8MB buffer vs 16MB buffer question

Question

8MB buffer vs 16MB buffer question

I'm using Snow Leopard and a first generation Mac Pro 2.66. I was wondering, I have two 500GB 16MB buffer Seagate HD and I have a 160GB 8MB buffer HD. What I do is use Digital Performer and stream in all of my virtual instruments from 2nd and 3rd drives to take the stress off of one drive. If I use my 160GB HD as my main application drive, will I see much of a difference if I'm streaming from the two 500GB HD? They are all 7200RPM. Is there a real advantage of the 16MB buffer vs 8MB besides just transferring large data? Most of my streams are pieces of data from a sample file. Any info would be helpful. Thanks.

Mac Pro 2.66, Mac OS X (10.6.2)

Posted on Dec 29, 2009 12:10 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Dec 29, 2009 12:17 AM in response to airwolfhelicopter

The buffer size won't make much difference, but the larger drives will be faster because they use a higher bit density, so get more date per track.

Reply

Answer 2

Dec 29, 2009 12:42 AM in response to Malcolm Rayfield

but there won't be noticeable latency right? Faster can be relative depending on what a person is doing.

Reply

Answer 3

Dec 29, 2009 11:48 AM in response to airwolfhelicopter

so even with lower bit density a latency issue shouldn't be a problem?

Reply

Answer 4

The hatter

Level 9

61,031 points

Dec 29, 2009 12:26 PM in response to airwolfhelicopter

If you want fast random access for your drives, get an SSD or 10K V-Raptor. Next in line would be 1TB Samsung F3. 2TB WD Black Caviar is also fast in its own right.

My guess is the old consumer 8MB drive is not going to be able to compete, make good use as an emergency system for repairs.

Seagate has had trouble... with most all their SATA drives and firmware - good warranty can't make up for it though.

The 640GB WD Caviar Blue or Black models are best darn performance and value for a lot of uses - and users.

Reply