Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Storage rules for an editing rig. Some basics.

May 3, 2009 12:19 PM

How do you set up your editing machine in terms of disks for maximum performance and reliability? (SSD's are left out here.)

 

This is a question that often arises and all too often one sees that initial settings are really suboptimal. These rules are intended to help you decide how to setup your disks to get the best response times. Of course the only disks in an editing machine must be 7200 RPM types or faster. No GREEN disks at all.

 

Rule 1: NEVER partition a disk. You may ask why? First of all, it does not increase disk space, it just allocates the space differently. However, the major drawback is that for a partitioned disk the OS must first access a partition table at the beginning of the disk for all accesses to the disk, thus requiring the heads to move to the beginning of the disk, then when it has gotten the partition info move to the designated area on the disk and perform the requested action. This means much more wear-and-tear on the mechanics of the disk, slower speeds and more overhead for the OS, all reducing efficiency.

 

Rule 2: Avoid using USB drives, since they are the slowest on the market. Do not be tricked by the alleged bandwidth of USB 2.0 advertisements, because is just is not true and remember that the alleged bandwidth is shared by all USB devices, so if you have a USB mouse, keyboard, printer, card reader or whatever, they all share the bandwidth. Stick to SCSI or SATA disks or e-SATA. If needed, you can use Firewire-800 or even Firewire-400 disks, but they are really more suited for backups than for editing.

 

Rule 3: Use at least 3 different physical disks on an editing machine, one for OS/programs, one for media and one for pagefile/scratch/renders. Even on a notebook with one internal drive it is easy to accomplish this by using a dual e-SATA to Express card connector. That gives you an additional two e-SATA connections for external disks.

 

Rule 4: Spread disk access across as many disks as you have. If you have OS & programs on disk C:, set your pagefile on another disk. Also set your pagefile to a fixed size, preferably somewhere around 1.5 times your physical memory.

 

Rule 5: Turn off index search and compression. Both will cause severe performance hits if you leave them on.

 

Rule 6: If the fill rate on any of your SATA disks goes over 60-70% it is time to get a larger or an additional disk.

 

Rule 7: Perform regular defrags on all of your disks. For instance, you can schedule this daily during your lunch break.

 

Rule 8: Keep your disks cool by using adequate airflow by means of additional fans if needed. You can use SMART to monitor disk temperatures, which should be under 35 degrees C at all times and normally hover around 20-24 C, at least in a properly cooled system.

 

Rule 9: If people want raid, the cheapest way is to use the on-board IHCR or Marvell chip, but it places a relatively high burden on the CPU. The best way is a hardware controller card, preferably based on the IOP348 chip. Areca ARC and ADAPTEC come to mind. 3Ware uses it's own chipset and though not bad, they are not in the same league as the other two. Promise and the like in the budget range are no good and a complete waste of money. Expect to spend around $ 800 plus for a good controller with 12 connectors internally and 4 e-SATA connectors. Important to consider in a purchasing decision is whether the on-board cache memory can be expanded from the regular 256/512 MB to 2 or even 4 GB. Be aware that 2 GB cache can be relatively cheap, but the 4 GB version extremely costly ($ 30 versus $ 300). For safety reasons it is advisable to include a battery backup module (BBM).

 

Rule 10: If you can easily replace the data in case of disk failure (like rendered files), go ahead and use raid0, but if you want any protection against data loss, use raid 3/5/6/10/30/50. For further protection you can use hot spares, diminishing downtime and performance degradation.


In general when you get a new disk, pay close attention to any rattling noise, do perform regular disk checks, and in case of doubt about reliability, exchange the disk under guarantee. Often a new disk will fail in the first three months. If they survive that period, most of the disks will survive for the next couple of years. If you use a lot of internal disks like I do (17), set staggered spin-up to around 1 second to lessen the burden on the PSU and improve stability.

 

Hope this helps to answer some basic questions. If not, let me know. Further enhancements and suggestions are welcome.

 
Replies 1 2 3 4 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 3, 2009 12:39 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    An excellent set of rules for beginners.  Covers all the basics and is well presented.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 3, 2009 2:26 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Thank you for articulating this. Though I usually bend Rule 2, by editing to/from FW-800's on the laptop, you are correct.

