Skip navigation

System requirements for Premiere Pro CS5

Mar 13, 2011 10:03 AM

  Latest reply: roddiehorton, Feb 19, 2014 8:42 AM
Replies 1 2 3 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2011 3:35 PM   in reply to PeterB55

    Hi Peter,

    The Solid State Drive is just another, but faster hard drive and Adobe

    loaded without any problems.  It does make a major speed difference.  RAID

    10 using Solid State drives would even be faster and have mirror images as

    well, but for a price.  Currently using 500 GB Solid State Drives now and

    using Standard SATA drives as well.

    Tom

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2011 3:49 PM   in reply to inc2000

    You got it correct.  Best if you let CS5.5 install all programs in the

    default location. In Windows 7 Pro, some will install in the folder [Program

    Files] while others install in the folder Re: System requirements for Premiere Pro CS5.  Keep your

    Solid State C-drive with Windows, Adobe and working files (so you don't use

    too much space on junk stuff).  After loading your C-drive, make a Clone of

    it on a larger Drive.  This way, if any thing happens to the SS drive you

    can still do you work using the cloned drive.  When speed is not an issue,

    do your work using the clone drive.  Remember, Solid Stated Drives tend to

    slow down with use, so don't use it unless it's needed.  Also, have a second

    Solid State Drive to do the Adobe CS5 work in.

    Tom

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2011 6:06 AM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Scott,

     

    I hear what you are saying. I still think that for my higher end custoemrs who use CS5.5 or Avid, with I/O hardware and a RAID, I'm going to stick with my i7 Hex core recommendation - for now. But I also see your points, and for so many editors with tapeless workflows, Sandy bridge gets the job done. So my recommendation has been changed to tthe following:

     

    I'm still not ready to  recommend Sandy Bridge or the Asus P8Z68-V Pro motherboard yet for our  more advanced editors. If you think you are going to be using one of our  advanced NLEs such as Avid or Adobe or Edius or Vegas with hardware I/O  and /or a RAID, stick with our Core i7 Hex core.

    However:

    • If you plan on  using one of these NLEs for DV, HDV or tapeless workflows like AVCH or  DSLR footage; and you do not plan on adding an I/O card, then Sandy  Bridge is worth considering.
    • If you use  consumer level video editing apps like Pinnacle Studio, Sony Vegas Movie  Studio or Premiere Elements then Sandy Bridge is a very good choice for  you.

     

    Gary

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2011 12:58 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    So, here it is. After months of wrangling with two different procurement departments they have finally agreed to a purchase and will fax the (out of date) order to the company sourcing and building the rig on Monday or Tuesday.

    BUT IS IT GOOD TO GO?

    My fear now is that, due to the excruciating wait, the original spec for CS5 (with a great deal of help from Harm and other Forum friends) may be somewhat lacking for CS5.5.

    The agreed spend on this kit is around £2.5K (without monitor or software) and here are the main parts:

     

    i7-970 with Corsair A70 cooler, ASUS Sabertooth X58, ASUS GTX590, 24GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3 10666 1333 + cooling fan, Antec Quatro 850w, all in an Antec P183 case. (Windows 7 Ultimate).

    Without software, about £1900 so far.

     

    Your thoughts on this list welcomed and your recommendations gratefully received (before it’s too late and I end up with?????).

     

    As to drives, and here I AM LOST, do I go (c) 1 x SSD (make???) (d e) 2 x WD VelociRaptor 300GB (5 year warranty) OR:

    (c) 1 x WD VelociRaptor 300GB and 3 x WD Caviar Green (and RAID0 2 of them??)

     

    At this 11th hour any feedback would be welcomed and when this rig finally gets fired up I will report back as to how it's doing.

    Peter Baylis

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2011 2:30 PM   in reply to PeterB55

    Peter,

     

    Regarding the GTX 590, don't do it! It has 2 GPUs inside, uses the NF200 chip, and was made to run in SLI (VERY incompatible w/ Adobe CS5 and CS5.5). Besides a GTX 560 or 570 both have plenty of GPU power for Premiere.

