Skip navigation
This discussion is locked

Generic Guideline for Disk Setup

Jun 18, 2010 5:44 AM

  Latest reply: Jeff Bellune, Aug 20, 2012 1:23 PM
Replies 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 7:58 AM   in reply to Media747

    Well...if it were me, I would rethink the configuration a bit.  Assuming you only have 4 bays to put your drives in, I would strongly consider keeping your boot drive SSD, and making the three remaining a raid 0 configuration of 1TB drives...and here is why.   If you are only doing every simple, small projects, what you propose will likely be fine, but the minute you start trying to stream more than one HD content source, the individual drive you have your project on will choke and really slow everything down.  By raiding it you will have a combined throughput of 300-350MB/s for reads and writes, whereas if you are delivering to individual drives you are only going to get between 80-150MB/s (depending on the drives) for read and write operations.  Most motherboards have the ability to do internal RAID 0 so you don't have to buy an expensive raid card and for raid 0 it will be fine (RAID 5 and other raid configurations would require a dedicated card). 

     

    The caveat, is that you also need to purchase an external drive to back up your data.  I have had very good success using Seagates USB3 external drives for this purpose.  I have several different configurations over the years and have found that this ends up being the most cost effective and highest performing option (from a disk perspective anyway).  If you do go this route, I would recommend a 7200 RPM disk that has 64MB cache, and that is built to work in a raid configuration, like the WD Caviar Black line.  Just be disciplined about backups.  Although I have never had a drive fail in over five years, it can and does happen.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 8:23 AM   in reply to VHC-CO-IT

    VHC-CO-IT wrote:

     

    Modern computers with tons of RAM pretty much don't do a paging operation ever because they almost never approach the end of useable RAM space.  I'd put it on either of those secondary drives because Windows does technically do something minor to the pagefile as it initially boots (like checking if it's still there and the correct size) but after that, it doesn't affect system performance other than taking up an equivilant amount of space as your system memory unless you manually set it lower and tell it to automatically expand if needed.

     

     

    Be aware that atleast 1 application programmer/designer has verified on the forums what I and others have stated all along that many applications are still written to write directly to the page file regardless of the amount of ram available. The minimum page files size still needs to remain a decent size which seems to be around 16GB.

     

    Eric

    ADK

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 8:38 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Harm Millaard wrote:

     

    Given the relatively slow writes of the SSD and the shortening of its life expectancy, I would not put the page-file on the SSD.

    I wouldn't recommend the page file on an SSD either but certainly not for that reason.  These outdated 2011 charts of writing non-compress-friendly data show just how much faster they are.  Plus, it's assumed that anything written to a hard drive is later read back at some point (otherwise why was it written?) so the 4-5x faster read speed comes into play.  Check it out:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-04-Write-Throughpu t-Average-h2benchw-3.16,2904.html

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/ssd-charts-2011/AS-SSD-Sequential-W rite,2783.html

     

    Modern 2012 drives are quite a bit faster and can write 400MB/s easily, even with video files.  The newest Crucial M4's are practically specifically designed for video files since they make no attempt to compress anything ever and they're rated at about 250MB/s and are quite cheap.  Yeah, you'll nuke the drive within a couple years but a better SSD will be out at that point and a spinning drive and a 128GB SSD are almost exactly the same price.

     

    As far as what ECBowen said, I can't imagine what significant amount of data would bypass the RAM to go straight into the page file.  Considering Premiere can choose from available memory or the cache folder to dump temporary data, it would have no reason to dump large project data files into the page file when there's enough RAM available.  Windows itself doesn't even consider touching it until about 75% RAM usage so as long as you put enough in, you can just about ignore the page file.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 8:57 AM   in reply to skeeze

    I will already have the 500GB and the 320GB 7200 RPM drives (and planning on purchasing the 750GB 7200RPM). So I wouldn't want to have to go out and buy three 1 TB drives. Would you still think it's worth it to just buy all new / matching drives?

    (note that this is on a laptop. I know it's not as effcient / cost effective as a desktop)

    I do have an esata dock that I can use with a 1TB desktop drive that I have.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 9:04 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Harm Millaard wrote:

     

    Bob, there are a number of things to consider to answer that, and the overriding one is the amount of memory installed. The more memory, the less the use of the page-file and the less impact it has where you locate it. A seond consideration is that a SSD is great for reading, but far less so for writing and the page-file is used for writing and reading if memory is tight. Add to that, that the 'stable state' performance degradation is certainly not bad on the M4, but still worse than on some other SSD's and writing will shorten the life expecancy of a SSD. An inherent shortcoming of flash memory.