     

    Appreciated,

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 15, 2009 1:27 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Thank you for the thorough exploration of disk issues.  I assume that other posts in this forum discuss hardware and software choices, as well, but I was hoping to persuade you to expand your post to include such items as 32-bit vs. 64-bit OS, impact of processor speed, use of expanded cache, RAMdisks, bus speed, memory, etc.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 16, 2009 7:26 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Can you elaborate on SMART to monitor disk temperatures ?

     

    I'm assuming it's a software tool that can interface to the Controller/Drive and gather info.

     

    Is it specific to a standard, or the drive maker ?

     

    Thanx...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 16, 2009 7:48 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Harm,

     

    I've been so impressed by both of these articles that I have spread some links around. I hope that you do not mind. I feel that your efforts can help so many, even if they only extrapolate some of the info to fit their needs and their budgets.

     

    Thank you,

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2009 7:11 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    "S.M.A.R.T. stands for Self-Monitoring Analysis and Reporting Technology"

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2009 8:07 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    I'm confused as to why most motherboards (bios) support smart, but it is usally turned off by default. I once read that smart slows down/takes resources?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2009 5:48 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Thanks. I had smart turned on but then turned it off recently after a rebuild. I think I will turn it back on. Especially since a while back I had a drive go bad and smart did alert me to it before it bit the dust.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 18, 2009 8:54 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Harm, thanx for making me smart, about SMART (pun intended).

     

    Speedfan or HWMonitor seem to be another set of tools to be consider for my toolbag.

     

    I'm running Raid 0 across a pair of 500gig drives, and an i7Core which is not OC'ed.

     

    At some point I may bump up the i7-940 CPU, and these addition tools are good to know about...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 19, 2009 11:21 AM   in reply to Kodebuster

    I downloaded the Shareware (Free) version of HDMonitor.

     

    The freebee only shows stats on the Core's and Graphics card.

     

    If you want the whole enchilada (Disks, Fan, etc.), looks like you need HDMonitor Pro @ $19.95.

     

    A small price to pay if you need this type of tool and fuctionality...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 19, 2009 2:10 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Harm, I uninstalled the Shareware HDMonitor and rolled back my Sys Image with RollBack-rx, so I can't check the version (and the install file was also rolled back).

     

    I'll find it online and re-check when time permits.

     

    The freebee only diplayed my four (4) Core temps and the Nvidia stats.

     

    Nothing on Drives, Fans, etc.

     

    The app is was pretty straight forward and nothing else was available on the Tree, or with View Options.

     

    It's not a showstopper, unless the Version I used has some issues with my Raid 0 setup, but that would not explain why no Fans in the Tree...

     

    Thanx again...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 1, 2009 9:18 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Harm,

     

    You must be the patron saint of NLE systems, can you bilocate  and help me set up my computer.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 1, 2009 9:38 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    I somehow missed this thread till now.

     

    ITS EXCELLENT!!!

     

    Nice job Harm.

     

    If you ever get bored; a sister thread on backups would be nice.  I vascilate on backup methods myself.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 1, 2009 10:09 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Thanks Harm, actually our IT dept is probably going to co-ordinate it and they have a contract through Dell. Up till now I've been spoiled and had my systems built for me by IT staff knowlageable in NLE systems. In my current job the IT staff haven't a clue about video and so here I am.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 6, 2009 12:25 PM   in reply to John Novotny

    Hi Harm

     

    I have a question reg. storage. Would you pay the extra and get WD RE2 or RE3 serverdisks for your editingrig? I know I should not get "green" ones, but in your oppinion, is the serverdisks worth the extra cash?

     

    Thanks.

     

    /Ulf

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 6, 2009 9:21 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Thanks Harm. :-)

     

    /Ulf

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 8, 2009 12:06 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    How would you conduct the sizing of the RAID's for a professional editing system - let's say for the material of a RED ONE. Here are some thoughts - Can you comment on it if they make sense or if I miss something?

     

    RAID for mayor project storage

    I consider a 1.5TB NAS storage (RAID10), just to save the whole project environment and to access some files by other applications. So the NAS storage is on a high performance network and serves as my key storage, from which I create my regular backup. If I need to work on more projects in the same time I probably will add more NAS units within the 19" rack.

