Effect of RAM caching on a music server with SSD

FAQ, getting help, user experience about FancyCache
Post Reply
iamnemo
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:56 pm

Effect of RAM caching on a music server with SSD

Post by iamnemo »

Here are a few benchmarks for disk transfer rates for different disk scenarios
on the same PC without and with RAM caching using 1GB of random data.

Specs:
Core i7-3930k, 64GB RAM, not O.C.'d, Windows 7 64bit Ultimate
ASUS P9X79 Deluxe with additional LSI SAS/SATA3 controllers 6Gb/s
All HDDs are latest gen Seagate Barracuda, All SSDs are Plextor M5S 256GB.

This PC is a dedicated sample server in a music production setup. It stores and serves
soft synth audio samples for various instruments at the same time (30+) to be recorded and played
back through a software sequencer (SONAR X2 Producer). The data is hence mostly static after installation.

RAM caching with FancyCache v0.8beta
ONLY read caching; write caching is too unsafe, and for this application, almost useless
since the data on disks storing samples is mostly static..

Most important are READ rates

On each line below:
LEFT tables : results without RAM caching
OTHER tables : results with read-only RAM caching active (default config & cache size 4GB)

1. HDD E: - Seagate 3TB connected to P9X79 main controller @ 6Gb/s

Image Image

2. HDD S: - Seagate 3TB connected to LSI through SATA3 removable tray bay @ 6Gb/s

Image Image

Note: the limitation seems to be the tray itself.

3. HDD D: - Seagate 3TB ASUS cached by SSD using P9X79 Marvell controller @ 6Gb/s

Image Image

4. SSD F: - Plextor M5S 256GB connected to LSI controller @ 6Gb/s

Image Image

5. HDD C: - The SYSTEM disk - Seagate 1TB (older gen) connected to the P9X79 main controller @ 6Gb/s

Image Image
User avatar
Support
Support Team
Support Team
Posts: 3628
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:42 am

Re: Effect of RAM caching on a music server with SSD

Post by Support »

Hi iamnemo,

Thank you for your testings and feedback.

Just for your reference, when you use CrystalDiskMark, if test size is less then cache size, you always will get a high score because the test data is 100% cached and the cache hit rate is 100%. You may refer to the link below for more scenarios.
http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/fanc ... k-cdm.html
Post Reply