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
    Jul 18, 2012 2:08 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Thank you Harm. You've helped me greatly in figuring out what components I need, and why.

     

    I now understand why your what PC to build guide suggests vastly differing components lists for the "economical" and the "warrior builds. Around two thirds of the warrior budget goes into disk drives, and the components necessary to make the most of them.

     

    If a Z77 motherboard doesn't offer proper support for a raid card, then I'd assume a Z68 wouldn't either.

     

    Next I must figure out whether I want to spend $5,600 or only $2,500 on this build.

    I may have to sell a kidney or two if I choose the Warrior option.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 10:16 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Harm,

     

    I think that you mistook "RAID0" for "RAID" in his question; you would probably say the same drives for RAID 0 or single drive use:

     

    1. Seagate BarracudaXT,  WD Caviar Black, Hitachi 7K3000 Deskstar.

    2. Seagate BarracudaXT,  WD Caviar Black, Hitachi 7K3000 Deskstar.

     

     

     

    And for parity RAID (RAID 5, 6, etc.) use Enterprise RAID drives such as: Seagate Constellation ES, Hitachi 7K3000 Ultrastar, WD RE4

     

    Regards,

     

    Jim

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 1:21 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    I say this because although "RAID" (Enterprise) drives are indeed more reliable, they normally come shipped with limited time to reply feature (i.e. WD RE4 has TLER set low) so that if you have some drive issues they are designed to "drop out" instead of taking more time and continuing to retry and error correct the sectors that were giving trouble. Dropping out of a redundant server array service is considered to be a good thing since the "degraded" array (incomplete after missing the dropped drive) will perform much faster since it is no longer being encumbered with the ailing drive.

     

    OTOH, one would dramatically prefer a RAID 0 to continue to work in a workstation editing setting, although maybe with errors and sluggishness, as opposed to one drive dropping off and essentially a total loss of EVERYTHING that had been on the RAID 0.

     

    Probably the BEST would be enterprise drives with their "timeout" to drop setting bumped way up, but I seriously doubt that are too many users that actually do this. I personally have WD's TLER utility that allows for this to be set for older drives and possibly present day enterprise drives, but they have not provided or support this utility for at least a few years now.

     

    Regards,

     

    Jim

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 6:23 PM   in reply to JEShort01

    I meant Raid 0. sorry if typing it without placing a space between 'd' and '0' caused confusion.

     

    whatever way the disks are arranged, I want to use the most reliable disks.

     

    Are there any websites that test/rate disk drive reliability?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 9:45 PM   in reply to El_Plates

    You could try this site:

     

    http://www.storagereview.com/

     

    /Ulf

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 12, 2012 10:51 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Currently I've got two drives. I've got my 255gig SSD with my operating system and I've got a 1tb 7200 RPM Raid 0 Thunderbolt drive with all my media, exports and and cache. (I've also got a nightly backup for my raid and a bunch of really slow drives for long term storage but not really relavent.) My 255 gig SSD isn't large enough to hold my cache and it is also starting to be cumbersome on my 1tb Raid 0. I was going to place the cache on a 7200 RPM FW800 drive instead. I know it is normally better to break these up but I wonder if  a Raid 0 with Thunderbolt doing everything might be faster than the help of a Firewire 800 drive.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 13, 2012 12:10 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    To piggy back off of this topic, I had a few similar questions.  I read through this thread and am still confused about a few things.

     

    I have 2x External eSATA 2 drives. 

         - Drive A has 2x 500GB WD Caviar GREEN drives. RAID-0
         - Drive B has 2x 1TB WD Caviar GREEN drives. RAID-0

     

    I have a 180GB SSD for OS and Programs.

     

    I have an older 150GB SATA2 WD Raptor X that currently has my media project files. 

     

    **I PLAN on getting another SSD and 2x 500GB WD Velociraptors in RAID-0.

     

    My quesiton is which drives should I set up as my disc cache, preview files, media cache, etc.  Should i take the extenral GREEN drive out of the equation because they shut down after inactivity?  Or could they still by used in the workflow somehow.  Should my source footage drive be the Velociraptors and the new SSD be AE disc cache?  Also, can PR preview files and AE disk cache be on the same drive?  Finally, i know some operations in the worflow require faster READ speeds and some faser WRITE speeds, can you elaborate on which operatons require which?  In other words, should my fasted READ drive by my source footage or my disc cache?  Should my faster WRITE drive be my export drive?  And, how large does the AE cache drive need to be if its ONLY used for AE cache?

     

    Thanks!