     

    Regarding drives, for your price point, best stick to 7200 rpm drives; order as many drives between 1TB and 2TB (all matched) as your case/budget can handle (up to 5) and set one up as the boot drive. You can come back here later to figure out how to best configure them for your needs, but that need not slow down ordering your hardware at this time.

     

    Jim

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 31, 2011 6:54 AM   in reply to JEShort01

    Thanks Jim, very useful. ?as the price of the 560 is very reasonable would CS5.5 at the high end benefit from 2x560.

    I take on-board your rec' for 7200 (other than Green) and will plumb for:

    C SCSI, D page etc, E media, F final projects and G stills work.

    I have no working knowledge of RAID and if you think CS5.5 will perform on the rig and benefit from CUDA use, do I need RAID at all?

    Peter

     

     

    Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:29:37 -0600

    From: forums@adobe.com

    To: peterbaylis@live.co.uk

    Subject: Re: System requirements for Premiere Pro CS5 System requirements for Premiere Pro CS5

     

    Peter,

     

    Regarding the GTX 590, don't do it! It has 2 GPUs inside, uses the NF200 chip, and was made to run in SLI (VERY incompatible w/ Adobe CS5 and CS5.5). Besides a GTX 560 is plenty of GPU for Premiere.

     

    Regarding drives, for your price point, best stick to 7200 rpm drives; order as many drives between 1TB and 2TB (all matched) as your case/budget can handle (up to 5) and set one up as the boot drive. You can come back here later to figure out how to best configure them for your needs, but that need not slow down ordering your hardware at this time.

     

    Jim

    >

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 11, 2011 5:32 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Hi,

     

    I just upgraded from CS5 to CS5.5 and am finishing a DV movie before making the movie to a AVCHD 1080P camera (probably a Sony or Canon camera).  That being said, one of my RAID arrays died and I wanted to get some feedback on the best setup.  I'm going to be replacing both arrays since I have had repeated issues with the Seagate models that I ahve now due to known firware issues. Here's what I am going to have in my setup.

     

    i980x 2.93 Ghz

    12 GB DDR3 RAM 1066

    GTX295 using CUDA hack to enbable Mercury Playback

    1 TB Western Digital Black drive partioned with Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit and Vista Ultimate 32 bit (I'm currently only using Windows 7) - Storing my Premiere Pro project file

    (4) 1 TB Western Digital RE4 making (2) 2TB RAID 0 arrays - 1 array for capture and 1 array for media cache and render

     

    My capture array is currently an MBR partition with file allocation set at 32k.

    My render array that failed was set up as MBR with a 4k file allocation size.

     

    I noticed a definite difference in speed on my capture array set at 32k where my previous system was set at 4k.

    Since my render array died I moved my render files to the capture drive and found that render times are much quicker than when they were on the separate array set at 4k.

     

    Do you think it's because the render files are on the same drive as the captured clips or because of the 32k file size?

    I had left the render drive at 4k since the files tend to be very small whereas capture clips are larger and once I go to HD would be presumably even larger.

     

    Is there any reason to create the new arrays in GPT if it's just a single partition per array?  Should I make both arrays with 32k?  Is there any downside aside from eating up more space?

     

    A post in another forum said to put the project file on the capture RAID array.  I always though the ideal setup was to keep them separate.  What's the advantage/disadvantage to doing so?

     

    Why have the Windows swap file on one of the RAIDED drives?  Can Windows crash if the RAID array failed?

     

    Sorry to ask so many questions.

     

    I know that you have another RAID forum topic but since this system is geared towards CS5.5 I though it might be more approproate to post here.

