Hi folks,

I have MSFS installed pretty much on its own on a 2TB SSD - is there any tangible benefit for manually allocating a large Rolling cache size within MSFS settings (say 1TB for example).

Cheers

This is what the developers had to say regarding the rolling cache in an older Q&A.

Quote

All the rolling cache does is put world data into a FIFO cache on disk so that when flying over an area twice, the data isn’t streamed from the internet again. Each http request will first check the presence of the data on disk before reading it from the internet. Data is not changed in any way and is stored on disk in exactly the same format as it is received from the internet. In some situations, the HDD access may be slower than high speed internet access, but for the majority, the cache will reduce and / or prevent terrain streaming lag. In all cases, the rolling cache will reduce the internet data usage and free up bandwidth for other uses when users fly over the same area again. We recommend a rolling cache of at least 8Gb, 32Gb being enough for most use cases. In most cases the sim will stream world data at an average below 10Mbps. The rolling cache does not impact user experience when they fly over new areas however. We have not thoroughly tested the benefits of creating huge caches of hundreds or thousands of gigs but given how the system works, as the cache grows bigger and bigger, it’s benefits should fade out and it will take a lot of time to even fill up the cache.

 

Interesting. Has anyone conducted any tests retrieving data from a HDD compared to a SSD and if so was there any appreciable difference in performance and the visuals? SSDs are cheaper than they used to be but still more expensive than a HDD.

6 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Interesting. Has anyone conducted any tests retrieving data from a HDD compared to a SSD and if so was there any appreciable difference in performance and the visuals? SSDs are cheaper than they used to be but still more expensive than a HDD.

Does anyone still use HDD's for actually running programs nowadays? Especially games / simulators etc.

Surely spinning rust drives has been resigned to a purely long term storage and backup role, or media storage for streaming content on HTPCs / Home NAS setups.

Edited February 1, 20215 yr by Gordon Hutchison

4 minutes ago, Gordon Hutchison said:

Does anyone still use HDD's for actually running programs nowadays? Especially games / simulators etc.

Yes, me. I use my HDD for programs that don’t require the higher speed of an SSD. Active Sky for one.

The pagefile for Windows is best stored on a HDD too because of the number of writes to it.

I backup my systems to HDDs on a NAS box which also holds my music. Plenty of life left in HDDs for those things that don’t need speed.

What is not mentioned in the description of a rolling cache is the errors introduced if the user adds a new scenery item in the area stored in the cache and then flies over the area without deleting the cache. There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence that little or no time during the initial development was devoted to the consequences of adding third party scenery. This is why users are finding that default airports interfere with addon airports and that airports that are thousands of kilometres apart can nevertheless cause problems with each other.

Edited February 1, 20215 yr by Reader

5 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The pagefile for Windows is best stored on a HDD too because of the number of writes to it.

I wonder if this strategy has any real benefits... with 32 GB of RAM, your pagefile is not going to see much action, and when it does, it is going to introduce delays... all that to keep your SSD from "wearing out"?

3 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

I wonder if this strategy has any real benefits... with 32 GB of RAM, your pagefile is not going to see much action, and when it does, it is going to introduce delays... all that to keep your SSD from "wearing out"?

It was a piece of advice I remember from many years ago. Can’t see why it wouldn’t still be relevant today.

And it’s recommended size is 1.5 times installed RAM. So the more RAM you have the larger the pagefile. Each to their own.

5 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Can’t see why it wouldn’t still be relevant today.

Things change.... I used to have hair..

Just now, Bert Pieke said:

Things change.... I used to have hair..

Basic computer rules don’t Bert. An SSD has a finite number of writes. Are you really going to notice any difference in performance by using the HDD? And how frustrating would it be to lose an SSD because of the pagefile?

9 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Basic computer rules don’t Bert.

Funny you should mention that... ever heard of Wear Levelling or Bad Block Management?

Will there be a difference?

yes

Will there be a measurable difference?

yes

will it be a noticeable difference?

probably not

 

17 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Funny you should mention that... ever heard of Wear Levelling or Bad Block Management?

I used to defragment HDDs if that’s what you’re referring to.

@vgbaron, in relation to what? The pagefile or running programs on a HDD and not an SSD.

24 minutes ago, vgbaron said:

Will there be a difference?

yes

Will there be a measurable difference?

yes

will it be a noticeable difference?

probably not

 

Does anyone care?

Hard to say