cas

Get your dangerous XP Cache Filter here

Recommended Posts

about all i can do is Format/Fdisk/copy from the dos prompt and i was able to find files in Win98 dos--Has XP changed.  Please Help.  Would really like to install this to see if it would affect my SCSI performance as it sucks as it is now.

Thanks Ahead of time

You need to wright under Command Promt FULL pass to XPCacheFilter, something as c:DownloadFolderXPCacheFilter -e

then push Enter & read all above instructions of Cas again and more attantively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, i can install it if i dump the program where the dos prompt is first directed, but i can't for some reason install it from a different location. any idea on how to do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, i opened the filter and it says to enter -i to install, but when i enter -i or i at the prompt it says "i or -i is not a recognized internal or external command". Same problem i was having when trying to open it from another directory. I must be missing something.

Please Help and idiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This filter only for WinXP not for W98 or W2K. Save or copy XPCacheFiolter.exe to some folder. Then Run - Programs - Accessories - Command Promt - Enter. Under back box try what wrote above. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Start - All programs - Accessories - Dos Prompt will give you a box that won't go away. If you launch something from "run" it will disappear once it's done.

But heed the advice given above - if you don't even know how to bring up a dos box, think hard before embarking on such a journey :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering what the secret is to have xpcache filter installed.

If I run the .exe, it asks to reboot the system, I reboot and there is nothing in device manager.

I tried the manual installation, verified registry, etc. Still nothing shows up in the device manager after reboot.

what now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, I check the driver details of SCSI disk device under "Disk Drivers" and it is listing:

disk.sys

PartMgr.sys

XPCacheFilter.sys

so it is probably loaded but I am not sure it is being used. I did not get any performance improvement (still around 10K writes). When I went to add it to the stack (as explained in the manual step), the LowerFilter entry was already there with XPCacheFilter defined in it. So I am not sure what else has to be done to activate it.

Thanks for any help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey BigCat, I went ahead and made a version of your signature which isn't quite as gigantic. The file is smaller and the text higher contrast (and anti-aliased) to boot. You may consider using this one if you don't have any image editing software handy. :)

Signature.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey BigCat, I went ahead and made a version of your signature which isn't quite as gigantic. The file is smaller and the text higher contrast (and anti-aliased) to boot. You may consider using this one if you don't have any image editing software handy. :)

Signature.png

it still sucks!

so you have no clue on how to help and just choose to criticize somebody else's signatures.? ok I removed it. it seems you are hanging out at the wrong forums.. head down to disney or hello kitty forums if signatures is what you are looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This filter only for WinXP not for W98 or W2K. Save or copy XPCacheFiolter.exe to some folder. Then Run - Programs - Accessories - Command Promt - Enter. Under back box try what wrote above. That's all.

It's working for me under Win2K SP3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had so many problems with XP/2000 and my SCSI config. Now it all works perfectly! Thank you so very much!

If you would like my systeminformation here it is:

Tyan s2466 dual AMD Athlon board

Transcend 256 Mb Reg ECC

Adaptec 29160 in 64/66 mhz slot

3 x Fujitsu MAN3184MP (18,2 Gb, Ultra160) and 1 Seagate Cheetah (don't know the exact name - SCA 160, System, 18,2 Gb)

I run Windows Xp Professional, and it is bought in Denmark (Europe).

If you need any extra information don't hesitate to mail me: func at geek.linux.dk

I do indeed love your programs! :wink:

Both cascopy and XPCacheFilter.

With cascopy I get the following results (with -withcache enabled):

1 processor used in copy operation

Timer resolution 624ps

Elapsed time 22148383076269ps

33155980 bytes/sec

Without -withcache I get these results:

2 processor(s) used in copy operation

Elapsed time 17861860450466ps

41112814 bytes/sec

Hope you can use these "benchmarks" for something.

They were conducted with a movie (.avi) 717,140 Mb big. From 2 Fujitsu's in RAID 0 to a single Fujitsu. All disks on the same channel by the way.

If I do a normal Explorer copy I get a speed about 35 mb/sec.

I do not (unfortunately) have any benchmarks before I installed the XPCacheFilter to compare with but I can say that the ATTO write-benches were between 2 to 3 times faster than before. The read speeds are also good. With the RAID-array and ATTO with a total length of 4 mb, I get a read speed of 136,340 mb/sec at the 1024.0 mark. But the write speeds won't go higher than 58,283 but that is also lightning fast compared with the performance before the patch.