     

    What are your options? Given the relatively slow writes of the SSD and the shortening of its life expectancy, I would not put the page-file on the SSD. There is already a lot of writing going on, on this SSD by Windows (events, logs, FAT maintenance and pointers, user account, system tasks, etc.), so that leaves one of the conventional HDD's. But, assuming the 3 TB Seagate is a Barracuda XT from the 14 series, it is noticeably faster than the WD Caviar Black. Then the next thing to consider is the size of your media, as it influences the fill rate of your HDD and when the fill rate goes up over 60%, the performance goes down. Now the page-file will be limited in size, say 32 GB or less, so my initial reaction is to use the Seagate for that. It will not impact the fill-rate, it is on the fastest drive and especially if it is the first (static) file on the disk and will never be fragmented.

     

    Hope this helps.

     

    Thank you Harm.  That is very helpful.  One follow up question.  Should I give any consideration to whether having the pagefile on a conventional drive will slow down RANDOM access to that drive?  Let's say the drive has to write 8 KB page to the pagefile.  The head would have to stop what's doing (for example reading a media file) and travel to where the pagefile resides (since it is contiguous).  So whereas the pagefile is not used much, is it slowing down the drive?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 9:07 AM   in reply to Media747

    I should mention that I wouldn't specifically buy external hard drives themselves for a laptop.  It depends on your preference for portability but basically most externals need a DC power hookup and also who knows what's inside for the actual drive.  I just buy whatever laptop drive I want and throw it in a slim 2.5" enclosure then power it 100% off USB.  Yeah, they're a hair slower but at least you can control what specific model and specs they have.  Also, you don't get any funny partitions or auto-launching crapware backup or security utilities like if you bought a WD Mybook.  It's just a nice, blank hard drive.

     

    My PC has a 1TB main drive (basically because it was the fastest drive available) and a 640GB storage drive and a 320GB storage drive because that's what I had laying around from the former PC So if you already have something and it works, I tend to recommend not replacing it unless there's a huge need.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 9:32 AM   in reply to VHC-CO-IT

    VHC-CO-IT wrote:

     

    My PC has a 1TB main drive (basically because it was the fastest drive available) and a 640GB storage drive and a 320GB storage drive because that's what I had laying around from the former PC So if you already have something and it works, I tend to recommend not replacing it unless there's a huge need.

     

    Wait so let me get this straight.. you who downplay the benefits of RAID'd HDD's and promote the benefits of SSD's when using Adobe Premiere Pro have neither installed in your own machine. What are you basing your information on? Tom's Hardware (which is mainly a gaming site) reviews?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 9:53 AM   in reply to VHC-CO-IT

    The correct answer for external is USB 3 they benchmark 140meg/s (with the correct controller) no brand name is going to be good.

     

    Buy an empty Siig external and a standard Sata 600 (wd black preferably)  (this is faster than internal) there are even raid 0 4 drive arrays available..

     

     

     

    eSata is hit and miss on laptops and often share resources making them slow, USB 2 even worse mybooks’s are some of the WORST.

     

     

     

    Scott

     

    ADK

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 1:59 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Empty post

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 2:01 PM   in reply to Jerry Klaimon

    This thread has been going on for two years without any problems, and then in the last few days we've received a number of abuse notifications. I've been reading them and see that three or four posters are more and more making personal comments against those with whom they disagree. This is a technical forum and there will inevitably be differences of opinions. But using comments such as "that is foolish" or "you don't know what you are talking about" or even "you are mistaken" has no place here. They are inflamatory phrases and contribute nothing. Please make your case in technical terms, Or if you can't just do not post.

     

    You'll notice I posted this in reply to myself so I don't appear to single out any one individual. You know who you are.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 2:13 PM   in reply to Jerry Klaimon

    Well said, Jerry.

     

    As the forum guidelines say:

     

    "Personal insults, verbal attacks, and generally disrespectful, offensive, or abusive messages will be edited or deleted by forum moderators. Repeated violations will result in temporary suspension of forum access, eventually leading to being banned from forums. "


    Those of you using inflammatory terms such as Jerry describes above, be warned that you are very close to temporary suspension.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 6:50 PM   in reply to Jerry Klaimon

    I'll reply to Jerry because I agree 100%.  And I don't exclude myself from this advice because some of my remarks lately could be considered uhmm...  "intemperate".   So my suggestion below is meant for all, including me.

     

    I believe that the key issue is not understanding how our words impact others.  On the Web, we are not who we think we are. We are what we write.  Therefore, it's is our responsibility to ensure that our opinion gets across clearly while still showing respect to others. 

     

    My suggestion...

