Hard Disk Cache Size Question

Hi Guys,
 
I'm buying two new SATA hard disks, one for the system disk (Windows) the other for the audio data.  How important is cache size in terms of streaming audio data in Sonar?   Under normal circumstances I can see how there could be an advantage when streaming a large sequential file or two, but if the disk heads are already jumping all over the place reading many large audio files (let's say 2 dozen 24-bit mono tracks at 44.1KHz), I just can't picture how a 2MB cache vs. and 8MB (or more) is going to make much difference.

Thoughts?  Anybody with any real-life testing of smaller vs. larger disk cache in this scenario?
 
Thanks,
 
     Sonic

I share soundman32's thoughts get an SSD for your main OS/Sonar.
There's nothing better than files that load in seconds flat. Personally, I put my last 10 projects on the SSD.
My large projects load under 14 seconds. Sometimes its worth the trade off (size for speed).
 
However if you choose to go the route of HDD:
 
Cache: Hard drives come with a buffer memory called a cache. It also influences hard disks’ access speed. In the main it can be said that the bigger the cache, the better the hard disk’s capacity to handle large amounts of data. Large cache sizes have proven very useful for applications in the audio field. If you wish to use the hard disk for streaming sample content, be mindful of its cache size. Along with rotational speed, cache size has an immediate impact on the amount of individual samples you can load at a time, say, while VST instruments (for example HALion) are being played. Currently, hard disks with 32 to 64 MB cache are the most common choice.
 

SonicExplorer
 I just can't picture how a 2MB cache vs. and 8MB (or more) is going to make much difference.

 
Then picture 2005 and a 40GB western digital IDE .
 
Look for something in the 72,000/32-64MB range. When it comes to HDD's, don't skimp out, you want fast rotations and good size cache.

I would posit that the drive's built-in cache size is almost irrelevant in the context of streaming audio in a DAW.
 
 
Consider that the drive's cache holds the last N disk sectors that have been read (read by all processes, not just your DAW) - up to, say, 64 MB. A typical project will contain more than 100 times that. It's like carrying an extra penny in your pocket to save space in your wallet.

So writing to the cache doesn't help when you are tracking from a perspective of how many tracks can you record at a time. Cache is useful for bursts of disk writing activity.
 
When you copy a 5 GB Project there is a burst of activity where it writes very fast until the cache is full, then it slows down and writes at a fairly steady speed.
 
On different computers, these numbers differ. On my computer the burst moves at around 100 MB/Second and then steady steady copying data after the cache is full is around 60 MB/Second.
 
Copying to my USB SSD happens at around 30 MB/Second.
 
Copying from my laptop to my desktop over a wired network cable through a gigabit switch is around 15 MB/Secs (the constraint is the laptop drive).
 
All of these are ample to record 18 tracks at a reasonable buffer setting.
 
Disk read speed can help when you are doing comping. In that case, you record playing the same song over and over and over. I do this when I'm practicing. Eventually, I can end up with so many takes on a single piece that I start to get dropouts. The problem here is read speed. An SSD would significantly raise the ceiling of how many of these tracks you could have without risking dropouts. Sonar makes it possible to unmute any of the takes at any second, so the disk has to read every take every time.
 
Similarly to the read speed, the cache can save you from shooting yourself in the foot. Right now I'm recording someone playing and just curious I went and copied another project to see if it would cause a dropout. It did not cause a dropout. This is in part due to the cache available.
 
 

Two dozen mono tracks shouldn't really be an issue for any modern HDD regardless of cache size. At 44.1KHz 24bit, each file is roughly 5.5MB per minute. 24 tracks is 132MB per minute or 2.2MB per second. Any HDD can stream that much without breaking a sweat.

Thank you very much guys for your kind input and patience.  
 
Right now the final sticking point to this "new" XP DAW is figuring out the video situation.  I really do not want/like the idea of a dedicated graphics card with massive heat sinks and/or fans just for an audio DAW.   Looking around eBay I'm confused as to what specs to target for PCIe video.....  64MB, 128MB? Brand?  OEM cards ok or not?  Ugh.... 
 
Sonic

SonicExplorer
Thank you very much guys for your kind input and patience.  
 
Right now the final sticking point to this "new" XP DAW is figuring out the video situation.  I really do not want/like the idea of a dedicated graphics card with massive heat sinks and/or fans just for an audio DAW.   Looking around eBay I'm confused as to what specs to target for PCIe video.....  64MB, 128MB? Brand?  OEM cards ok or not?  Ugh.... 

There are quite a few inexpensive fanless boards around, usually based on ATI chipsets. They need some air movement within the case, but the PC in my sig (now sadly deceased) ran fine with just a big Nokia cpu cooler and a couple of big 140mm Nokia set at reduced voltage for slow running one on the cpu and one as a case fan to flow air through the case - and you need a case fan anyway. That PC was almost inaudible from 8 feet, measured 26dBA usually, around 45dBA under pretty heavy loading. The gpu was OK for a lot of games and ran Photoshop pretty quickly as well :-)

Big gpu heatsinks aren't a problem other than if they block a slot you need for something else. In fact they're good because they mean no fan is needed on the gpu.

I've used OEM-style cards since the 90s and have had no more problems with them than any other.

DAWs don't really need massively powerful graphics setups. Most people in the Mac world using Retina MacBooks just have the Intel cpu on-board graphics, fairly recent MacBook Pros being HD4000 series or better. That handles anything a DAW requires perfectly well, can cope with a couple of 1080p (or better) displays, and all the optional upgrade to a seperate gpu does is make a few games run better and add heat and noise. And you might have trouble finding drivers for XP-era gpus - or XP drivers for modern Intel integrated graphics.

XP is ancient in OS terms, it was replaced a decade ago. To be honest I wouldn't go there, it's like building a 1970s car in 2017 from what spares and old stock parts you can find. I'd bite the bullet and go to at least Windows 7. Vista onwards introduced a lot of tweaking to the OS which has benefited DAWs quite a bit.

In my experience SATA drives always work fine. The only time the drive is a problem for me is when I record every time I practice a tune for weeks on end. Then I hit the limit of what the thing can read. I usually go delete a few hundred useless takes and I'm rolling again.
 
I have wanted a setting where when you're tracking like this it doesn't bother reading from disk things takes you aren't listening to.
 
Someday.