just ordered a matrox ultra 133 80Gb drive with 8Mb cache, wants the
performance gain with the increased cache?



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 14/11/2003

Jay <bad_company'at'barrysworld_dotcom> wrote in message
news:3fbab1b0$0$109$(E-Mail Removed)...

> just ordered a matrox ultra 133 80Gb drive with 8Mb cache,

maxtor.

> wants the performance gain with the increased cache?

I doubt you'd be able to pick it in a proper double blind trial
with not being allowed to use a benchmark or diagnostic.

The benefit even with a benchmark varys with the work being done.

Previously Jay <bad_company'at'barrysworld_dotcom> wrote:
> just ordered a matrox ultra 133 80Gb drive with 8Mb cache, wants the
> performance gain with the increased cache?

Without OS buffer-cache (think DOS): considerably.
With OS buffer-cache: Almost nothing. Linux, e.g. on a 1GB system
uses routinely several 100MB for cache and buffer, so 8MB do
not really have any impact.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

"Arno Wagner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:bpf7q1$1nd43k$(E-Mail Removed)
> Previously Jay <bad_company'at'barrysworld_dotcom> wrote:
> > just ordered a matrox ultra 133 80Gb drive with 8Mb cache, wants the
> > performance gain with the increased cache?
>
> Without OS buffer-cache (think DOS): considerably.

Actually, almost none. And even DOS has cacheing (smartdrv).

> With OS buffer-cache: Almost nothing. Linux, e.g. on a 1GB system
> uses routinely several 100MB for cache and buffer, so 8MB do
> not really have any impact.
>
> Arno

So do you think the 8MB cache idea is mostly a marketing scheme, and will
the 2 MB cached HDs become obsolete? Looks like lots of HD manufacturers are
selling HDs with the 8MB cache these days. Thanks for your response.

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bpge40$1o4vee$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Arno Wagner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bpf7q1$1nd43k$(E-Mail Removed)
> > Previously Jay <bad_company'at'barrysworld_dotcom> wrote:
> > > just ordered a matrox ultra 133 80Gb drive with 8Mb cache, wants the
> > > performance gain with the increased cache?
> >
> > Without OS buffer-cache (think DOS): considerably.
>
> Actually, almost none. And even DOS has cacheing (smartdrv).
>
> > With OS buffer-cache: Almost nothing. Linux, e.g. on a 1GB system
> > uses routinely several 100MB for cache and buffer, so 8MB do
> > not really have any impact.
> >
> > Arno

If 256Mb costs $5, then 64Mb (8MB) is probably $2. Why use anything smaller?

PS, anyone know of a site that charts dram spot prices?

"Papa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:QpPub.7147$(E-Mail Removed)...
| So do you think the 8MB cache idea is mostly a marketing scheme, and will
| the 2 MB cached HDs become obsolete? Looks like lots of HD manufacturers are
| selling HDs with the 8MB cache these days. Thanks for your response.
|

Papa <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:QpPub.7147$(E-Mail Removed)...

> So do you think the 8MB cache idea is mostly a marketing scheme,

Yes, tho like with a lot of that sort of thing, the extra cost is
minimal now so the drive might as well have the bigger cache.

> and will the 2 MB cached HDs become obsolete?

Depends on what you mean by obsolete. Not the sense that they
need to be discarded. Yes in the sense that you will likely see not
too many drive manufacturers bother to supply them anymore.

> Looks like lots of HD manufacturers are
> selling HDs with the 8MB cache these days.

Basically because the extra cost is peanuts.


> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:bpge40$1o4vee$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "Arno Wagner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:bpf7q1$1nd43k$(E-Mail Removed)
> > > Previously Jay <bad_company'at'barrysworld_dotcom> wrote:
> > > > just ordered a matrox ultra 133 80Gb drive with 8Mb cache, wants the
> > > > performance gain with the increased cache?
> > >
> > > Without OS buffer-cache (think DOS): considerably.
> >
> > Actually, almost none. And even DOS has cacheing (smartdrv).
> >
> > > With OS buffer-cache: Almost nothing. Linux, e.g. on a 1GB system
> > > uses routinely several 100MB for cache and buffer, so 8MB do
> > > not really have any impact.
> > >
> > > Arno
>
>

Eric Gisin <ericg@10.11.12.13> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> If 256Mb costs $5, then 64Mb (8MB) is probably $2. Why use anything smaller?

