SSD 4 TB or HDD 8 TB with PrimoCache ?

FAQ, getting help, user experience about PrimoCache
Post Reply

1st option or 2nd option ?

FIRST OPTION
2
67%
SECOND OPTION
1
33%
 
Total votes: 3

NemeWheel
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:35 am

SSD 4 TB or HDD 8 TB with PrimoCache ?

Post by NemeWheel »

Hello everyone !

Soon, I will have to buy a new hard drive because my current hard drives are almost full ... And to be quiet for a long time, I think buy a hard drive that will have a large or very large storage capacity.

For my gaming use, I have this setup: a 120 GB SSD that serves SSD cache thanks to PrimoCache for my two HDD that are used to store my games (1 TB + 2 TB). It works very well but I hesitate between two options for my future hard drive:

- 1st option: I buy a 4 TB SSD that will replace my 120 GB SSD and that I will configure as ==> a partition of 256 GB or 512 GB for PrimoCache and the rest used to store games. Good idea ? If I choose this option, I hesitate between two models: the Samsung SSD 860 QVO 4 TB and SanDisk Ultra 3D SSD - 4 TB. Are they good for gaming and PrimoCache? Which is the best ? Important Info ==> Samsung is a QLC while SanDisk is a TLC, can it affect my usage?

- 2nd option: I keep my current setup (see above) and I add a 3rd HDD of 8 TB ==> I think I opt for the Toshiba X300. It's a good HDD? Does it work well with PrimoCache? Will my 120GB SSD that serves as a SSD cache be enough?

Thank you for answering my questions in the two options that I presented to you above and in conclusion, to tell me which option is the most interesting, the most relevant and in the end, the most efficient. You can, in addition to that, to help me, vote for one of the two options on the survey I created

PS: sorry if my english is not 100% correct, I am French and I use a translator to help me haha ​​^^

Thank you !

User avatar
Jaga
Level SS
Level SS
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:11 am

Re: SSD 4 TB or HDD 8 TB with PrimoCache ?

Post by Jaga »

1) A 120GB cache running against a 8TB HDD wouldn't work very well, no.

2) I always buy Samsung drives, they're just that much better than everything else. I would never buy a Toshiba drive, or a SanDisk for that matter. I care about my data, and the stability of my systems.

3) A larger L2 cache is always advantageous. Seems like your best route, but don't skimp on cheap hardware. :)

NemeWheel
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:35 am

Re: SSD 4 TB or HDD 8 TB with PrimoCache ?

Post by NemeWheel »

Jaga wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:18 pm
1) A 120GB cache running against a 8TB HDD wouldn't work very well, no.

2) I always buy Samsung drives, they're just that much better than everything else. I would never buy a Toshiba drive, or a SanDisk for that matter. I care about my data, and the stability of my systems.

3) A larger L2 cache is always advantageous. Seems like your best route, but don't skimp on cheap hardware. :)
Hi Jaga! Thank you for your answer and sorry to answer you only now

1) I suspected that a small cache would have been problematic for a big 8 TB HDD ...

2) At first, I was only interested in the Samsung 860 QVO. But after learning about the different types of memory SSD (MLC, TLC, QLC etc ...), I understand that the QLC was the worst and it is this type of memory that equips the Samsung ... So it annoys me ... In the same price range and storage capacity as the Samsung, there is only the SanDisk Ultra 3D SSD and this one is a TLC. Admittedly, this brand is less famous than Samsung but I read only positive reviews on this SSD on the net ... In short, I do not know what to do ^^ '...

3) If I understand your point number 3, the larger the L2 cache, the more interesting it is in terms of performance? If that's what you mean, then there is possibly a third option available to me, and that responds in some way to the problem of point number 1: put a SSD cache large capacity with a HDD of very large capacity. What size for the cache and what size for the HDD to make it ideal? And performance level, as well as a "native" SSD? Because this solution in the end would be cheaper than buying a big SSD 4 TB ^^

User avatar
Jaga
Level SS
Level SS
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:11 am

Re: SSD 4 TB or HDD 8 TB with PrimoCache ?

