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

It might be better rather than getting 2 hard disks, get an SSD for the data disk.  There will be less latency (i.e. none) when reading multiple files.  Of course, as the capacity will probably be smaller than a HDD (256GB vs 2TB or so), you will need some way to transfer the projects to/from a backup drive when the project is complete, but you already back up your files to some other device any way, don't you :-)

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.

2Mb vs 8Mb cache isn't going to make a difference. However current HDD will either be 32 or 64Mb....so try and get one with 64Mb if you plan to record to/stream off it. Buy a good one.
Do consider however the approach as posted above for best overall perfomance. One SSD for operating system, Sonar, samples and recording and one HDD for storage of projects not actively being worked on. I do not use huge sample libraries so a 128Mb SSD works for me. You might want get 256/512MB though as they cost not much more.

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.

To my knowledge SONAR makes NO use off the cache.
In older versions caching was disabled (recommended)
In the current aud.ini:  ReadCache=0   WriteCache=0
 

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.
 
 

Thanks Guys.
 
Entirely understood and agree on the SSD.  I need to get an entire system configured and running first though, too many variables going on otherwise.  I will probably then swap out the audio data drive for an SSD once everything else is working.  Or just add a small SSD and copy the currently active project to/from it.  I'll be running XP so that adds another potential curve ball, not sure how XP may handle SSD's.  
 
Anyway, back to the cache aspect..... I agree with bitflipper, I'm not seeing how hard disk cache size is going to make much difference when streaming many audio tracks.  The only samples involved are drums, and those are loaded once into RAM and stored, so that's not an aspect to be concerned about either.  i suspect pretty much any 7200RPM drive with < 10ms access time will be fine.  IIRC the average number of audio tracks I use trend around a dozen mono tracks since the drums are locked in RAM.  So we are only talking vox, guitar, bass, maybe keys.  On the outside maybe 20 tracks total (mono, 24-bit, 44.1KHz).  I suspect that shouldn't be any problem for a 7200 RPM drive.  At 96KHz it might be another story but I never run that high.
 
This is my current thinking, set me straight if I'm way off base or overlooking something....
 
Sonic

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.

Disk cache is even less relevant for sampled instruments, which predate 8+ GB systems and therefore manage memory better than any assistance the O/S or hardware can offer. Sometimes (e.g. Superior Drummer) the entire sample set is cached in memory. Sometimes (e.g. Kontakt) only the first N milliseconds of each sample is pre-loaded but you can increase how much is pre-loaded if you have a lot of RAM to spare. 
 
If your use of sampled instruments is limited to drums alone, then even an SSD might not be of much benefit. The exception, of course, being when you initially start up a project. In that case it can cut startup times down from a couple minutes to a few seconds if the project contains a lot of unrendered sampled instruments. 
 
I think you're taking the right approach. Get the system set up and stable, then decide if you need/want an SSD for your samples and/or projects. Or maybe buy a new sample library instead.