craigr Posted September 13, 2018 Share Posted September 13, 2018 I've got five more WD RED 8TB drives to install. Some of the older ones have a 128MB cache while the newer ones have a 256MB cache. All things being equal, is using a higher cache drive for parity at all beneficial. When compared to use in the array? Thanks, Craig Link to comment
Random.Name Posted September 13, 2018 Share Posted September 13, 2018 I am not completely sure, but unraid might see the bigger cache drives as „smaller“ then the others. And so they would not work as parity drives. i think I got that problem I a system I built for a friend, but don’t take my word for fact. I mostly post this answer to get someone with more knowledge to correct me if I am wrong :) Link to comment
JorgeB Posted September 13, 2018 Share Posted September 13, 2018 I'd be very surprised if there was a noticeable different either way. Link to comment
testdasi Posted September 13, 2018 Share Posted September 13, 2018 3 hours ago, craigr said: I've got five more WD RED 8TB drives to install. Some of the older ones have a 128MB cache while the newer ones have a 256MB cache. All things being equal, is using a higher cache drive for parity at all beneficial. When compared to use in the array? Thanks, Craig Theoretically yes. But even theoretically, the benefit is minimal. 42 minutes ago, Random.Name said: I am not completely sure, but unraid might see the bigger cache drives as „smaller“ then the others. And so they would not work as parity drives. i think I got that problem I a system I built for a friend, but don’t take my word for fact. I mostly post this answer to get someone with more knowledge to correct me if I am wrong No, it doesnt work that way. The cache does not play any role in calculating capacity. I have seen various 4TB drives to have slightly different sizes in the past but it has nothing to do with how much cache they had. Link to comment
Random.Name Posted September 13, 2018 Share Posted September 13, 2018 3 hours ago, testdasi said: No, it doesnt work that way. The cache does not play any role in calculating capacity. I have seen various 4TB drives to have slightly different sizes in the past but it has nothing to do with how much cache they had. Thanks for the clarification Link to comment
craigr Posted September 13, 2018 Author Share Posted September 13, 2018 6 hours ago, johnnie.black said: I'd be very surprised if there was a noticeable different either way. That's kind of what I figured. Thanks, craigr Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.