Originally posted by rdgrimes
I notice the performance boost mainly is delivering large database and similar data. I think virus scanning is faster too. I don’t see any difference in things like drive copying or imaging though.
I don’t see any difference in CD burning either, although I regularly run 2 instances of Nero and burn different image files to each instance (CDRW drive) off the same HD, at 40x. It may be my imagination, but I think the 8MB HD is a little better at keeping up.
They are also whisper quiet, I can’t hear them over the case fans.
That would be because the caching algorithmns in the 8MB drive would allow it to read ahead and buffer more of the 1st image, then when it moves to the positon of the second image, buffer more again.
Lets assume that the drive reads 1/2 it’s cache for each image.
A 2MB chace HD would read 1MB of the first image, then 1 MB of the second image.
So it would need to move the read heads (650 * 2) / 1MB = 1300 times to read the data for the 2 images.
In comparison the 8MB cache HD realises that programs are requesting the same files repeatedly, and so will read ahead by 4MB.
so (650*2) / 4 = 325.
So 1/4 of the number of seeks. The seek time we all know is the most time consuming of any HD operation, so reducing the seeks by 75% will speed up the HD significantly.
I will point out that this isn’t entirely accurate because their are other factors, but I’m sure everyone gets where this is going.