     

    RAID for video editing

    I should probably use at least 6 discs in a RAID10 environment, each 300GB, which gives me about 600 GB to work with, if I don't fill it up completely - let's say about 70%.

     

    RAID for software installation

    Here I would just use 2 discs (RAID1), 32GB each - just for ADOBE CS4 and operating system.

     

    RAID for page-file/scratch/renders

    Redundancy isn't that critical here- so I would use 4 discs in RAID0 - I assume 120GB each should be fine. Which criteria would you use for the sizing of this RAID?

     

    I would really appreciate your thoughts and feedback!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 8, 2009 2:54 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    ...thanks a lot for your quick reply!

     

    A quick answer related to the connection of discs - for the NAS I intend to use SATA discs, for the other (3) three RAIDS I have foreseen SCSI or SAS discs. Here are my thoughts and please don't hesitate to criticize me because the editing system is budgeted for about 20000 Euro's - and I love to have a discussion with an expert in the field. This is really a great forum. Here are the details:

     

    Offline storrage, NAS RAID

    A RED ONE delivers about a hour 4k material on a 128 GB disc (the RED ONE discs are striped). For documentary film making I rarely use 20 hours of material - ok, some people shoot 100hours - but I don't. For corporate I use less. So in total I would need to use about 3 TB (4 discs x 1.5 TB) in a RAID10 environment. There are a couple of companies out there, which supply these 1 HE NAS storage solutions, which fit nicely in these 19" racks (I don't want to make any commercial for any brand here.) They usually hold 4 discs - I mean these SATA discs. Ok, to have more reserve I could get an enclosure, which holds 8 discs - doesn't cost much more - I got you here. I intend to use this NAS quite normally over a 1 Gb network.

     

    Main storage, VIDEO RAID

    I intend to use an older IBM server since (i) I know IBM quite well and I can maintain it and (ii) I know they work quite well - and are purchased in a used manner very affordable. However, the system I have chosen supports SCSI discs - I could go with extra money for the SAS discs - but SCSI discs are just available up to 300 GB (and they aren't cheap either). Redundancy I would like to have on a video storage since discs tend to fail and the cost to repeat a day's work exceeds the cost of extra drives. If I work on a sequence, which is usually about 5 minutes long, I don't need to have that much storage here. So I basically upload the material from the NAS to the VIDEO RAID, do the editing, and store it again on the NAS. My enclosure for the video RAID can hold 6 discs, which mean I can stripe 3 discs in a RAID10 environment - ok, maximum performance is achieved by striping up to 5 discs, but 3 striped discs, isn't this enough?

     

    RAID for software installation

    I intend to use Windows XP (SP3) as operating system. Unfortunately, I haven't found VISTA stable enough in a variety of setups and mayor software companies abounded VISTA installations from their environment, replacing them again with Windows XP. If I would install the whole CS4 Master Collection on my server - would I exceed 20 GB? (With regard to the utilization of tools in any video setup, probably even in the same installation, I am quite conservative - I prefer using a different machine, which accesses the NAS, as mentioned above.)

     

    RAID for page-file/scratch/renders

    Here I am looking for a formula or criteria to use - do you have some? Obviously speed is more critical here. Therefore, I thought I go for a RAID0. I have 4 bays left - so I thought I stripe them all. I thought a scratch/render RAID shouldn't be bigger then my VIDEO RAID - therefore I came up with my 4 discs, each 120 GB.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2009 2:56 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    ...well, it is a northern D - they call us often "Fischköpfe" because we love to eat fish here in Hamburg!