     

    NEVER, EVER use "you" or "your" except when speaking positively about someone else.   For example, if you write "Your idea sucks!", you're attacking the other person's idea. Or even worse is "You suck!" (or some variation).  That's attacking the core person. 

     

    You may believe you're just strenuously stating your opinion, but virtually all readers will see you attacking someone else.  Very bad.   Worse, the target WILL react negatively even if he/she agrees with part of what you've written!   What's really bad is that most people will never read beyond the harsh words!   You have a fight and NOT a discussion.

     

    Instead, make it impersonal.   For example,  write "OK, but I have different facts." or "Interesting point, but I disagree."   Notice that now the focus on the idea and NOT the person. Now it's just a discussion of ideas and facts where everyone is free to weigh in. 

     

    In any case, remember that the other person may be right or partially right in the context of their needs and constraints.   If you respect that other person first, you may find that you're both right.  It's just that you have different needs and constraints. Or you may find that you're wrong and you've just learned valuable information.   Everyone walks away with dignity intact and a little more knowledgable.

     

    I can honestly say that every person in this and other contentious threads has added value to the discussion. We just need to show respect to others and then present our own viewpoint.

     

    All of this is IMO.

     

    Regards,

     

    Dan.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 7:26 PM   in reply to El_Plates

    Harm,

     

    You had mentioned that you felt the Seagate SATA drives were faster than the Wester Digital Caviar Blacks.  From the raw performance metrics that were in this post by toms hardware, those numbers agree with you (continuous writes and reads are much faster)...however, as we all know benchmarks don't necessarily mean real world differences and even the posted benchmark #'s when it comes to loading pictures and video (albeit much less sophisticated apps), Seagate vs. Western Digital was about the same.  I just purchased several Caviar black drives(raid configuration) and I can still send them back, but I was just curious when you say the are faster, 1) did you benchmark them or was it based on more observational (which coming from you still counts!), and 2) is it a big enough difference you would recommend going through the pain of getting new drives and sending these back?

     

    Thanks in advance.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 10:05 PM   in reply to Dan Clark

    Hear here, Dan! Wise words.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 18, 2012 5:37 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Are the 1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 (ST1000DM003)

    as fast as the 2TB (ST2000D) ?

     

    A store nearby has the 1TB version on sale at $88 each (Australian dollars).

    At that price they're a bargain, even if a few are DOA.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 18, 2012 5:58 AM   in reply to El_Plates

    I'm not Harm, but the 1TB 7200.14 is equally as fast (sequential-speed-wise) as its 2TB brandmate. However, due to the single-platter design of the 1TB drive, it may have a somewhat slower random access time because it may use cheaper, slower head actuators. But as a media and/or projects drive, the seek/random access speed is largely irrelevant.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 18, 2012 7:51 AM   in reply to skeeze

    Seagate vs wd black the benchmarks are pretty much dead on with each other, the slighty better seagate benchmarks are not enough to warant the purchase.

     

    Seagate 1 yr warranty unless you buy the XT models.

    WD is 5 yr.  wd is slightly more

     

    NEITHER of these drives are good for Parity raid  5,6 and i guess i better include 3 but are great for raid 0

     

    you need WD RE4 for parity or the Seagate Contellation.

    the WD red is ok for NAS only.

     

    Seagate is also slightly quieter, the WDs have a slight low runble to them.. (more a concern for pro audio than video..)

     

    Scott

    ADK

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 20, 2012 7:26 AM   in reply to Marcus Murphy

     

    Wait so let me get this straight.. you who downplay the benefits of RAID'd HDD's and promote the benefits of SSD's when using Adobe Premiere Pro have neither installed in your own machine. What are you basing your information on? Tom's Hardware (which is mainly a gaming site) reviews?

    You do recall that I repair computers and build custom PCs for a living and work part time as the head IT manager at a medium sized company, right?  Currently I have 3 SSD systems in my possession at my shop.  I think I put more testing into the Agility 4 than OCZ did lol.  My main PC is 1 year old and back then no SSDs had a sufficient useable life for my use and I'd have needed at least a 256GB one, which was around $450-500 so not remotely worth the money.  I'd throw one in now but my main drive is at 240GB filled so I'd need a 512 and don't think the prices are good enough yet

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 20, 2012 7:34 AM   in reply to VHC-CO-IT

    And again I will say SHOW ME THE BENCHMARKS IN ADOBE CS6

     

    I have already proven you wrong with benchmarks.

     

     

     

    Something you just don’t seem to grasp at all

     

    This is NOT a gaming forum. This is a professional software forum used (most but not all) by professionals to make a living.

