New Hard Drive & Cooling Fan

[Joel Pelletier]

Re: 2MB vs. 8MB Cache

I read in a couple different places online, while researching drives 
for internal and external use, that the bigger cache the better when 
working with LARGE files. However, if the drive is primarily working 
with SMALL files on a regular basis (including OS functions), then it 
is actually MORE EFFICIENT to stay with the SMALLER 2MB cache. I 
can't now remember the exact technical reasoning for this, but I do 
remember concluding that the reasoning was sound, and benchmarks 
(atleast for the for the 2 Seagate Barracudas in question) was 
conclusive. I can't recommend enough my ST3120023A Barracuda V (I 
believe I stated IV in an earlier posting) for SILENCE and speed - 
the BEST drive I have ever owned (I have MANY external drives for 
large files, most 7200/8MB cache). Just remember that Cubes do not 
support Serial ATA-

>Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:06:41 +0100
>
>  > If you plan on many LARGE files (like video), get the 8MB cache - if
>>  not, get the 2MB (it's cooler, and more faster with smaller, everyday
>>  files).
>
>Hi Joel!
>
>This is an interesting statement I would like to try to understand,
>since I bought the ST3120026A (that's the one with the 8MB cache) after
>comparing the data sheet with the ST3120022A, and the only difference I
could see was the size of the cache.