    Jim

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 13, 2012 6:15 PM   in reply to MagicManASC

    So it has taken me awhile but I have finnaly finished building my new PC and installed CS 6 to it, but I am not sure what would be the best way to do my disk setup. I have 1 64 gb ssd, 6 1tb drives in raid 3, and 1 2tb drive. My OS and all the adobe programs are on the ssd, and I plan to have all the media, and projects, on the raid. I am not sure what to do with the rest of the files though because I know it is important to spread everyhting out best I can but on the chart it says that when I have 6 drives I can just put everything on the raid which might be good because based on just a few quick file transfers I have done on my computer the raid is so much faster than the 2tb drive, also to consider is that the 2tb drive has an ssd cahce with a second ssd that I own so I might want to avoid putting the page file there as well. If any one has any advice on where I should put the rest of the files that would be great.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2012 6:53 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    There's a lot wrong with that, like for example if someone has a board with only SATA II connectors, they all share the same controller and approx 300MB/s of effective bandwidth.  So your chart goes out the window.  Other than that, your chart states "With proper backups, D: or E: and F: can be run in RAID0."

     

    Okay, you need to go back to basic RAID training to see why that's nonsense.  Let's say it's 2x1TB drives.  Half the data does on each drive so you get around 2x the speed.  Hurray, except if either one of those drives failes, 100% of your data is gone, thus your suggestion for backups.

    So your solution is to...what, buy an external 2TB backup drive, run backups manually occassionally?  I have an idea!  Run a mirrored striped pair instead with 2 more 1TB drives, right?  WRONG.  RAID5 is the way to go.  2 or more data drives, 1 parity drive.  If Drive A fails, B and C can rebuild the data.  If B fails, A and C can rebuild the data.  If 2 fails at the exact same time, you're really unlucky The RAID5 speeds vary A LOT with drives and controllers but it's usually just under 2x the overall throughput speed.  So you're safer and it cost less.  Tada.

     

    Oh but by the way, that entire chart is also complete nonsense considering every single option there would be cheaper and run as fast or faster with a high performance SSD as a temp/cache drive for basically anything.  A Patriot Pyro, Intel Maplecrest 330, or Kingston HyperX can all read at 500MB/s+ and write respectably fast too.  It'd take a bare minimum or 4 striped 7200RPM drives to match that read speed alone.  A single SSD can beat an entire RAID array easily, almost regardless of what's contained in it and if it can't, that's because the array cost 5x more

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2012 6:59 AM   in reply to VHC-CO-IT

    VHC-CO-IT wrote:

     

    Oh but by the way, that entire chart is also complete nonsense considering every single option there would be cheaper and run as fast or faster with a high performance SSD as a temp/cache drive for basically anything.  A Patriot Pyro, Intel Maplecrest 330, or Kingston HyperX can all read at 500MB/s+ and write respectably fast too.  It'd take a bare minimum or 4 striped 7200RPM drives to match that read speed alone.  A single SSD can beat an entire RAID array easily, almost regardless of what's contained in it and if it can't, that's because the array cost 5x more

    Until your write performance drops to nothing very quickly

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2012 8:12 AM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    "Until your write performance drops to nothing very quickly" <-- Incorrect.  Actually, that's wrong 2 different ways.  Apparently you got your info from 2009 or something.  If you write data to flash then mark that spot as available space (aka delete that data) then the next time you write to it, it has to run an actual remove data command then the actual write.

     

    Let's ask Wikipedia what today's computers do:

    In computing, a TRIM command allows an operating system to inform a solid-state drive (SSD) which blocks of data are no longer considered in use and can be wiped internally.

     

    Oh that's right, anything with TRIM wipes its old data locations extremely soon after it's freed up.  I've never seen a modern SSD not support TRIM.

     

    If your board's chipset or OS doesn't support TRIM, get a modern Intel, Patriot, or OCZ SSD.  Their firmware runs its own internal garbage collection at an extremely high frequency.  There may actually be more drives that do that as well.

     

    So I guess SSDs don't drop in write speed over time after all and someone who builds computers for a living knows what he's talking about.

     

    [Irrelevant and personal comment deleted]

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2012 8:24 AM   in reply to VHC-CO-IT

    [Off-topic posts deleted]

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2012 8:41 AM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    Bill Gehrke wrote:

     

    Until your write performance drops to nothing very quickly

    Bill--can you clarify what you mean by "nothing" and "quickly", and point to some tests that quantify how quickly and how far the write performance of an SSD will drop, and which types of SSDs (if any) it affects?   I have not been able to find any such tests.

     

    I've had a Crucial SSD for a couple of months and I haven't noticed any drop in read or write performance.  I am wondering how quickly this will happen and if the drive will be covered by warranty when its write performance drops to "nothing".