     

    Thanks in advance.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 11, 2011 5:43 PM   in reply to blackrosekiller

    blackrosekiller,

     

    Don't get any of the WD RE series hard drives if you're going to use them in RAID 0. Their firmware has the TLER feature permanently enabled, with no way at all whatsoever to disable the feature. That feature is beneficial if you're using a parity RAID level such as RAID 3,5 or 6 - but actually hinders reliability in RAID 0. The TLER feature kicks in after seven seconds if it encounters a read error - but then the drive simply gives up reading in RAID 0 because there is absolutely no redundant data to recover from! That results in permanent loss of data.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 11, 2011 6:03 PM   in reply to RjL190365

    Wow!  Good to know.  My computer compnay just shipped them to me and I haven't put them in yet.  I have had really bad

    luck with Seagate and better luck with Western Digital.  I don't have the money to lay out for 4 1TB VelociRaptor drives.

     

    Does anyone know how the Western Digital Black drives would perform with RAID 0?  I have had 1 for my OS and 1 for a data drive that I just store images and documents on for about 6 months and they seem okay.  Or is there another comparable drive that you would recommend within that price range.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 11, 2011 6:09 PM   in reply to blackrosekiller

    Get rid of the partitioning, Drive are cheap

     

    You have the OS, applications and the project on the same disk drive = very bad setup.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 11, 2011 6:37 PM   in reply to blackrosekiller

    I just spoke with Western Digital tech support and read them your comment about RAID 0.  They said they never heard of this issue with either RE4 or Caviar. RE4 and Black drives both have TLER specifically so they don't drop off RAID arrays.  The tech support guy went as far as saying RE4 stands for RAID Edition 4.  Now I'm more confused.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 11, 2011 7:17 PM   in reply to blackrosekiller

    WD support in this case is clueless!

     

    Here's the scoop...

     

    RAID stands for Redundant Array Independent Disks (somebody correct me if I got this a little wrong, I'm going from memory), and the intent was to have an array where a drive, or 2 drives in the case of RAID 6, could fail and NO data would be lost.

     

    Enter RAID 0; some people even call it non-RAID or AID 0 (missing the R, which stands for redundant), because there is nothing redundant about it. RAID 0 is all about speed, and if either drive fails, all is lost.

     

    WD, and their competitors, manufacture and market drives for both markets. In WD's case I understand the differences to be:

    1) RAID drives are advertised, and maybe are or are not, using better hand picked platters with less defects; also likely better overall QA and testing

    2) Firmware is generally a bit different, optimized slightly for use in RAID arrays for network server applications vs. single workstation drive needs

    3) RAID drives are said to have better bearings, and designs that are less bothered by neigboring drives in a long hot-swap bank where heads are all seeking at the same time and in the same direction

    4) Finally, TLER; WD calls it TLER, other drive manufacturers do something similar for their RAID drives but call it something different. TLER stands for Time Limit Error Recovery; it means that the drive will limit how long it will try to recover an error. [Sidebar: I have some RE drives and also some older Blacks that allow for this feature to be toggled on and off, and the number of seconds to be set for "TLER" to take place]. The actual purpose is to have a drive "fail" and drop off of the RAID quickly (default is set to 7 seconds), so that the performance of the RAID will continue to serve its users instead of hunting, seeking, and trying to recover of what was "lost" on just one drive; at this point either an IT person or hot-spare drive gets added back to replace the "dropped" drive and the array auto-rebuilds (without the "dropped" drive).

     

    For desktop users the needs are quite different; for example, I had a failing laptop HD one time, which never lost one single thing, but before I replaced it opening or saving a file could take 30 seconds instead of 1 second while the drive would use its built in ECC (error correction) to get the job done. If this drive were to have had a TLER feature, I would definitely have lost data and files instead of just having to wait.

     

    This may be a bit confusing, but TLER is a great feature for a RAID array used for enterprise business purposes. It is terrible for RAID 0 or single-disk installations.

     

    Whew!

     

    Hope this helps - bottom line, drives intended for RAID are BAD for RAID 0.

