Yep, if you are a tech enthusiast you do tinker with your hw and softies, nothing bad about it. Personally i applaud users who explore their options before building a new pc and customize it to meet the demands of their usage preference. Primocache ain't half bad, tried it myself too. So, nice build man.
One thingie, that comment about the 50+ year olds, that was rude mate. If some comment annoys you, it has nothing to do with age groups. Each and everyone speak for themselves and only. And if you post expecting only positive reaction, it's a fool's errand mate, you 'll always have someone to express different opinions.
Cheers

 

I like the term "Tinkerer".
Please revert to using it.

 

For tinkering fun, I tried it on a completely opposite system, a 2600K @4.4 ghz on p8p68 16gb ddr3 Ram, sata3 SSD's .
It was fun to see a read/write speed of 8000mB/s on my drives, up to files of 2gb, beyond that it dropped to normal values, 500mB/s.
And indeed things loaded faster.
Hmmm now deciding if to keep it installed for a while.
Thanks!

 

yes sir!but yeah, you are right, it's bit slower with plugin scan enabled, now it's 3.2 second.
but wait, 3 second is shorter than 5 , right ? what is the benefit of this cache thingy in audio apps?
a 550mb/s ssd cannot load huge kontakt libraries faster. for the second time load i understand and it works i'm sure, but to feed that cache to output is still only 500mb/s to the cache. so those numbers are not real dude, it doesnt measure the speed of the drive but the ram. this thing was debunked years ago.
thanks

 

Last edited: Mar 18, 2025

Okay, from what I can remember here's the thing about PrimoCache:

It uses RAM as a cache for SSDs/HDDs. This is nothing new since Windows has its own cache. But the goodies are:

1. You can configure it (tweak, tinker). For instance you can make it cache only your Kontakt partition. And set it only to cache reads. This alone is way better than the regular Windows cache.

2. You can also configure it to dump the RAM into one disk. Again, this is something that Windows can do with the Hibernate feature. But you can select at which point. Select it when your heavy project is loaded and bum, boot time and all the loaded programs at the time will fucking fly.

Also, this isn't used by the OP I think. But PrimoCache can:

3. Use an SSD to cache HDDs. It's a great feature and very easily to set up and configure. Windows is supposed to be able to do this but is a nightmare to configure, let alone to tweak.

I hope this helps

 

Tinker tinker tinker

@N.Sodokin I, for one, am grateful you posted this, because I was not aware of developments in this area. Do not be discouraged by ignorant, foolish comments of others copied from ChatGPT. This is a recurring issue on this forum.

 

This. On every fucking thread!

 

I have clients that have 4 or more TBs of sample libraries. No caching or RAM disks can help them with speeding up loading of that, only faster SSDs, M2s, NVMes. Caching of this kind can help only with loading most used programs and plugins. Stuff like that has been around for decades (Linux has something called Preload that does it), it's nothing new and a bit of a marketing trick, but when you have enough RAM to spare, why not use it fully, indeed? Cause it's really really really hard to fill up 96 GB of RAM with plugins and sample banks. Even Hans Zimmer shouldn't need more than 64GB because all these sample players use their own caching-disk streaming system because most people have computers with 16-32GB of RAM these days, that's why lots of fast flash storage is always more welcome than more RAM.

Try Linux. Dynamic RAM disks (which don't use RAM unless it's needed) are essential part of the OS, easy to set up on whatever folders you like (one line in fstab boot file) and you can make Linux run completely from RAM if you like. Love the way it works. Keeps your disks on standby. Running things from RAM keeps flash storage from wear and tear too much and too soon, so of course it's useful, very. And RAM is frankly not that expensive these days...

Speed is all in the right balance of well assembled PC and well set up OS. Enjoy your top rig and make some quality tunes with it! Cheers!

 

Last edited: Mar 19, 2025

A long time ago, Hans Zimmer teamed up with a motherboard manufacturer and an extra motherboard with 128 GB RAM was made for him.