     

    A software you neither own nor have any idea about. Therefore have no biz even posting statements concerning such.. question yes past that you are not in any way qualified

     

    Contrary to what you may think gaming review website benchmarks do not correlate to professional use in Video or Audio..

     

    Not even close.

     

     

     

    Scott

     

    ADK

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 20, 2012 7:55 AM   in reply to Scott Chichelli

    Except tomshardware isn't a gaming site.  I don't know who said that but go to the site and actually at it.  They focus almost exclusively on business applications if you look past the gaming graphics card charts, which is 1 section.  They literally have a section on their navigation bar titled "For IT Pros."  They review server parts all the time.  They even review smartphones in the context of a business (unlike Engadget). They do power supply tests with extremely sensitive equipment.  That applies to gaming or video editing.  here's all their NAS and RAID storage solution benchmarks and tests:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/nas-raid-storage,58.html

    That's almost exclusively for video editing purposes.

     

    Oooooh that's right, I may have left out that I've also been a camera man, live video switcher, and video editor for a concert venue for 12 years too.  Also the other company I work for does video editing for live commercials and promotional videos on the web and showroom videos for the customers and 3D design software video recordings and editing and I'm in charge of all of it and my other other company does VHS to DVD conversions and promotional videos too and I shoot and edit videos for my youtube channel that has ohhh a couple subscribers.  Oh yeah, almost forgot, I also work for a mobile DJ company that often edits and shows wedding videos on a rear projection screen so I know audio and projectors inside and out too.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 20, 2012 8:03 AM   in reply to VHC-CO-IT

    So again where is YOUR benchmarks with ADOBE CS6

     

     

     

    Toms et all is a joke for video and audio benchmarks.. they do not use real work senarios.. even the photoshop test is rather nonsense.. (one of the areas an SSD is kinda nice to have FYI..)

     

     

     

     

     

    LOL to the rest.. DJ/editor live concert… if you say so.. your posts sure don’t show you have experience.

     

    Links to the websites giving your credits?  Thought so..

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 20, 2012 1:13 PM   in reply to VHC-CO-IT

    VHC-CO-IT wrote:

     

     

    Wait so let me get this straight.. you who downplay the benefits of RAID'd HDD's and promote the benefits of SSD's when using Adobe Premiere Pro have neither installed in your own machine. What are you basing your information on? Tom's Hardware (which is mainly a gaming site) reviews?

    You do recall that I repair computers and build custom PCs for a living and work part time as the head IT manager at a medium sized company, right?  Currently I have 3 SSD systems in my possession at my shop.  I think I put more testing into the Agility 4 than OCZ did lol.  My main PC is 1 year old and back then no SSDs had a sufficient useable life for my use and I'd have needed at least a 256GB one, which was around $450-500 so not remotely worth the money.  I'd throw one in now but my main drive is at 240GB filled so I'd need a 512 and don't think the prices are good enough yet

     

    I am really confused now. Can you clarify on why you advocate others to use a $120 128GB SSD for video editing while simultaneously knocking HDD RAID setups as expensive and obsolete, and then turn around and contradict this information?

     

    Right now I already pay for unlimited cloud backup on all my workstations and I run backups after each work session. So running 2x 2TB ES.2 Constellation drives in RAID0 is not an issue. They cost me $220 each and I get 8X usable space compared to a 512GB Vertex 4 for $500, and they have reliable write speeds averaging around 120MB/s. (I actually run 4 of the HGST 300GB SAS Ultrastar 15K600 in RAID 3 on AN ARC-1882 on my main machine, but the Constellations run on my photoshop box).

     

    Here is the Vertex 4 FW 1.5 tests which I meant to link to up above which mimic the FW 1.4 tests (couldn't find the 1.5 before):

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/vertex-4-firmware-benchmark,3245-5 .html

     

    As you will see, write speeds significantly drop off... and with the inherent problems with TRIM and garbage collection, on a box that is being used constantly for Video Editing, one can't afford to wait around for TRIM and garbage collection to execute. Time is Money.

     

    If you were to take a machine with the SSD and a machine with 2x RAID 0, and run them 12 hours a day, every day for 1 week, the work throughput of the RAID 0 would win hands down!

     

    If you are an occasional hobbyist who edit's videos for your son's football team and family events, and will also game on your machine... then maybe the SSD would make sense. But if that's the case, I highly doubt you would drop $1900 on Adobe Production Premium to be doing the occasional hobby movie and not see the value in spending for the hardware (like a $650 RAID controller).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 20, 2012 1:23 PM   in reply to Marcus Murphy

    [Thread locked]

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (14)