     

    Jim

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 11, 2011 7:19 PM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    No, the OS and project file is on a WD Black Drive.  The capture files are on a RAID 0 array and the render files are on a 2nd RAID 0 array.  The OS drive has a dual boot hence the 2 partitions.  The RAID drives are single partitions.

     

    I was confused because I read a few posts suggesting putting the project file on the capture drive.  I only put my render files on the same drive as my captured clips temporarily because my render array just died.

     

    Now that I'm putting in 2 completely new replacement arrays I was wondering what the best setup and drives were.  I know RAID 0 is not as reliable since there is no mirror but I still want to get as stable and speedy a setup as possible.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 11, 2011 7:33 PM   in reply to JEShort01

    One more thing, WD definitely does not allow for TLER to be turned on for any of their non-RAID, non-Enterprise, drives manufactured in approx. the past 2 years. They may or may not allow for RAID drives to have TLER turned on/off and allow for the user to adjust the timeout. RE3 drives for certain allow for this to be done, I can't speak for RE4 drives.

     

    So, it may be possible to turn off TLER on the RE4 drives and then they would work fine with RAID 0. If you want to try, Google TLER to find the utility; I don't think that WD has given it to users for at least 3 years now.

     

    I was upset, as were many hobbiests building RAIDs with WD Blacks on the cheap, when WD stopped allowing their TLER utility to work for their early 32MB cach 1TB Black series drives; however, so far as I know, no other vendor ever had a utility where this could be done by users. I did not mention it, but all HD suppliers charge a huge premium for their "RAID" drives, even when they sometimes appear to be awfully similar, as was the case 3 years ago with WD 1TB RE3 drives vs. 1TB Blacks.

     

    Jim

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 11, 2011 7:37 PM   in reply to JEShort01

    Thanks so much Jim.  This really clarifies things.  That said, what 1TB drives would you recommend if I still wanted to do RAID 0?

     

    I have an Adaptec 5405 RAID controller and want to use (4) 1 TB drives with it.  What RAID configuration would you suggest that would be best suited for DV and AVCHD editing?  I'm a little fuzzy on the types of RAID setups.

     

    Is there a RAID option that would give me the performance of RAID 0 with (2) 1 TB drives combined and then mirrored for better data protection?  The result would be that render and capture files would be on the same array.  Would this be a performance issue for HD video editing or in general?

     

    Thanks for your patience:)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 11, 2011 7:40 PM   in reply to JEShort01

    When I spoke to WD they said that TLER can't be disabled or adjusted for the Black or RE4 drives.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2011 5:58 AM   in reply to blackrosekiller

    What you want for your four drives is RAID 10, theorticlly gives you the speed of two drives in RAID 0 with two drives mirroring those two.  After you set it up you might want to test it to check the performance as I do not know what the Adaptec is capable of doing.  Of course you could ao try it with your onboard Intel controller.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2011 6:31 AM   in reply to blackrosekiller

    Actually, TLER is permanently disabled on the Black drives - and all of the other "consumer" desktop WD drives - manufactured since October 2009. (The manufacturing date is the date on the drive's label, not the date of purchase.) There is no way at all whatsoever to enable TLER on the Black or on any other "consumer" desktop WD drive made recently.

     

    That makes the WD desktop drives ill-suited for use in a parity RAID (RAID 3, 5 or 6) since most RAID controllers themselves give up reading after 8 seconds when they encounter a read error - and they mark the entire drive as "failed" even though it is actually still good. That's bad.

     

    The RE-series drives are not recommended for RAID 0 (which Harm calls "aid0") simply because they offer no advantages at all whatsoever over a conventional desktop drive for this purpose. In fact, if one drive has a read error, the entire RAIDed pair or coupling may be dropped, resulting in possible loss of all of the data in the array.

     

    Message was edited by: RjL190365

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2011 8:08 AM   in reply to RjL190365

    ONLY the desktop drives have TLER disabled (thank goodness)

    RE most certainly have TLER.