     

    I just have summarized a bit the storage configuration I am thinking of

     

    RAID TypeObjectiveSystem requirementsRAID level
    Offline Storage
    • store a whole video project (1h of 4k material requires about 128 GB)
    • needs to be highly reliable (redundancy is a must);
    • doesn't need to be extremely fast;
    • discs can be cheap because they don't have a high burden (just upload & download) to the video RAID.
    10
    Video RAID
    • store material for a day work
    • fast and reliable
    10
    Installation RAID
    • just to install Windows XP with CS4 Master Collection
    • redundant but speed isn't critical here
    1
    Working RAID
    • for page-file/scratch/renders
    • as fast as possible
    • disc failure isn't a big problem
    0

     

    In order to realize this, I am thinking of the following configuration


    RAID Typenumber of discsTypeGB/disctot. storage [GB]usable storage [GB]cost [€]
    Offline Storage8SATA150060004800900
    Video RAID6SCSI/SAS3009007202100
    Installation RAID2SCSI/SAS363630200
    Working RAID4SCSI/SAS1475804701000


    Here are my assumptions and constraints:

    • I only have 6 bays for the Installation - and working RAID;
    • For the video RAID I also would like to reuse an enclosure, which just has 6 bays;
    • I would need to buy a NAS enclosure - so here I am open minded and just assumed 8 bays;
    • the usable storrage I estimated as 80% of the total storage;
    • discs, which are used heavily should be SCSI or SAS - I am thinking of the Cheetah 15K

     

    Looking into the cost associated, I hit 4000€ easily just for discs. Ok, I can reuse some discs and enclosures, which I have here - but since I need to purchase the NAS enclosure (with 8 bays), which will also cost 1000€ additional,  I will use 25% of my foreseen budget for storage.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2009 3:38 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

     

    Thanks a lot for your advise!

     

    Offline storage, NAS RAID

    I think here we are in sync. I looked up your THECUS recommendation - and indeed you can get already here in Germany the N8800 for about 3600€ incl. VAT configured with 16TB (8 discs with 2TB each). They are other brands out there, such as xtivate, QNAP..., probably even faster but also more expensive. I wouldn't use the iSCSI functionality because of Windows XP 2TB limitation - as you stated. I would use it as simple assigned network drive so that I can see more than 2TB and I can live with the fact that a movement of data to the 900GB SCSI Video RAID probably takes 2 hours. Indeed, in such an environment a RAID level 6 (probably 5 is better) with hot spare(s) is more economical. Conservative people would probably still use RAID level 10 - however, the key arguments are that

    (i) SATA storage is relatively cheap and suitable in this "buffer environment" and

    (ii) Should be probably oversized in order to store a couple of recent customer projects - in case changes occur.

    I think point (ii) becomes very relevant since I don't have a solution for the backup in mind. If a project takes 1-2 TB I probably need to deliver to my clients the discs, telling them to take care of the data security and after "time X" I will have erased their project from my RAID - not sure what they say.

     

     

    Other 3 RAIDS

    I think with the sizing we are in sync - ok, VISTA versus XP is probably a different blog. In Germany even the big production houses still use XP because of its stability. And it gets even more tricky if it comes to Microsoft's new proposed operating system. I just remember the time a couple of years ago where I got lost with my TARGA cards, where we changed from NT to Windows 2000 and from Premiere 5.1 to 6.0 but I was left without drivers for my cards.

     

     

    Connection of SCSI drives

    Here you made a good point - my old IBM server has an onboard 1 Channel RAID controller and I have (2) two large/full-size and (1-2) additional half-size PCI-X slots. Now, the PCI-X 133 bus is 64-bit and operated at 100 MHz and makes 800 MB/s. Ok, the bus is quite old and 20% slower than a PCIe 4x bus. One PCI-X slot is going to be occupied by the AJA card and I will probably add an additional dual PCI-X graphic card. So I have one to two PCI-X slots left and consider using a dual channel SCSI card.

    Here are my thoughts: I would choose an

    Adaptec 2230SLP. IT is a dual channel and it has a low-profile and physically easily fits into my server. IBM also uses these Adaptec boards - so I don't expect problems with compatibility. For the configuration I see (2) two options:

     

    OPTION 1:

     

     

     

     

     

    • Main storage, VIDEO RAID on channel (1) one on the Adaptec 2230SLP;
    • RAID for page-file/scratch/renders on channel (2) two on the Adaptec 2230SLP;
    • RAID for software installation on onboard 1 Channel RAID controller;

    OPTION 2:

    • Main storage, VIDEO RAID on channel (1) one on the Adaptec 2230SLP;
    • RAID for page-file/scratch/renders together with RAID for software installation on channel (2) two on the Adaptec 2230SLP;
    • I will disable onboard 1 Channel RAID controller.
    •  

       

       

       

       

      Which option do you think is better? I could also go for the SAS discs or a mixed environment SAS and SCSI environment. However, I like to reuse my enclosure and some of the SCSI discs I have.

