Raid cache question

[xxsk8er101xx]

you know how when yo usetup raid you can set the cache anywhere from like 8KB to 2MB.

My question is which is optimal for 4-7GB movie files?

I did read the FAQ BTW but it does not specify a common size cahce thing for video editing.

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by xxsk8er101xx on 04/12/03 06:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Scotty35]

Cache?

You mean cluster size yes?

Cluster size is dependant on ya needs anyway and it is a matter of what works best for you this is why no one will recommend a cluster size!



<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=326&s=24cd3646ec584db36d180555f4d4e868" target="_new">My PC</A>

 

[xxsk8er101xx]

how can i know what cluster size to use if i have no idea what cluster size is normal to use. i have no idea what to use thats why i'm asking ... why would i choose 512KB over 1MB? 1MB is larger .. why not pick 2MB it's even larger.

what would be appropraite for each cluster size?

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>

 

[Scotty35]

All questions that I can't answer well, and had tried to get answers for some time ago without luck.
I think most people test a few different cluster sizes and settings until they are satisfied with the result and this is why I said that no one can recommend a cluster size for your particular application, it is trial and error until you get what you want IMO..

I myself have used the suggested default size of 64K (I think that’s the default size) when I set up my raid 0 and that seems to work extremely well, however in my best guesstimate the larger cluster file size can be read and accessed quicker at a sacrifice of some disk storage space but I really don't know much about it at all!
I have also heard booting to an operating system on a raid array has a high failure rate, wether or not there is any truth in that.

Anyway what works for me may not work for you ok.
Sorry that I could not help you.


<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=326&s=24cd3646ec584db36d180555f4d4e868" target="_new">My PC</A>

 

[xxsk8er101xx]

no no you helped actually. Knew more then me lol!

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>

 

[lhgpoobaa]

Ive also read alot about the subject... and the GENERAL impression is that small sizes aid interactions involving lots of small read write operations, where large cluster sizes are better for sustained read/writes and streaming.

But yeah, the best thing is to experiment and see what works best in your circumstances.

<b>True Class: Just roll her over and do her doggy style. And put a laptop on her back and tell us what its like live on irc.</b>
<A HREF="http://members.iinet.net.au/~lhgpoobaa/images" target="_new">http://members.iinet.net.au/~lhgpoobaa/images</A>

 

[sjonnie]

With most controllers there is no benefit to using a cluster size larger than 64Kb

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/myanandtech.html?member=114979" target="_new">My PCs</A>

 

[xxsk8er101xx]

sounds good ...

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>