     

    desktop for Raid 0,1,10 (only 0 makes sense)

    for parity raid (5,6) RE drives are needed

     

    for those on a budget (dont want to buy an 8 drive raid array and "good" raid card)

    2x 2 drive raid 0 is the best option and more than enough for most peoples needs.

     

    Raid 10 is a waste unless you want low budget redundacy using the onboard raid

    problem with that is its slower than 2 x 2 raid 0

     

    you should never read and write from the same drive set this slows your exports by a good amount.

     

    nothing replaces a good external back up regardless of what your drive config is.

     

    Scott

    ADK

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2011 8:59 AM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Thanks.  So if I wanted to do 2 RAID 0 arrays what hard drives would you recommend using and what's your experience with long term stability?  I backup nightly to an external 2 TB drive and clone the drives weekly to a 3 TB since ther eis no mirror.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2011 9:25 AM   in reply to blackrosekiller

    I like the WD blacks due to the 64meg cache 90% of our NLE systems ship with 2 x2 drive raid 0 with these drives

    as far as reliability we sell a ton of those and a ton of seagates on the audio side of things (quieter) (about 3-400 a month)

    don’t have issues with either.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2011 9:27 AM   in reply to blackrosekiller

    I just heard back from Adaptec and they are telling me that my Adaptec 5405 is fine to use with WD RE4 drives on RAID0 and that TLER is a good thing too.  I'm hearing such vastly different answers that this is confusing.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2011 9:34 AM   in reply to blackrosekiller

    TLER is NOT good for raid 0 well its pointless

    TLER is required (if you not want issues) for raid 5,6

     

    I would do an onboard raid 0 (export) and a raid 5 with the Adpatec for media and other

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2011 9:49 AM   in reply to blackrosekiller

    Not understadning why you would want Two sets of RAID0 drives.

     

    Videoguys recommends the following:

     

    C: Boot drive. 500GB or bigger. A 7200 RPM drive willwork just fine. If you want faster bootup and program opens, right now a 10K RPM drive is a better value then SSD, but not as fast.


    D: RAID for Video.Can be internal or external. For External we recommend G-Tech and Glyph.

    •           Option 1:A pair of drives  RAID0 gives you performance and value. 2 x 2TB= 4TB of usable space, but no redundancy if a drive fails.
    •           Option 2: 4 drives set up as a RAID 5. This gives you performance plus redundancy. 4 x 2TB = 6TB of usable space

     

    E: Export drive. Single 7200RPM drive. Your exports will go smoother and faster if you output the files to a dedicated physical drive, rather then the D: RAID. You can also set up a partition or folder on your C: drive for the exports. Not as good as a dedicated drive, but better then exporting to the same drives as your project resides on. Another benefit of having a dedicated E: drive is that you can use it for back-ups, digital photo library, MP3 library, etc.

     

    You can find this plus a whole lot more info in Videoguys Video Storage FAQ

     

    Gary

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2011 10:09 AM   in reply to Videoguys

    Hi,

     

    I have a 7200rpm WD Black for my Os which I keep my project file on.

     

    I have an E drive (WD Black) just for pictures and documents.

     

    I have a RAID0  for capture.  Why wouldn't I want my render and preview files on a RAID0 array?  Wouldn't it be faster access when you preview on the timeline?  I also find that HD clips play back choppy on non-raided drives so that's why I store my rendered movies on a RAID0 array.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2011 10:11 AM   in reply to Videoguys

    HI Gary,

    Balance my man balance

    With the raid 0 for export your export is faster.

    Most of my clients biggest complaint is render(export) times

    A single drive would be dog slow unless you are talking about DV/HDV

    External is good for 1 thing only back up.  Based on cost factor..

    Most cases have enough room for plenty of internal.

     

    Still thinking about your email... not ignoring you.