       

       

       
      |
      Mark as:
    • Currently Being Moderated
      Jun 11, 2009 7:29 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

      Thanks again for your feedback -

      Well, I think the good aspect on a forum is (despite the marketing aspect) to discuss ideas, concepts before puting them into reality, which unfortunately cost a lot of money. The value of a video editing system unfortunately decays away quite rapidly and therefore, I think probably three times before I put the coins on the table and I want to see the ROI. 20 Thousand Euro for a video editing system aimed to make some money sounds like a great budget - but looking into the details it isn't (- small duplication facility for 100 DVD's or so, class 2 monitor with propper card, datasafety and storage management...).

      ... I had a couple of conversations with hardware vendors during the last days related to storrage management and I mentioned your idea iSCSI as well. We also discussed solutions with SATA discs only, probably used by 4x 1GB lans. As you mentioned to pair 4x 1 GB lan cables. However, the initial data transfere would be very small, probably 40 MB/sec before it catches up to about 200 MByte/sec. This latency effect is also present with iSCSI. (... your iSCSI is probably one reason to use VISTA, even though I can get tools for XP64 as well.)

      I think I will go for the "3 RAID solution" as initially porposed and an additional NAS with dual link as network storage to store the ,main project and probably the once, which are a bit older in case changes ocure. In two weeks or so I will let you know how it looks like.

       

       

      P.S.:

      ...zur Mentalität in Hamburg und Niedersachsen. Obwohl die beiden Städte nur 90 Minuten entfernt sind, für Amerikaner etwa einmal Chicago's Lakeshore Drive von South Side nach Evanston, betrachten die Hamburger die Menschen südlich der Elbe als Bayern. Die Bayern "Lederhosen" sind für die "Fischköpfe" zwar liebenswert, aber doch sehr anders - was sich auch im Bier bemerkbar macht. Übrigens sind bei uns im Norden die Fischbrötchen und der Matjes sehr beliebt - in Bayern wohl eher die Würstchen - wenn ich mal so in die Cliche-Kiste

      greifen darf. Teile von Norddeutschland, das heutige Schleswig Holstein, gehörten ja auch mal zu Dänemark (...sorry) und das Alte Land "Dat Ole Land" westlich von Hamburg wurde ursprünglich von den Hollander bewirtschaftet, d.h. die habe hier z.B. die vielen kleine Entwässerungsgräben angelegt (...also ein dickes Dankeschön an die Käsköpfe). Der Mentalitätsunterschied ist wohl das Ergebnis der historischen Wurzeln zu Holland und Dänemark und, das macht Hamburg erst zu einem Hamburg, der Hafen mit dem Handel mit vielen Ländern der Welt. Ihr zitiertes Lied ist schon sehr alt und wohl heute nicht mehr "scenegerecht" um nicht zu sagen "out". Naja, unter dem Einfluß von einigen Litern Bier wird Ihnen hier in Hamburg alles vergeben - auf der Reperbahn in Hamburg wird der Begriff "Sächsischer Stamm" aber wohl eher anders verstanden

       

       

       
      |
      Mark as:
    • Currently Being Moderated
      Jul 15, 2009 4:15 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

      Nice article but I have to nitpick a few points:

      Rule 1: NEVER partition a disk.

      This is incorrect. The partition table it read at boot and never again, unless you make changes to it or force it to (e.g. to rescan disks).

      You can even destroy your partition table and everything will run just fine - until you reboot.

       

      Rule 5: Turn off index search and compression. Both will cause severe performance hits if you leave them on.
      Correct, but I would just like to point out that the compression feature can be left on - because files aren't compressed by default, only when you ask it to. I know I'm splitting hairs but someone might want to use compression on other (non-relevant) folders/files on their disk and think they can't/shouldn't.

       

       

      Rule 7: Perform regular defrags on all of your disks.

      Defragging is in general overrated but nevertheless yes, it should be done. Personally I recommend using a 3rd party product like Diskeeper which can defrag automatically when needed and/or when usage level is low. Much easier than trying to schedule it and use the built in defragger which is slow and unreliable.