Particularly when there are plenty of stupid consumers
who insist on an 8MB cache, even if they wouldnt be
able to pick it in a proper double blind trial.

> PS, anyone know of a site that charts dram spot prices?

http://priceindexes.com/


> Papa <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

>> So do you think the 8MB cache idea is mostly a marketing scheme, and will
>> the 2 MB cached HDs become obsolete? Looks like lots of HD manufacturers
>> are selling HDs with the 8MB cache these days. Thanks for your response.

Let's put it this way, when WD started the 8MB cache HD thing, I bit
hook-line-sinker. Also had the same identical drive in 2MB cache version
(30GB). Could find not other physical variation between the two HDs at the
WD website. Did an image copy from the 2MB version to the 8MB version. I
did not benchmark either. Removed the 2MB version from the PC and put the
8MB version in its place. From my own usage, I could see no apparent
increase in speed in any way I used the 8MB version. It proves nothing,
except that in my case, I perceived nothing changed. Take it or leave it
with a grain of salt.
Dave
"Papa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:QpPub.7147$(E-Mail Removed)...
> So do you think the 8MB cache idea is mostly a marketing scheme, and will
> the 2 MB cached HDs become obsolete? Looks like lots of HD manufacturers
are
> selling HDs with the 8MB cache these days. Thanks for your response.
>
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:bpge40$1o4vee$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "Arno Wagner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:bpf7q1$1nd43k$(E-Mail Removed)
> > > Previously Jay <bad_company'at'barrysworld_dotcom> wrote:
> > > > just ordered a matrox ultra 133 80Gb drive with 8Mb cache, wants the
> > > > performance gain with the increased cache?
> > >
> > > Without OS buffer-cache (think DOS): considerably.
> >
> > Actually, almost none. And even DOS has cacheing (smartdrv).
> >
> > > With OS buffer-cache: Almost nothing. Linux, e.g. on a 1GB system
> > > uses routinely several 100MB for cache and buffer, so 8MB do
> > > not really have any impact.
> > >
> > > Arno
>
>

Thanks, Dave. That's been my experience too, and I jumped on the 8MB cache
bandwagon also - but it performs at least as good for my applications
(including some fairly demanding games) as the 2MB cache drives, and the
price was right (below $1 per gigabyte and still dropping). So I really
can't complain.

"Lil' Dave" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bmSub.28037$HD3.3023@lakeread06...
> Let's put it this way, when WD started the 8MB cache HD thing, I bit
> hook-line-sinker. Also had the same identical drive in 2MB cache version
> (30GB). Could find not other physical variation between the two HDs at
the
> WD website. Did an image copy from the 2MB version to the 8MB version. I
> did not benchmark either. Removed the 2MB version from the PC and put the
> 8MB version in its place. From my own usage, I could see no apparent
> increase in speed in any way I used the 8MB version. It proves nothing,
> except that in my case, I perceived nothing changed. Take it or leave it
> with a grain of salt.
> Dave
> "Papa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:QpPub.7147$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > So do you think the 8MB cache idea is mostly a marketing scheme, and
will
> > the 2 MB cached HDs become obsolete? Looks like lots of HD manufacturers
> are
> > selling HDs with the 8MB cache these days. Thanks for your response.
> >
> > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:bpge40$1o4vee$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > > "Arno Wagner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:bpf7q1$1nd43k$(E-Mail Removed)
> > > > Previously Jay <bad_company'at'barrysworld_dotcom> wrote:
> > > > > just ordered a matrox ultra 133 80Gb drive with 8Mb cache, wants
the
> > > > > performance gain with the increased cache?
> > > >
> > > > Without OS buffer-cache (think DOS): considerably.
> > >
> > > Actually, almost none. And even DOS has cacheing (smartdrv).
> > >
> > > > With OS buffer-cache: Almost nothing. Linux, e.g. on a 1GB system
> > > > uses routinely several 100MB for cache and buffer, so 8MB do
> > > > not really have any impact.
> > > >
> > > > Arno
> >
> >
>
>