     

    Thanks!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2012 8:57 AM   in reply to Another Photographer

    Unfortunately Crucial doesn't cover "natural" performance issues on their SSDs.  Crucial M4 drives (which I assume it is) are sort of weird.  First of all, they all have REALLY bad write speeds.  It's like 5:1 read to write but it's not a perfectly even comparison.  They claim for their newest of the new M4 drives that "No matter what kind of files you’re working with on a Crucial SSD, you’ll experience high speeds with no drop in performance" but they don't explain why so I have to assume they're only talking about TRIM.  If you have Windows 7 and a board that supports TRIM, you're good.  Otherwise your performance probably will drop unless there's a "firmware-based garbage collection" in that drive. I don't think Crucial has that though on any drive.

    They go on to say they tested their speed numbers with non-compressed data, which doesn't really affect performance over time.  It does mean it's a lot faster though!  But at like 110MB/s max write speed, I think what they mean is that they just don't bother to compress anything ever so compress-friendly and non-compress-friendly data both run slow instead of compressable data running faster, lol.  At least they didn't fake the ratings by using artificially compress-friendly data

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2012 9:10 AM   in reply to VHC-CO-IT

    Maybe instead of arguing, you guys could actually help me from my post above..which has been slightly updated...

     

    I have 2x External eSATA 2 drives. 

         - Drive A has 2x 500GB WD Caviar GREEN drives. RAID-0
         - Drive B has 2x 1TB WD Caviar GREEN drives. RAID-0

     

    I have a 180GB SSD for OS and Programs.

     

    I have an older 150GB SATA1 WD Raptor X that currently has my media project files. 

     

    **I PLAN on getting 2x 500GB Velociraptors in RAID-0 for Project and source footage, and another 250GB Velociraptor for either export, preview files, or AE disc cache.

     

    My quesiton is which drives should I set up as my disc cache, preview files, media cache, etc.  Should i take the extenral GREEN drives out of the equation since they shut down after inactivity and only run at 5400rpm (so i read.)  Or could they still by used in the workflow somehow.  I get around 110mb/s read and write speeds on those...give or take.

     

    Also, can PR preview files and AE disk cache be on the same drive since they wont be accessed at the same time? 

     

    I know some operations in the worflow require faster READ speeds and some faser WRITE speeds, can you elaborate on which operatons require which?  In other words, should my fasted READ drive by my source footage or my disc cache?  Should my faster WRITE drive be my export drive?  And, how large should the AE cache drive and/or preview files drive be?

     

    Finally, to edit HD footage, what is a good hard drive read/write speed to have...

     

    Thanks!

    Jim

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2012 9:56 AM   in reply to MagicManASC

    Everyone is confusing Green drives and Intellipower drives which have a green label but are COMPLETELY different.  You stated your are green so yeah, they suck. But, if you're looking for a new drive, intellipower are not the same way.  Turning a spinning hard drive off is a motherboard and Windows 7 coordinated feature for all hard drives, not how the Intellipower drives work.  Green drives would turn themselves off in Windows XP on any motherboard as a firmware feature.  Intellipower doesn't do that.  Read anything anywhere about that technology like on WD's site or wikipedia or tomshardware.  The (modern ones) spin down to 5900 RPM when not in use and 7200 when in use with a very fast reaction time between those.  I clocked them around 120-130MB/s so yeah, they do go 7200 when in use.  In fact, I was curious so I ran one outside of a PC and you can hear and feel it change speeds.  Don't confuse intellipower with WD Green drives.  Those just spin at a lower RPM and stay there. 

     

    Don't believe me though; believe WD's own spec sheet for one of their intellipower drives (with some bold added )

    Buffer Size:             32 MB

    Capacity:                1 TB

    Compliant Standards:     S.M.A.R.T.

    Data Transfer Rate:      300 MBps

    Features:                IntelliPark, IntelliPower --> (5400-7200) <--, IntelliSeek,

                             Perpendicular Magnetic Recording (PMR), StableTrac

    Form Factor:             3.5" x 1/3H

    Form Factor (Short):     3.5"

    Hard Drive Type:         Internal hard drive

    Interface:               Serial ATA-300

    Interface Type:          Serial ATA-300

    Non-Recoverable Errors:  1 per 10^15

    Spindle Speed:          --> ***7200 rpm*** <--

    Start Stop Cycles:       300,000

     

    Glad I could clear up that bit of bad information but unfortunately the summar is your green drives aren't very good, lol They make nice bulk storage drives because lower heat means a lower failure chance and once a file is loaded, it typically uses the cache drives for most operations so if you can tolerate a slow initial load of a video file into the program, you won't have to worry about it after that.  I'm not sure how it necessarily handled ridiculously enormous files like several gigabytes though.  It may not cache them, it may actually read from the original in that case.  Either way, it's not like the Green drives are unuseable.  They're still roughly the speed of a typical laptop drive so hey, why buy new ones?