Post by Jaga »

When it comes to SSDs (of all types) and manufacturers, I trust Samsung above all else. Been using them exclusively for almost a decade, and thankful that I have. Their attention to quality and lifespan of the drives is simply second to none - and that's ignoring whichever kind of technology the drives use. Because of that, they're all I recommend unless you have special needs. A small bit of performance or "rated lifespan" from someone else's spec sheet wouldn't deter me from sticking with Samsung. Just my preference based on experience.

For Cache-to-HDD size, it's more a matter of "data coverage". i.e. is the size of your L2 large enough to cache 10-15% of the total data on the drive? If so, it's large enough to be your L2. If it's under 10%, you'll get reduced hit rates. If it's 20% or larger, it's a very large L2 cache and you get fantastic hit rates, but possibly at the risk of wasted drive space.

If memory serves, I think 1TB is the current limit on a L2 volume. Not sure if Romex has plans to expand that or not, but with data drives (and arrays/pools) getting larger all the time, they may be seriously considering it.

User avatar
Support
Support Team
Support Team
Posts: 2759
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:42 am

Re: SSD 4 TB or HDD 8 TB with PrimoCache ?

Post by Support »

As Jaga said, a 120GB L2 cache for 8TB HDD data is not a good option. If your budget is enough, the first option is good. If you prefer a
cost-effective option, I think you may try a 512G~1TB SSD as L2 cache and adding a 4TB/8TB HDD.
Jaga wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 2:58 am
1TB is the current limit on a L2 volume.
So far the limit is 2044GB for a L2 volume. We are thinking to expand it.
Primo Ramdisk | PrimoCache
Romex Software Support

NemeWheel
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:35 am

Re: SSD 4 TB or HDD 8 TB with PrimoCache ?

Post by NemeWheel »

Hello ! Thank you for your answers Jaga and support

Jaga, I agree with you about Samsung. Overall they are the best and their SSD are extremely famous. But as my future SSD (if I choose the first option obviously) will serve as SSD gaming + PrimoCache, I'm afraid that with the model that is a QLC, I'm quickly limited ... Especially that, according to my research when the SLC cache of the Samsung 860 QVO is full, it can drastically reduce performance, especially in writing ... That's why I'm very interested by the SanDisk, which, according to the tests and opinions that I have read, looks very very good ... In addition, SanDisk was bought by Western Digital: is not this a guarantee of quality?

Now, if you guarantee that the Samsung 860 QVO will not pose any problem for my future use, then I think I will take the Samsung finally ^^

I did not know that 10 to 15% of "data coverage" was needed for the L2 cache. Indeed, even if my L2 cache of 120 GB is doing pretty well for my 3 TB HDD, with this information, I now understand better why my "Cache Hit Rate" was variable ^^ "...

support, I have a question to ask you: let's say that I choose the second option and that I take a SSD cache of 1 TB accompanied by an HDD of 8 TB. The "data coverage" will be good and the performance of the cache L2 will be present. But if in addition to that, I go from 16 GB RAM to 32 GB RAM to pass, for example, from a L1 cache of 2 GB RAM to 8 GB RAM ... What will be the overall performance with such a scenario?

Thanks in advance for your answers guys!

User avatar
Jaga
Level SS
Level SS
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:11 am

Re: SSD 4 TB or HDD 8 TB with PrimoCache ?

Post by Jaga »

support wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:01 am
So far the limit is 2044GB for a L2 volume. We are thinking to expand it.
Excellent, I had simply mis-remembered. Glad to hear you're considering expanding that limit, especially with the larger SSDs being more affordable. My 72TB file server could finally benefit from something like an 8TB L2!

