Can the 256MB HD Cache make a difference to burst?

  • What about the HD cache that makes some difference with Burst or just to track the drives?

    Example: Does a Barracuda Pro verses a Seagate Surveillance both 10 TB can have a big difference in Burst?

    Seagate 10TB 3.5" SATA3 BarraCuda Pro HDD/Hard Drive ST10000DM0004

  • I believe its to index file locations and improve read/write efficiency with modern operating systems. Considering plots are encrypted their contents are not index able like a bunch of pictures and once created are read only so there'd be no real improvement for burst mining. Such a disk is best suited to being the system boot disk so the *operating system (I believe windows 7 and newer) can reserve it for optimal system responsiveness. Using as an added disk for plotting would only make that cache serve as helping minimalize plot fragmentation upon generation from plotter. Also surveillance disks were designed to be frequently overwritten in a timer loop. These disks do not last as long as other types. Seagate disks are known to plot much slower than Western digital brand.
    *Where operating system resides either by means of GUI desktop/laptop or NAS Storage and alignment systems
    NAS labelled disks have far longer lifespan than standard internal disks and are designed to work 24/7 under full load conditions. The sweet spot for Burst is that standard disks last longer in simular circumstances simply because all the data after plotting is read only and not written thus the workload is significantly less stress on hardware. Therefore the beginners can start with desktop / laptops and work with second hand disks purchased cheaper to determine if Burst is a viable option.