     

    Thanks

    Scott

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2011 10:22 AM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Got it. I didn't realize the second RAID 0 was for the export. That makes perfect sense.

     

    Have you guys tested exporting to an SSD drive? That would be even faster and even a 128GB SSD should be big enough for any export files.

     

    GAry

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2011 10:31 AM   in reply to Videoguys

    HI Gary,

    We tried multiple configs with SSD

    As OS, as a tempfile/cache only drive (no one needs this at all anyway) 2 sets raid 0 etc etc

    Its was only a few seconds faster with the 2 sets raid 0 SSD than standard 2 sets raid 0 sata.

    From a 30 minute time so complete waste of $

    Its more that A: the cpu is a bottleneck at that point and B: also have reached bus/drive thruput saturation.

    Had i  tried it with red4k it might have been different.

    Now heavy animators can definitely take advantage of SSD

     

    Scott

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2011 3:30 PM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    WOW, I have just returned from a very busy week (you may have heard about our riots). Anyhow, to 21 emails and some fascinating info.

     

     

    Having just ordered:

     

     

     

    CS5.5 Production Premium

    Antec 902 v3

    1050w Corsair

    Rampage lll Extreme

    i7 990x with Akasa Venom h/s

    24GB (6x4) Corair XMS3

    Gainward GTX580 1536Mb GDDR3

     

     

    WD6000HLHX 10k o/s programmes

    3 x WD1001FALS Video work (2 intended to be RAID 0)

    1 x WD1001FALS

    Stills/audio/graphic design work

    1 x External 1TB Buffalo (back-up data)

    LG BH10LS30

     

     

    ASUS 27" 2MS monitor

     

     

    Around my drive set up - has anyone got any criticism?

    Anything I have missed/could do with?

    Maybe you have an idea or two to suggest an efficient set-up for the above?

     

     

    It's not too late for me to make changes.

    Peter

     

     

     

    Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:33:55 -0600

    From: forums@adobe.com

    To: peterbaylis@live.co.uk

    Subject: Re: System requirements for Premiere Pro CS5 System requirements for Premiere Pro CS5

     

    HI Gary,

    We tried multiple configs with SSD

    As OS, as a tempfile/cache only drive (no one needs this at all anyway) 2 sets raid 0 etc etc

    Its was only a few seconds faster with the 2 sets raid 0 SSD than standard 2 sets raid 0 sata.

    From a 30 minute time so complete waste of $

    Its more that A: the cpu is a bottleneck at that point and B: also have reached bus/drive thruput saturation.

    Had i  tried it with red4k it might have been different.

    Now heavy animators can definitely take advantage of SSD

     

    Scott

    >

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2011 4:44 PM   in reply to PeterB55

    Peter,

     

    Your system spec. sounds great!

     

    I would suggest spending just the slightest bit more ($27 using Newegg pricing as a reference, and actually less if you send in for the rebate) to go with an Intel 510 series 120GB drive for OS/programs. Of course if you really need more space for the OS drive, this would not work, but if 120GB is enough the SSD read speed and seek performance blow away the VR. Yes I realize many here say VR is a great OS drive and more affordable than SSDs, but once you get to the price point for the 600GB size they are not less $ (only less per $/GB). SSDs do not work well for video work, but they are awesome OS/program drives.

     

    Another minor point, I prefer Cooler Master's deeper chassis design with the large, slow, quiet fans for drive cooling and rear exhaust (i.e. HAF 932, HAF-X, etc.).

     

    Jim

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 13, 2011 5:55 AM   in reply to JEShort01

    Thanks Jim I will check those out now.

    Peter

     

     

    Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:44:42 -0600

    From: forums@adobe.com

    To: peterbaylis@live.co.uk

    Subject: Re: System requirements for Premiere Pro CS5 System requirements for Premiere Pro CS5

     

    Peter,

     

    Your system spec. sounds great!