       

      Rule 10: <snip> if you want any protection against data loss, use raid 3/5/6/10/30/50.
      I just want to point out that RAID-5 or any other RAID where parity disks are used is likely going to cost you way more performance than all the other mentioned performance points here combined. The read performance is fine but writing is on a different planet, compared to mirroring RAIDS (1, 10, etc). Of course in most cases, RAID-5 is "good enough" but it is very relevant if we're talking about setting up a high-end large storage system, which seems to be the scope here. Also, a good fast RAID-10 makes the points about spreading your data on multiple disks, using separate disks for paging, cache, temp space, etc, redundant - because everything is spread automagically. RAID-5 does not, because the parity disk(s) becomes a bottleneck.


       
      |
      Mark as:
    • Currently Being Moderated
      Jul 19, 2009 11:47 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

      Harm Millaard wrote:


      In fact, raid5 with it's distributed parity also spreads everything across all disks. Even with raid3 with it's dedicated parity drive, the data is spread over the data disks automatically. There is no discernable difference in performance between raid configurations that are mutiples of 10. Raid10, 30 and 50 perform about equal with the same number of disks. The difference is cost. Raid10 is extremely expensive and for most overkill. Example, you need 10 TB of storage. With raid30 or 50 you need 12 disks, with raid10 you need 20 disks plus additional housing and power supply and a larger (more ports, 24 ports instead of 12) controller. Usually when using a somewhat larger array, the bottleneck is the bus. Adding more disks does not give noticeable performance gains after a certain limit.

       

      Yes, the data and parity are striped but this isn't the issue. With raid-5 any write operation means you must read the parity and recalculate it. In raid-10 or any other mirroring raid, you just write it - done. This may not sound like a big deal but is in fact a very real issue in the storage industry. Any redundancy based on parity instead of simply mirroring has this problem. How big of a problem it is depends entirely on your needs and specific setup. Something like raid-50 (which is just two raid-5's striped) will of course be better, but hardly "equal". If you do need good performance (in writes as well), it's much better to just avoid the whole issue by going for raid-10. Yes, it will be more expensive but really, not massively so, and the users we are talking about here likely have photo equipment running into the tens of thousands, and make a living off this data. If you're using SATA, there is no reason to use anything other than raid-10. With SCSI/SAS, the cost difference is much more tangible (e.g. something like 10k vs 15k) but still considering the scope and audience here I consider it a small investment.

      The whole other issue is data security. Raid-5 will lose all your data if two disks fail, and even after losing one the chance of having lost or corrupted data is very real. With the size of disks today, you're almost guaranteed to encounter read errors even if a single disk fails.

      If you're a single home user or amateur, raid-5 is fine in terms of performance, but I'd personally still avoid it for this reason, plus the cost difference at this low end is very small. For a pro, with a heavy need for large IO operations and multiple simulatenous users, I would never recommend raid-5.

      A few links with more details:

      http://www.yonahruss.com/2008/11/raid-10-vs-raid-5-performance-cost.ht ml

      http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt

      http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/raid5-vs-raid-10-safety-performance.html

       
      |
      Mark as:
    • Currently Being Moderated
      Jul 19, 2009 7:42 PM   in reply to JackBillingsley
      If you do need good performance (in writes as well), it's much better to just avoid the whole issue by going for raid-10.

       

      Not sure I agree.  In a benchmark test, the Areca ARC-1680 card turned in an average write of 602 MB/s with RAID 3, and 615 MB/s with RAID 10.  That's not a significant enough "improvement" in my book to warrant the extra cost.

       

      RAID 30 and 50 were even slower (around 570 MB/s average write).

       

      Further, you'll be reading from a disk as you edit far more often than you'll be writing to it.  And here the numbers definitely favor RAID 3, with an average of almost 400 MB/s for RAID 3, and only 257 MB/s for RAID 10.

       

      All this supports a point which I've long expressed.  RAID 3 is simply the best choice for media security and speed in a video editing environment.

       
      |
      Mark as:
    1 2 3 4 Previous Next
    Actions

    More Like This

    • Retrieving data ...

    Bookmarked By (3)