|
Nicola Samiam
xoxox
Join date: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 142
|
02-19-2007 10:27
Now that we can choose the SL cache location in the First Look Viewer, which would be the best option given the following circumstances:
Disk 1 - Raptor 74GB spin speed 10,000 (OS - Windows XP and apps, single partition).
Disk 2 - Seagate 160GB with 4 (more or less equal) partitions spin speed 7200 (I think).
My question is, should SL be installed on the fastest drive, with the cache on one of the partitions on the secondary drive, or vice versa?
Any comments gratefully received!
Thanks
|
|
Kyrah Abattoir
cruelty delight
Join date: 4 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,786
|
02-19-2007 10:39
keep in mind that partitioning a hard disk effectively reduce it's overall performances as the inner cylinders of the disk can go as low as 60% of the read/write speed of the outer cylinders, so by partitioning your last partition is also the slowest one.
_____________________
 tired of XStreetSL? try those! apez http://tinyurl.com/yfm9d5b metalife http://tinyurl.com/yzm3yvw metaverse exchange http://tinyurl.com/yzh7j4a slapt http://tinyurl.com/yfqah9u
|
|
Nicola Samiam
xoxox
Join date: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 142
|
02-19-2007 13:13
Thanks Kyrah!
I must admit I didn't know that - it's worth bearing in mind.
But which is the best way round? The client installed on the faster drive, or the cache?
At the moment I have the regular viewer on a partition on the second drive (the cache on the OS drive). This was a definite improvement on having SL installed in the default location.
I also have the FL Viewer installed on the primary drive, and the cached installed on one of the partitions on the second drive. Performance is much better, but it's difficult to judge whether this is just because of the improvements I'm getting in the FL viewer.
|
|
Thili Playfair
Registered User
Join date: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 2,417
|
02-19-2007 14:40
yay Raptor (got those to), they where really fast & low seek time but their age has passed now, great for os' disk tho, anything that rapidly need acess/cache/swap disk
You wouldnt notice much diffrence now from those 2 disks
Raptor 10000rpm/4.6 ms av.seek/16mb/sata1
(raptor beats most track/track tho <0.4ms)
Seagate 7200rpm/4.16 ms av.seek /16mb/sata2?
If i where you i wouldnt use SL cache on a OS disk, cause it will make one heck of a defrag constantly, pretty much only reason o.o
(Diskkeeper is a handy program for that)
|
|
Nicola Samiam
xoxox
Join date: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 142
|
02-20-2007 10:32
Thanks Thili!
I must admit I was kinda thinking that I got the best speed from having the client on the OS disk and the cache on the secondary drive, but of course I can't test that with the regular viewer at the moment, just FirstLook!
I do have Diskeeper and I take your point about fragmentation, so it looks like I'm going to stick with SL on the OS drive and the cache on the secondary drive.
Thanks again to both of you for your comments!
|