     

    I would suggest spending just the slightest bit more ($27 using Newegg pricing as a reference, and actually less if you send in for the rebate) to go with an Intel 510 series 120GB drive for OS/programs. Of course if you really need more space for the OS drive, this would not work, but if 120GB is enough the SSD read speed and seek performance blow away the VR. Yes I realize many here say VR is a great OS drive and more affordable than SSDs, but once you get to the price point for the 600GB size they are not less $ (only less per $/GB). SSDs do not work well for video work, but they are awesome OS/program drives.

     

    Another minor point, I prefer Cooler Master's deeper chassis design with the large, slow, quiet fans for drive cooling and rear exhaust (i.e. HAF 932, HAF-X, etc.).

     

    Jim

    >

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2011 11:11 AM   in reply to blackrosekiller

    Do not ever, ever, ever use RAID 0.  It may be the fastest, and one of the

    cheapest, but you get what you pay for, the most UNRELIABLE.  Yea, I can

    here it now, I have been using it for years with no problems, it works well

    for me, and all of that stuff.  Don't be fooled, it is twice (almost) as

    fast as a single drive, but also twice as likely to fail and loose data.  If

    you are doing this as a profession, then use the slower RAID 1 so you can

    have the added reliability even though it is slower.  If you want the speed

    of RAID 0 the use the RAID 10 which will give you speed of RAID 0 and

    reliability of RAID 1 together.  Believe me, if you loose important data the

    is not recoverable of very time consuming, you will quickly understand the

    importance of what I said.  However, RAID 10 needs 5 or more drives.

     

    Also, you can capture and render on the same drive setup, but it does take

    up more space.  Capturing and rendering on separate drives or drive systems

    give a little more reliability which is not needed for RAID 10, but better

    for RAID 0.

     

    Tom

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2011 11:24 AM   in reply to Photo_1985
    Do not ever, ever, ever use RAID 0.

    I beg to differ.  I have 2x 1 TB RAID0s; one for media and one for Projects/Renders.  The trick is to have reliable and frequent backups.  I have a 4 TB RAID5 as a backup destination, and I use StorageCraft's ShadowProtect as my backup software.  It's set to automatically make a full backup twice a week at 2 AM, and to make incremental backups every 2 hours daily.  Because of the way that ShadowProtect makes backups, at the sector level and writing only changed sectors, most of my 2-hourly backups take less than 3 seconds.  And when it occasionally turns out that hundreds of MBs or even a couple of GBs need backing up when the scheduled backup starts, ShadowProtect runs in the background with minimal (read: almost unnoticeable) performance degradation and is still incredibly fast.

     

    So you *can* use a RAID0, you just have to be smart about it.

     

    -Jeff

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2011 11:47 AM   in reply to Jeff Bellune

    Well, you should always back up and you made a very good point.  However,

    depending on how time crunched you are with your work load, recovering from

    a back up is not the fastest process in the world.  Just replacing a hard

    drive is much quicker.

     

    Let me give an example of what I mean:

    1)  If you are working on a project and you have a hard drive failure, doing

    your way requires replacement of a hard drive, loading the hard drives to

    where you were up to two hours ago, redo all the work that was not on the

    backup (up to two hours) and then you are back to square one and ready to

    continue.

     

    2)  If you are working on a project and you have a hard drive failure, doing

    my way requires no action at the time and no data lost.  Just a little

    slower for a short time while the drive is loaded up, but you can continue

    on with your work without stopping.  Then when you have time, you can

    replace the hard drive.

     

    It is important to remember that you are twice as likely to have data loss

    failure with RAID 0 then a single drive non-RAID setup.  I don't know about

    you, but that slow down is not worth the little added cost going to RAID 10.

    And for those that have not recovered from a hard drive failure, let me

    just say this, it ain't fun.  In fact it is lost revenue, revenue that could

    have been put on the RAID 10 set up to began with.