Again: I looove the patch! Keep up the really good work! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got around to trying this driver, but I get a BSOD on startup. I have a Cheetah 15k.3 on a 29160 controller. I also have a 2940 card with various SCSI devices (none are HDDs). I do have an IDE drive as well. All partitions are NTFS.

Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was designed for SCSI, and MAY work for IDE RAID as well (since IDE RAID arrays are "seen" by XP as SCSI devices). The performance issue it addresses does not exist for non-RAIDed IDE drives.

Search the forums for more info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So this should be used instead of Dynamic Disk or should they be used together at the same time?  What if the disk has already been set to Dynamic Disk, can you disable Dynamic Disk once enabled?

Use it instead of Dynamic Disks. If you're already using DD then you can disable it. Basically it filters the commands that reduce the performance. DD has buggy code that doesn't pass on those commands so often creates the same effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am using 3ware 6400, I try to install the filter, but it didn't show up in the non-pnp driver list, although it show in the driver list of the "disk drive" in device manager. I also had try the manual install, but still didn't get it work, how ever, convert to dynamic disk does help... any hint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd add my 2 c

It appears that this fix dosen't work on Arrays..single disks only.

I'm running a 8 Disk Raid 0 array (SCSI) and getting 20 meg sec writes and reads to the same disk

Same thing with a 6 disk Raid 0 array on a 3ware 7500-12..

copy from one array to the other and it sits at about 50/60 meg sec...just like the guy further up in the thread..

Dunno of any fix yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I figured I add my experiences...with the filter install and the results..so far.

The install caused blue screens on bootup. A previous post here gave me an idea. Cas stated that the "Upperfilters" reg value should be set to "PartMgr". Also a previous post stated that in the device manager under the scsi adapter driver details, partmgr was listed.

My setup does not list partmgr in the device manager under driver details. I have two adaptec scsi raid drivers listed there. So in the "upperfilters" reg value I added the name of the last driver that appeared in my device manager driver details.

In my case this was "cda1000.sys"...so i added "cda1000" (no sys) in the upperfilters key.

The system boots...However, under "non pnp drivers" the filter is not listed. It IS listed under the driver details for the harddrive after cda1000.sys. Does this mean its loaded?

In sisoft sandra professional 2003:

before filter: 13835Kb/s

after filter : 14152Kb/s

not too much of a difference in my case. but my system has always behaved wierd in regards to benchmarks.

the systems spec:

1. Dual PIII 850E oc'd to 950.

2. 440GX

3. Adaptec ARO-1130U2 with 64meg cache (scsi raid)

4. (6) 9.1GB 7500rpm U2W drives. in raid 0.

5. Adaptec AHA-2940 pci card, with PLEXTOR burner and pioneer dvd

6. NTFS, one partition, dynamic disk

7. USA

8. WinXP SP1...

Typically in Atto my write scores are below 10mb/s. while my read scores soar to 80mb/s.

After I disable the write cache with the adapter's cio software, my atto write scores go to 30mb/s and my reads drop to 40mb/s. wierd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In sisoft sandra professional 2003:

before filter: 13835Kb/s

after filter : 14152Kb/s

not too much of a difference in my case. but my system has always behaved wierd in regards to benchmarks.

sandra isn't a benchmark, it's a toy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In sisoft sandra professional 2003:

before filter: 13835Kb/s

after filter : 14152Kb/s

not too much of a difference in my case. but my system has always behaved wierd in regards to benchmarks.

sandra isn't a benchmark, it's a toy

And your post is a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In sisoft sandra professional 2003:

before filter: 13835Kb/s

after filter : 14152Kb/s

not too much of a difference in my case. but my system has always behaved wierd in regards to benchmarks.

sandra isn't a benchmark, it's a toy

And your post is a joke.

No, it might not be the most eloquent of statements regarding Sandra's failings, but it conveys an accurate sentiment.

Sandra for disk benchmarking is inconsistent to the point of being worthless (I don't know about its other benchmarks). Results vary on a system where the only variable is the time of day (or possibly phase of moon).

So, if you are expecting most anyone here to give any weight to Sandra drive results, you will be disappointed. Atto is better, but it too has some flaws.

WinBench is pretty consistent for sequential reads and access times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now