HDD for use in and enclosure... 16mb cache worth it?

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

matt.choules

Thread Starter
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
378
Just a quick question, If i wanted to put a HDD in an enclosure and run it via usb 2.0 would getting one with 16mb cache make any difference than one with only 8mb cache considering the bandwidth limitations of usb ports?
The HDD would be an ATA 133 drive, not SATA.
Sorry to sound like a n00b, but trying to find one that will do the job properly!
 

matt.choules

Thread Starter
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
378
I know the transfer rate of usb 2.0 is supposed to be 480mbps (although it often doesn't reach that), but how would having a cache of 16mb benefit rather than just 8mb (or lower) considering that information still has to pass along the same cable (e.g. same bandwidth limitation)?
 

Triple6

Rob
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
52,933
There'd be some a benefit to having a large cache size, after all it will reduce the time when you consider the hard drives seek time. As with any drive the cache becomes pretty much irrelevant when you start to do large continuous disk transfers.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
944
Who ever said usb 2.0 is supposed to get 480 mega bits per second. I've had 2 LACIE drives that are USB 2.0 I tested them they are faster than my firewire 400 drive they hold 450 mbs on large transfers, that ain't no lie. It doesn't drop and it doesn't bounce up and down. On a good computer it is awesome for the money. 16 mb of cache speeds the seek time by like a couple of milliseconds. If you are just using it for storage get the biggest, cheapest hard drive that has a good brand name. One that is not known for making crappy hard drives.
 

JohnWill

Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Messages
106,429
I'd be willing to bet that all other things being equal, the difference between the 8mb and 16mb cache will be so insignificant that you won't be able to measure it.
 

matt.choules

Thread Starter
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
378
My intended use of the HDD will be to store music files to be played out live via my pcmcia sound card (an Echo Indigo DJ) and Ableton (controlled by a midi controller).

Some of the files will be whole songs, others will be clips thats i have have editted into loops.

As i am trying to play out multiple audio file at once i reckon i will go for the drive with 16mb cache. Based on what has been said it should stop there being gaps in the audio when accessing new songs as (hopefully) the playing clip(s) will be stored in the cache.

Does that sound about right?
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
944
since it is usb 2.0 and not E-SATA, SCSI raid or even Firewire 800. You are not going to notice the difference. On the bright side, you can always use it later in something else. The choice is yours.
 

JohnWill

Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Messages
106,429
It won't hurt to have the 16mb cache, but for the intended use, I wouldn't pay extra for it.
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Top