Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

64MB Cache Drives

Last response: in Storage
Share
a b G Storage
September 27, 2009 7:25:12 PM

Hey all,

I am looking into possibly replacing my old and slow HD with my OS on it once W7 comes out. Essentially, I am looking for something reliable, fairly quick, and not over the top in terms of price.

SSDs are a bit expensive for my liking right now, especially if one wants something decent like an Intel made SSD. I'm not sure if I trust 10K RPM drives, as they appear to have a higher failure rate than standard 7200rpm drives. Then again, I can be swayed on a 10K drive if the price were right.

I've noticed that Seagate and a few other HDD makers are coming out with drives that feature 64MB of cache. Of course, the drives are a bit more expensive than a standard 16 or 32MB (cache) drive, but they are 7200rpm'ers, which potentially signals a bit more reliability.

So the question is: What would give me the above-mentioned criteria above? A 10K RPM Raptor or a standard 7200rpm drive with the 64MB of cache?

More about : 64mb cache drives

a c 415 G Storage
September 27, 2009 8:21:11 PM

Assuming that what you're looking for is faster boot and application load times, the 10K drive will beat a 7200RPM drive no matter how much cache it has. Booting and application loading does a lot of random reads, something that the cache is of little benefit for.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
September 27, 2009 8:29:39 PM

^+1. Or 2x RAID01 7200 drives.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b G Storage
September 27, 2009 9:02:52 PM

Gotcha. I'm not going to do a RAID setup, as I really do not need THAT kind of speed. Just something a bit "peppier" than what I'm used to.

Maybe a 10k drive is worth it. But I'm still a bit wary of their failure rate. Or am I just being paranoid?
m
0
l

Best solution

a b G Storage
September 27, 2009 11:06:36 PM

As far as I know, the Velociraptor doesn't have an abnormally high failure rate. The 10krpm Seagate drives are incredibly reliable (though use a SAS connection, which means you need a SAS controller, and all concern about price goes out the window). There's nothing inherently unreliable about 10k.

Share
a b G Storage
September 29, 2009 6:36:42 PM

Excellent. I'll be up around a few computer stores in later this week, I'l see if I can find any that have a deal on the new Raptors, at least to try out.

Thanks for the advice.
m
0
l
February 22, 2010 2:25:49 PM

sminlal said:
Assuming that what you're looking for is faster boot and application load times, the 10K drive will beat a 7200RPM drive no matter how much cache it has. Booting and application loading does a lot of random reads, something that the cache is of little benefit for.

You're probably much more technically inclined about the new hardware than I, however, the processor receives info from the cache of the hard-drive. There are never any direct reads from the disk itself. I would agree that any two drives with the same amount of cache would be greatly influenced by rotational speed. I would disagree that a a 26% increase in rotational speed would nulify a doubling in cache size. Therefore, the 7200 rpm with a 64mb cache should and will always out perform a 10K model with only 32mb. As for longevity, the decreased rotational speed is a plus due to much less power consumption; much less heat...........
Or am I thinking like a dinosaur here?
m
0
l
July 8, 2010 3:42:11 AM

Quote:
You're probably much more technically inclined about the new hardware than I, however, the processor receives info from the cache of the hard-drive. There are never any direct reads from the disk itself. I would agree that any two drives with the same amount of cache would be greatly influenced by rotational speed. I would disagree that a a 26% increase in rotational speed would nulify a doubling in cache size. Therefore, the 7200 rpm with a 64mb cache should and will always out perform a 10K model with only 32mb. As for longevity, the decreased rotational speed is a plus due to much less power consumption; much less heat...........
Or am I thinking like a dinosaur here?


Every benchmark I've seen puts the raptor a bit ahead, despite the small drive cache. Real world read and write tests might show the 64mb cache 7200 just barely behind the Raptor, but access times and latency is still twice as fast on the raptor. However, when you are talking milliseconds "twice as fast" doesnt mean a whole lot in real noticeable time. The last thing to mention is that the burst speed of the raptor is many times faster than that of the 7200 of any cache size. Again, this may be barely noticeable at best and borderline negligible. Nevertheless, the Raptor is still faster.

However, the 7200 comes in much much MUCH large disk sizes (bonus!). And, when a pair of good 1tb+ 7200 64mb cache HDDs are in Raid 0, benchmarks show them just behind the Raptor when there is large amounts of free space and as more space is used the dual 7200 hdds in raid will surpass the performance of the single raptor (again with up to 10x the disk space or more). Of course Raid 0 has its risks.

http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/io.tests/platter.tran...

m
0
l
!