RamCache and RamCache II slow shutdown and stopping

[SGMRock]

Is there anything that can be done to fix the really slow shutdown running either version of RamCache causes. I used RamCache on my Rampage V Extreme and am using RamCache II now on my Rampage VI Apex board. I'm using 8GB of RAM for the cache and it causes delays in shutdown, and also if you stop it to say use the advanced feature to assign it to another drive it takes ages to stop and sometimes just sits there with the back and forth dots for several minutes before stopping. Right now I have been trying to stop it for 30 minutes and it hasn't stopped yet like its hung or something this time.

I assume this is a read cache only and doesn't store any writes, can you confirm that?

If it's a read cache only then I can't see why it should take so long to stop, it's only caching data already on a physical drive so no reason for it to take long to shutdown. If it's storing write data then I'm not sure I even want to use it at the risk of loosing data if my system hangs or the program hangs up like it seems to be now.

It would be great if you guys had a readme or something in the zip of this that actually explains what the program does and how it actually works, as I have seen several people ask this on forums and such.

Similar products on the market support a few settings where you can do read/write, just read or just write for instance.
https://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-cache/index.html
http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/supercache.php

[Korth]

I think you'd do better disabling ASUS RAM Cache (I or II) and using Samsung's RAPID Magician. Actual performances (on the intended hardware) is comparable - I think Magician is perhaps slightly faster overall but many people have argued both ways. Magician does provide user settings for Read caching and for Write caching, you can resize or reduce Write cache allocation or disable it entirely or just flush it demand for speedy shutdown. I haven't used RAM Cache in a long while but I don't recall it providing similar options.

(Although I admit my main reason for preferring Magician is lazy and convenient drive migration between machines. They're not all ASUS ROG motherboards compatible with ASUS RAM Cache. But a Samsung drive always remains compatible with Samsung Magician, lol.)

[SGMRock]

RAPID says its not supported on my 960 Pro. I also have 2 SanDisk SSD's in my system that would not be able to use that.

[Brighttail]

THere are certain programs that can conflict with RAMCache. Primocache, Magician, ect. Basically I have 32gb of ram and use 16gb for a cache.. it takes about a minute to shutdown on my x99 5930k.

[richac]

I stopped using ramcache II on my b250f. Never really noticed any improvement besides in crystalmark benchmarks. In fact I think it made copying files slower then just using my 960 evo m.2 drive by itself..lmao.

Not only that but playing battlefield 1 it would make the game stutter. Which would immediately stop once i stopped ramcache. I have 32gb of ram and thought it was a nice idea to use, but its not worth it imo. Might do more harm to your system then good.

Only asus software I use now is sonic studio and thats buggy too...

and yes I've noticed it takes a long time to shutdown as well...

[Korth]

BF1 and all of the other Battlefield games built on Refractor or Frostbite engines are infamous for how badly they tend to use multithreading and hardware resources. They can sometimes play better with less RAM, with HyperThreading disabled, etc. Their performances with ASUS RAM Cache (or with any other caching software) might be more representative of a specific "worst case" example than of generic "real world" applications.

But yeah, certainly no point in using RAM Cache if it actually slows down your game or your system, lol.
Promised/theoretical performance is not as important as practical/observed performance.

[richac]

Korth wrote:
BF1 and all of the other Battlefield games built on Refractor or Frostbite engines are infamous for how badly they tend to use multithreading and hardware resources. They can sometimes play better with less RAM, with HyperThreading disabled, etc. Their performances with ASUS RAM Cache (or with any other caching software) might be more representative of a specific "worst case" example than of generic "real world" applications.

But yeah, certainly no point in using RAM Cache if it actually slows down your game or your system, lol.
Promised/theoretical performance is not as important as practical/observed performance.

ya bf1 is a beast. with my i7-7700k it used to stutter when spiking to 100% lol, but dice must of addressed that problem i had a thread with many complaints with users of the chip. now only 60-80% load. my 1070 is constantly in the 99% range though as well. ultra 1440p settings.

but ya crystal mark benches were out of this world with ramcache. but in the real world i couldn't notice. created system instability imo. Not that my b250f is super stable anyways. I had to stop using sleep mode, I still can't figure out why. I'm thinking it the audio drivers because when using a usb audio card I didn't have any instability from wake from sleep. Again noticeable when getting audio pops. or even more noticeable when bf1 get a long hitch.

might just be a combination of the nvme drive with the audio chip causing sleep issues.

Aasus wants me to rma the board. Rather then do that or go back to a usb card, I just disabled sleep mode. Its a machine primarily for gaming anyways. But ya my extra 16gb of ram is really not needed and might even be a a slight drawback as you said. I got the extra 16gb when I was having stutter issues in the game. But I think it was probably fixed by the game devs or updated drivers. Its hard to tell.

[Korth]

Sidestepping all the usual vehement arguments from people championing whatever hardware/software configurations and approaches worked best for them ...

Try disabling HT in BIOS. Try removing some RAM. Try both. Each time, run your benchmarks, measure your in-game fps, note how (un)responsive the software is while using it whatever way you normally do, note how (un)stable it performs on your system. Comparing all your notes after methodically isolating each parameter is the only "guaranteed" way to determine what works best. It takes some time, but not as much as you'd think - just change one parameter and run your tests and play your game for a day, do this over a few days and you'll get a good idea of how "heavy" your system can be or how "stripped down" it needs to be to obtain best possible game performance.

[richac]

Korth wrote:
Sidestepping all the usual vehement arguments from people championing whatever hardware/software configurations and approaches worked best for them ...

Try disabling HT in BIOS. Try removing some RAM. Try both. Each time, run your benchmarks, measure your in-game fps, note how (un)responsive the software is while using it whatever way you normally do, note how (un)stable it performs on your system. Comparing all your notes after methodically isolating each parameter is the only "guaranteed" way to determine what works best. It takes some time, but not as much as you'd think - just change one parameter and run your tests and play your game for a day, do this over a few days and you'll get a good idea of how "heavy" your system can be or how "stripped down" it needs to be to obtain best possible game performance.

at this point i've given up. I've toggled almost every option the bios I could, spent weeks. Don't think there is anything I can do to totally eliminate the wake from sleep issues I have, except to buy a usb sound card.