Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Drive Performance


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Larkin600

Larkin600

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:18 AM

Posted 22 December 2009 - 05:12 PM

I'm currently using a WD 500Gb 32mb cache drive in my Windows 7 OS which is new. I'm also running a WD 250Gb 8mb cache drive that is old but still performing. My question is will the 8mb cache drive slow the performance of the 32mb cache drive down.? Will there be a noticible decrease in my performance?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Platypus

Platypus

  • Moderator
  • 13,730 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:06:18 PM

Posted 22 December 2009 - 05:35 PM

No, there won't be any problem, as long as the faster drive is being used for the functions where you want the greatest speed. The lower spec drive won't adversely affect the other drive just by being there.

Top 5 things that never get done:

1.


#3 Larkin600

Larkin600
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:18 AM

Posted 22 December 2009 - 06:03 PM

Okay, but are you saying that the functions being the OS and programs and nothing else? Downloads,video files, documents etc. on the lower end drive.

Edited by Larkin600, 22 December 2009 - 06:03 PM.


#4 Larkin600

Larkin600
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:18 AM

Posted 22 December 2009 - 06:08 PM

Thank you very much for the reply Platypus.

#5 ReviverSoft

ReviverSoft

    Happy to help!


  • Members
  • 1,552 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere on this planet...
  • Local time:01:18 AM

Posted 22 December 2009 - 06:37 PM

Okay, but are you saying that the functions being the OS and programs and nothing else? Downloads,video files, documents etc. on the lower end drive.


Theoretically, there is a performance difference with the extra cache but real-world difference is marginal unless of course you use data intensive applications.
This is applicable to all kinds of files and applications.
ReviverSoft - Happy to help!

#6 Platypus

Platypus

  • Moderator
  • 13,730 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:06:18 PM

Posted 22 December 2009 - 06:44 PM

No worries. Of course it's up to you how you divide up the drive usage. When there are two drives in a system, most people find it best to use the second drive for storage of frequently accessed material, like documents they're working on, videos & music. That way the two drives are doing two different jobs , and the system can run smoother that way.

Even though the larger drive should have better performance, when it is doing everything (loading Windows, the page file, reading from & saving to files) there can be lags. If a second drive is, say, reading the video that is playing, this may work better even though the second drive is slower than the main one.

To make the best use of the storage space on the larger drive, it can be a good idea to partition it into two, a smaller partition to hold the OS and applications, and the remainder for storage - preferably of larger and less often used files. This makes it simpler to keep the drive well maintained (eg cleanup, defrag, backup), and ensures the files being used to run the system are confined to the fastest section of the drive, close to the outer edge.

Top 5 things that never get done:

1.


#7 Platypus

Platypus

  • Moderator
  • 13,730 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:06:18 PM

Posted 22 December 2009 - 06:57 PM

As ReviverSoft says, if the drives are otherwise internally equivalent, the performance difference due only to cache size may be small. So you could be getting more performance enhancement in real-world usage by having the two drives performing different functions than you would just by having the larger cache alone. Also sometimes you can find the technology has advanced between models, such as by having the larger capacity produced by greater areal density rather than just more platters, and so the larger drive can have a higher sustained data transfer rate also.

But in any of these scenarios, the effectiveness of the larger cache in the new drive will not be degraded at all by the smaller cached drive, which I think was the implication of your original question?

Top 5 things that never get done:

1.


#8 Larkin600

Larkin600
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:18 AM

Posted 22 December 2009 - 07:54 PM

Thank you'll for so much valuable information. You'll confirmed what I was thinking. I just couldn't explain it as nicely as you'll put it. Greatly appreciated!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users