NemeWheel wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:14 am
Jaga, I agree with you about Samsung. Overall they are the best and their SSD are extremely famous. But as my future SSD (if I choose the first option obviously) will serve as SSD gaming + PrimoCache, I'm afraid that with the model that is a QLC, I'm quickly limited ... Especially that, according to my research when the SLC cache of the Samsung 860 QVO is full, it can drastically reduce performance, especially in writing ... That's why I'm very interested by the SanDisk, which, according to the tests and opinions that I have read, looks very very good ... In addition, SanDisk was bought by Western Digital: is not this a guarantee of quality?

Now, if you guarantee that the Samsung 860 QVO will not pose any problem for my future use, then I think I will take the Samsung finally ^^

I did not know that 10 to 15% of "data coverage" was needed for the L2 cache. Indeed, even if my L2 cache of 120 GB is doing pretty well for my 3 TB HDD, with this information, I now understand better why my "Cache Hit Rate" was variable ^^ "...

support, I have a question to ask you: let's say that I choose the second option and that I take a SSD cache of 1 TB accompanied by an HDD of 8 TB. The "data coverage" will be good and the performance of the cache L2 will be present. But if in addition to that, I go from 16 GB RAM to 32 GB RAM to pass, for example, from a L1 cache of 2 GB RAM to 8 GB RAM ... What will be the overall performance with such a scenario?

Thanks in advance for your answers guys!
If you're looking for guarantees, best to contact Samsung about them. ;) All I know is my professional experience with them (I'm in IT by trade), and those of my peers who also live/die by the quality of their machines and builds. One server build I did involved a RAID array of SSDs for data storage in a high-demand, high-performance scenario.. and I didn't dare go with something other than Samsung drives. It's still running today (~4 years later) without a single incident.

10-15% data coverage is my own personal "good target" based on years of experience with Primocache (/Fancycache). Your mileage may vary, and it also depends on the kind of data you have. Movies don't really need caching, but games, databases, or apps with a lot of small files would. And of course it depends on how often you access that data.. many storage drives/arrays have files that go untouched for years, which would lower the target data coverage size in a L2.

As for your question to Support about adding on a L1 to a very large L2.. I wouldn't do it. The L1 is best used for smaller scenarios: boot drives, installed games/apps, etc. Caching large amounts of "storage data" in a smaller L1 is (in my opinion) a bit of a waste. I have 64GB of RAM in my primary workstation/gaming rig, and I allocate anywhere between 24 and 40 GB of that RAM to a L1. It's the same scenario on my media station / file server: 32 GB of RAM, with a 16-20GB L1. But I'd never let those L1's cache the larger data storage volumes - the gain wouldn't be worth the effort and waste of RAM.

User avatar
Support
Support Team
Support Team
Posts: 2759
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:42 am

Re: SSD 4 TB or HDD 8 TB with PrimoCache ?

Post by Support »

Jaga wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:59 pm
As for your question to Support about adding on a L1 to a very large L2.. I wouldn't do it. The L1 is best used for smaller scenarios: boot drives, installed games/apps, etc. Caching large amounts of "storage data" in a smaller L1 is (in my opinion) a bit of a waste.
I agree with it. For a 8TB HDD, I don't think that increasing L1 cache to 8GB will bring significant improvements. However, if you have Defer-Write enabled to speed up writing, bigger L1 cache is a good option.
Primo Ramdisk | PrimoCache
Romex Software Support

NemeWheel
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:35 am

Re: SSD 4 TB or HDD 8 TB with PrimoCache ?

Post by NemeWheel »

Hello Jaga and support !

Thank you for all your information, it helps me a lot ^^

If I have to make a conclusion of all this, it seems to me more judicious to go on the 1st option and to opt for a SSD with a big capacity of storage: my most important games will be on this SSD and the partition which will serve cache will accelerate the loading times of my games that will be on my HDD. I think this configuration will allow me to have a fast and consistent system!

Post Reply