE<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\FUTUREMARK\<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\BLUESCREENVIEW<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\COMMON FILES\FUTUREMARK SHARED\FUTUREMARK SYSTEMINFO<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\COMODO\COMODO SYSTEM CLEANER<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\DISKCHECKUP<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\DISKTRIX\ULTIMATEDEFRAG2008<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\DRIVER SWEEPER<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\FILEHIPPO.COM<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\GEEKBENCH 2.1<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\GIGABYTE\GAMER HUD LITE<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\LAVALYS\EVEREST ULTIMATE EDITION<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\NOVICORP_WINTOFLASH_0.4.0013_BETA<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\OCCT<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\SOFTMCCS<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES\AS SSD BENCHMARK<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES\CORETEMP64<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES\CRYSTALDISKMARK<br /> *.PNG<br /> *.PT<br /> C:\WINDOWS\DOWNLOADED PROGRAM FILES<br /> C:\WINDOWS\INSTALLER\{12803180-9CAD-11DE-B804-005056806466}<br /> C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\CATROOT2<br /> C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\CATROOT<br /> C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\LOGFILES\SCM<br /> C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\WINEVT\LOGS<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES\MICROSOFT GAMES<br /> C:\USERS\DAVID\APPDATA\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\FEEDS CACHE<br /> C:\USERS\DAVID\APPDATA\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS MAIL<br /> C:\USERS\DAVID\APPDATA\ROAMING\MICROSOFT\INSTALLER<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\MICROSOFT WINDOWS 7 UPGRADE ADVISOR<br /> C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\MONINFO</p> <p>This adds up to quite a fee MB of cache space that is now being used by files I do use all the time.</p> <p>Are there other system files I don't need that people are excluding? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/why-have-no-sense-to-use-more-than-16gb-of-hard-disk#post-21 Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:47:41 +0000 Zeioth 21@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I&#39;d like to know what is the reason why performance decreases when you use more than this amount. This doesn&#39;t happend with pendrives or RAM (where you just need keep free more than 1gb for system). Is because hard disk need more time to locate archives? Thanks for your answers, i&#39;m just curious. </p>