Quote Originally Posted by gordy View Post
A developer from the FC forum says "windows caching is file-level caching, ours is block-level caching. They are not same."

I'm with Halk in that I won't be slumming it w/HDDs on any of my workstations but for a server with 256gb of RAM and terabytes of storage it's simply too costly to go pure SSD. I'm currently evaluating hybrid controllers from LSI and Adaptec but it looks like FC may be a cheaper and more effective alternative. I will be doing some tests.
Even if they are not the same, I don't believe the block level vs file level would make a significant difference would it? At the end of the day both Windows and FancyCache would cash the same data, all be it in different ways.

I feel your second usage pattern is where FancyCache would really shine. Windows doesn't seem to cache media files, at least for me, FancyCache would. So it goes along with that (or at least it's not much of a greater assumption) that FancyCache would be good at caching database/workfiles etc etc while Windows wouldn't.

All guesswork though!