Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Nov 28, 16:19
2: Nov 28, 09:42
3: Nov 27, 18:07
4: Nov 27, 12:04
5: Nov 27, 08:26
6: Nov 26, 18:06
7: Nov 26, 12:05
8: Nov 26, 08:29
9: Nov 25, 18:33
10: Nov 25, 11:12
11: Nov 25, 07:08
12: Nov 24, 13:17
13: Nov 23, 18:13
14: Nov 23, 06:17
15: Nov 22, 13:24
16: Nov 22, 09:09
17: Nov 21, 22:36
18: Nov 21, 14:03
19: Nov 21, 10:18
20: Nov 21, 07:35
Posts: 168
In response to
"
more cache is better, because the HD can read data a whole lot faster than the network can accept it - bigger cache means less wear on the drives
"
by
Beryllium
here is what I am looking at
Posted by
tRuMaN (aka Truman)
May 31 '11, 10:19
same space, two drives. one has 7200 rpm with 32 cache; the other has 5400 rpm with 64 cache
Responses:
Compare on MTBF ... -- nm
-
Beryllium
May 31, 10:52
That's quite a pickle. -- nm
-
Mop (204 lbs)
May 31, 10:52
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.