I'm running a AMD 3500+ with 1GB RAM and a fast SATA disk for my main HDD.
The 1GB RAM does not give me much spare for caching so I have settled for a 4GB "ReadyBoost" certified flash drive.
Previously eBoostr 3.00 speed tests averaged 1.25 with a 4GB flash-cache (25% faster loads)
Experiments to date with version 4 beta have the 4GB flash-cache averaging 1.07 on the speed tests (7% faster loads).
Rebuilding the flash-cache to 2GB averaged 1.1 on the speed tests (10% faster loads).
Rebuilding the flash-cache to 1GB averaged 1.2 on the speed tests (20% faster loads).
Has anyone else found version 4 beta to be slower than version 3?
It seems possible that the Seagate SATA HDD (with built-in disk cache) will gain less from eBoostr than a slower PATA drive but is there any logical reason why I am getter better results from smaller cache sizes?
David G