OT: HDD cache size

[Dave Labrecque]

What's the deal? I see SATA III drives with either a 16 MB cache or a 64 MB cache. The latter is pricier, obviously.

Which is higher performing for audio data?

Which is higher performing for typical boot drive operations?

Is the difference big enough to be interesting?

[905shmick]

What's the deal? I see SATA III drives with either a 16 MB cache or a 64 MB cache. The latter is pricier, obviously.

Which is higher performing for audio data?

Which is higher performing for typical boot drive operations?

Is the difference big enough to be interesting?

For recording and playback, cache will be pointless because your files are far bigger then any of the cache.

What you want is a fast drive ie: bare min 7200 rpm. Stay away from the 5400 rpm drives.

If you want a fast boot drive, go with a smaller SSD drive.

[Cary B. Cornett]

For recording and playback, cache will be pointless because your files are far bigger then any of the cache. I am going to disagree a little bit on that point. Some of the drive's "time" is lost to the need for the heads to seek to a new track and sector. When reading or writing multiple files at once, the heads are moving a lot more. The cache enables the drive to continue to send and receive data during the seek process, so that the rest of the computer is not forced to "wait" for just the moment when the head is in the right place.

In general, a larger cache is better, up to the point where the cache is bigger than necessary to "fill the gaps" to cover seek time.

As to how much difference the larger cache size you mentioned might make in actual use, I can't say. For recording or playback of a single file at a time, probably not that much. When many files are involved at once (recording and playing a large number of tracks), the difference in size may be more significant.

[Tim Miskimon]

I am going to disagree a little bit on that point. Some of the drive's "time" is lost to the need for the heads to seek to a new track and sector. When reading or writing multiple files at once, the heads are moving a lot more. The cache enables the drive to continue to send and receive data during the seek process, so that the rest of the computer is not forced to "wait" for just the moment when the head is in the right place.

In general, a larger cache is better, up to the point where the cache is bigger than necessary to "fill the gaps" to cover seek time.

As to how much difference the larger cache size you mentioned might make in actual use, I can't say. For recording or playback of a single file at a time, probably not that much. When many files are involved at once (recording and playing a large number of tracks), the difference in size may be more significant.


Doesn't the drive's cache handle that?
Just wondering - I've always been a bit confused on that one.

[Cary B. Cornett]

Doesn't the drive's cache handle that?
Just wondering - I've always been a bit confused on that one. Handle what? The seek time? As I said in my earlier post...

Or are you asking about something else??

[905shmick]

There have been a few tests that have proven drive caches beyond 8MB don't seem to offer any additional read or write performance gains.

[Cary B. Cornett]

There have been a few tests that have proven drive caches beyond 8MB don't seem to offer any additional read or write performance gains. The thing about tests is that they are always based on certain assumptions about how something will be used. Were the tests on writing one large file, or many large files at once? Was the drive usage by the test at all similar to how any DAW, let alone SAW, actually accesses the files on the drive?

It may very well be that drive caches larger than 8MB don't do anything useful, but I am not convinced by test results without knowing for certain whether those tests actually reflect the way I would use a drive in a session or a concert recording.

Oh, and another factor... do all drive mechanics have exactly the same performance as far as seek times, settling, sector finding, etc.?? What about the new "green" drives? Do they gain power efficiency by compromising mechanical performance in a way that might be better compensated for by a larger cache? Again, we probably do not know enough about the assumptions made by the people who designed and ran the tests.

[905shmick]

At the end of the day, the cache isn't going to help you very much, so there's no reason to get caught up in the bigger is better battle.

If you need drive performance, get an SSD drive or a traditional drive with a fast RPM rate and low seek time.

On the topic of green drives, there's a lot of crap going on with these drives that makes them not so ideal for anything other than using them for archival purposes.

[Dave Labrecque]

So... does anyone have any real-world comparison experience recording and/or playing back multiple tracks of audio with a small HDD cache vs. a large HDD cache?

That would mean the most, I think.

[Cary B. Cornett]

Five years ago I was using a USB external drive to record 14 tracks on live stage performances. I was also able to playback sessions with at least 24 tracks from the same drive, no trouble at all. This was a regular 7200 RPM drive, nothing special at all. I imagine the performance of current drives is better, so chances are the large cache is not especially important. I still like drive with larger cache sizes if I don't have to pay too much for them. I figure it doesn't do any harm.