Superspeed SuperCache, any thoughts on this?

[HalfHuman]

bad experience with superspeed supercache

conclusion (for superspeed supercache)
- it did sped up things on two of my machines, but files got corrupted every once in a while (on reboots and on write heave cases). must say that I've been using a pirated version but the problems are not necessarily from there
- ~80$ to me seems too high for desktop use
- the gui is ugly, unpolished and unintuitive
- had deffered writes but cannot do that exclusively (does read caching at the same time) making it less efficent. windows is quite ok with read caching

have been using the desktop version of superspeed supercache for several months. at first i was using a ramdrive (romex free) and was almost ok. i wanted something more efficient that would cache only writes as windows really is ok with caching reads and i think it does not need any help there. it did what was advertised but started to notice that windows reports corrupted files after shutdown or not notifing but seeing it with my eyes. after several of these my windows started going bad showing some errors... do not remeber really what it was but had to reinstall it again. started using it on work machine. at work i do a lot more disk activity. started seeing my visual studio source files being corrupted , showing either binary giberish or other pieces of text. this happened quite often after reboot.
i have to give a big disclaimer and admit that i pirated it... you should know it's a bitch to pirate it. wanted to evaluate it before deciding to buy.
to me the behaviour seems like the super speed driver does not do flush data on system shutdown and ocuasionally the blocks of files get mixed up between files. i saw that the software has lots of certifications but the way it worked for me is unacceptable.

being pissed i decided to search for alternatives. found the below post about fancycache that seems to hold a lot of promise:
- for now it's free (because it's beta) and they promise it's stable
- it can do write caching exclusively (this is good because windows 7 does read caching quite well) so more ram can be dedicated to where it counts
- can evict stuff from cache after write caching it, making the solution good for bursty write scenarious as there will be more cache available when needed
- supports level 2 caching... this is potentially excellent
- the gui for statistics seems suprinsingly good and informative (especially after super speed experience )
- for the moment it's free and hopefull will have more realistinc pricing then superspeed

Upped my ram to 20gbs, so needed to test disk caches even more. Found a new one called FancyCache.. for now it's free: http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/fancy-cache/
It is a trial, but fully functional, and for 90 days, and could be extended while it's still in beta. In one test I tried I loaded MW3 using a 4gb cache, it took about 2 minutes until I was in the game ready to run in a certain level, exited game, reentered, took all of 5 seconds to load the same level again. Looks like this:
http://img.techpowerup.org/111215/fancycache1.png
If you have lots of ram, give it a try!

 

[johnspack]

Yes, I actually prefer fancycache now. It has more features than supercache, and when tuned properly, will perform much better. Very good use of my 24gbs of ram!