     

    Tom

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2011 12:08 PM   in reply to Photo_1985

    I can mount my backup image from 2 hours ago (worst case) as a virtual drive and be back to work in literally seconds.  (And since I can choose the backup interval, I can cut that worst case time down to 30 minutes or less if I really wanted to.)  At the same time, I can start copying the files from the RAID5 back to the new RAID0, provided I have a spare drive (I have 3 on the shelf right now).  So in 40 minutes, give or take, my RAID0 will be back to normal.

     

    Multitasking rules!

     

    -Jeff

     

    EDIT:  It would be less-than-fair of me if I didn't acknowledge that your setup is a little (or a lot) faster for recovery in almost all cases.  However, I wanted to point out that with good backup software and a good backup plan, the phrase "Do not ever, ever, ever use RAID 0" simply does not apply.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2011 12:14 PM   in reply to Jeff Bellune

    Understand.  But why not spend a little extra for RAID 10?

     

    You are using RAID 5 and 0 for a reason and RAID 10 is such a short hop to

    the top.  I know, because the speed of RAID 0 is addictive.  Using Solid

    State drives, RAID 0 is soooooooo Fast but....  That's why I went to RAID 10

    because i want speed too with added reliability along with backup.  Anyways,

    I do agree that if you are using RAID 0, you need to be smart about it or it

    may be a lot of work you do not want.

    Tom

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2011 1:52 PM   in reply to Photo_1985

    So here's where I'm at.  I had ordered 4 Western Digital RE4 drives to do (2) 2 TB RAID 0 arrays to replace one array that failed.  These were to be mounted on an Adaptec 5405.  In the iterim, I have hear a lot of people saying in this thread not to use the RE4s in RAID 0 because of the TLER feature.  Western Digital, my computer company and Adaptec have all told me that there should be no issues due to TLER.

     

    That being said, as soon as my Premiere Pro CS5.5 DV project began to load the array dropped offline.  I have run several verify tests (each time getting a compare error on one of the drives in the array) and rebuilt the array and restored the data twice only to have the same issue happen.  I want to point out that the array that fails is not the same array that failed previously causing me to replace the drives.

     

    I'm now in the process of doing a secure erase (which seems to be equivalent to a low level format) on each drive in the array before once again creating the array and restoring the data one last time for a test.  I found a note on Adaptec's site saying that this is a last resort to determine if there is a hard drive problem. This problem will ensure that all data is cleaned from the drive and com[pletely wipe out the stripe. I'm on the fence if this issue is due to compatability, a bum new drive or a failing controller card.  The card is only 2 years old.

     

    I restored the backup to the 2nd array and it seems to be fine so it doens't seem to be bad data.

     

    When I set the drives up I left the stripe at 256k.  I turned on MaxIQ which is a cache enhancement.  The allocation size was set to 32k.

     

    Any thoughts as to what the problem might be?

     

    I can't fit another drive in to do a RAID 10.  I do backup files nightly and do a clone weekly.  I know this is not the most reliable.

     

    Any suggestions on what the best current drives on the market are to do a RAID 0?  Not sure I can afford Velociraptors.  Besides I have heard that they run hot.

     

    I have 6 case fans but really don't wnat to push my machine too hard.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2011 3:23 PM   in reply to blackrosekiller

    From my point of view try using your drives as a single drive and see if

    they work ok, then test ok.  If they work fine, then I would replace the

    controller card.  I don't think your errors are compatibility issues.  Make

    sure you can return the card if it does not help, but I feel this is going

    to be the problem.  Ya, I know it is such a pain when there are problems.

     

    Make sure you back up all the time, and back up when you take a break for a

    little while.

    Tom

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 20, 2013 3:03 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    I have a Dell Optiplex 760 I got for $60.00 it has 4 gb ram 500gb hard drive intel quad 3.0ghz CPU. I want to run premiere pro cs5.0 do you see any problems I might have. I plan on running Vista business 64 bit. and I am going to upgrade to 8gb of ram.

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)