 

I did say "shouldn't". That's very interesting, I didn't know that. His concept of working with (huuuge) universal templates is probably to blame for this requirement, and the concept of too big "safety margin". People should be able to easily tell how much RAM they need - just load the biggest project ever then take a look at the whatever RAM monitor you have. Then add a few GBs on top for "you never know" moments. And stick to the 2 RAM sticks rule, one for each memory channel, if you can. Motherboards prefer that.

Cheers!

 

Last edited: Mar 19, 2025

Hi pal, I've tried PRIMO in the past with not so much *evident* improvements, but is more than possible that I've made it wrongly. Let's suppose that I can really learn about it, d'ya think it would worth for live performances?, I'm slowly building my amp-computer for stage. Thx in advance for your advices.

 

For anyone slowly upgrading to all SSD, this might be the best thing yet.
I say slowly because if anyone has not checked out the cost of an 8TB-16TB ssd, it will be a very fircking slow upgrade.

 

Most of the data is free, but the hardware costs a lot. You should really try to reduce your data to the essentials.
I bought two external SSDs, each with 4 GB, to permanently back up my data.

That was a very expensive purchase for me.
But I couldn't avoid it. The more data you have, the more difficult it is to search for it.

I'm still a big fan of Blu-ray discs; I have a lot of data and movies backed up on them.
And stored securely. Every Blu-ray paper sleeve is labeled.

I have zero trust in regular HDDs. Storing my data in the cloud is out of the question for me. The biggest problem, as always, is the updates; I constantly have to download and update, and of course, permanently back up the latest version.

 

SSDs are not that expensive, I have 14.5TB of SSDs in my PC, mostly m.2/Pcie, a few SATA.

High quality 4TB SSD (SATA or pcie) can be had for less than $200USD and as little as $80USD for 2TB.

 

Did you notice the

8TB-16TB in my post?

They are the HDD's I would need to replace with SSD's, so yes, please tell me how inexpensive a 16TB SSD is because I have three of them. I already use three 4TB SSD's.

 

It's basically the same thing Samsung already had themselves, called RAPID mode. I believe it's not even available in Magician for PCIe SSDs (only SATA), since it would be counterproductive.

 

The most cost-effective solution for large files is an external hard drive. If you're careful with it and don't drop it, your files
will last for decades. You should connect it twice a year to prevent the mechanical drive from becoming gummed up.

12 TB = 276,00€
Seagate One Touch HUB 12TB external hard drive,
dual USB HU, 3.5-inch, USB 3.0, PC, notebook & Mac, including Data Rescue Service, Model No.: STLC12000400

8 TB = 183,90€
Seagate One Touch HUB 8TB external hard drive,
dual USB HU, 3.5-inch, USB 3.0, PC, notebook & Mac, including Data Rescue Service, Model No.: STLC8000400

 

Yes to the first.
Based on the prices above, 3x 16TB SSD drives would be ridiculous and a long way from being inexpensive.

I cannot validate that cost and I have a good backup system for the critical files and the rest I can retrieve easily enough if everything fell over, and my house contents insurance covers that if it happens anyway.

 

You already have three SSDs for your most important data. I was talking about an external 16 TB HDD for backups of less frequently used files. Tell me, how many files do you have? Or in other words, how many files do you want to replace? Get a 16 TB HDD and transfer the data from the old HDDs to the new one.

 

I'm proposing solutions, you are just strawmanning the high cost/unavailability of 16TB SSD.

Focusing on 16TB SSD is just strawmanning given that you can buy pciex cards that support 4x m.2 PCIe SSDs (if your motherboard supports PCIe bifurcation), and many motherboards these days have 4x pcie m.2 slots.

If 32TB of internal pcie storage for day to day use is not enough for you, I don't know what to say.

As radio suggested you can use external drives, but this doesn't have to be mechanical. For non day to day use, you can also plug in numerous m.2 to USB drives for unlimited storage.