     

    Anyway, as for the raptors, I've never seen even a 15000 RPM drive run past 200MB/s alone and most good SSDs are at 550MB/s read.  Then consider that Raptors are expensive, loud, run extremely hot, have generally bad reviews, and have high failure rates and I'm not a real big fan of them.  They do have storage capacity going for them and in RAIDs, they're faster but cheaper than a higher count of slower drives so that's the basis for their price point but I still think they have an unacceptable failure rate.  I think you mentioned putting two velociraptors in a RAID in which either one can fail and you're screwed, doubling your chance of data loss.  That's not a great idea.  We run 10k RPM HP SCSI drives in our 4 kinda sorta old servers at work and we've had 4 fail out of 20-ish in 3 years so far so don't think it doesn't happen.

     

    If you're willing to put up with some firmware flashing headaches for a couple minutes, the new OCZ Vertex 4 is amazing.  3 and under series are baaaaaad but 4 uses a new controller and better flash chips and they actually work.  I don't usually forgive companies for releasing 3 bad product lines in a row but the 4 series really are that good for the price.  You can get a 128GB for about $115, 256GB for around $190, and 512GB for around $330.  That's not bad and price vs performance is there.  Price per GB vs speed may also result in a better overall setup.  So I'd go for a single high speed, high capacity SSD instead of velociraptors.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 14, 2012 10:08 AM   in reply to VHC-CO-IT

    Thanks for the response...yeah, the GREEN extrnal drives I have have been mainly used for storage, but they both have RAID 1 and RAID 0 capabilities so I wasnt sure if they would fit into a video editing workflow or if I should just keep them as storage. 

     

    I was contimplating between SSDs or Velociraptors and just recently read about the NEW Velociraptors and I think i am going to go with them over SSDs.  I have had SEVERAL raptors over the years and not a single one has failed me.  I still have the Original 74GB Raptor thats still working.  I am just afraid of using SSDs for me media, disc cache, preveiw files, etc because I heard they dont handle alot of reads and writes well and will slow down after time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 15, 2012 6:34 AM   in reply to MagicManASC

    The first time you write to a flash memory location in an SSD, it goes fast.  The 2nd time, it has to erase what used to be there then write the data which takes at least 2x longer so you go from like 500MB/s write to 250MB/s write.  If your operating system (win7 only I think) and motherboard (chipsets that start with a Z primarily) then you can use TRIM which immediately queues up a "zero out" command.  Because of this performance degradation, a couple manufacturers implemented firmware-based "garbage collection."  That means whenever the drive is sitting idle, it will go through its recently deleted locations and erase them.  That way the next time you need them, they're still writing at full speed.  Check out this page to see what I mean:

    http://www.ocztechnology.com/aboutocz/news/151

     

    I know Crucial's M4 drives also do it, as stated by themselves:

    "Since not all operating systems support TRIM, Crucial SSDs have a special feature called Active Garbage Collection. Active Garbage Collection is a process that helps an SSD maintain optimal performance by freeing up memory sectors that are no longer in use. Garbage collection is part of the SSD itself and thus not dependent on your computer’s operating system. Since garbage collection is part of the SSD’s firmware, it works regardless of which operating and filing systems your computer is using."

     

    Btw, OCZ's 1-3 products SUCK!!!!!!!! Their 4's are nice though.  They bought out Indillinx to use their new Everest controller and now developed a new 2.0 Everest controller for their new drives.  It basically builds a RAID array inside the flash chip array inside the drive so if one fails, it can warn you but not destroy your data.  They're also REALLY fast and use low voltage rewrites so you get like 9000+ write cycles instead of 4000-ish from other brands.

     

    For the velociraptor, there's good news and bad new.  The good news is, it's the #1 fastest on the average read speed chart:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-01-Read-Throughput -Average-h2benchw-3.16,2901.html

     

    The bad news is, it got a score of 164MB/s and that's the 1TB version.  The 300GB version got a score of 103 MB/s That officially makes it slower than my 7200RPM Seagate lol.  In fact, I think one of those drives listed above it is my Seagate lol.

     

    SSDs only had a 2011 chart but take a look.  The story is a bit different with SSDS.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/ssd-charts-2011/AS-SSD-Sequential-R ead,2782.html

    One of the old Crucial M4 drives got a 472 MB/s score!  So unless you want to get 4 velociraptors and put them in a 100% striped RAID, I don't think you're going to get near that performance level.

     

    I noticed the prices went WAY down on 10k RPM drives in general, which is nice, but you're not going to beat their newest of the new 64GB M4 drive as a cache for premiere for a whopping $66

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148441

    The 772 reviews it got seem to indicate it's REALLY good lol.  Do note that the write speeds on all M4 drives kinda suck though (500MB/s read, 95MB/s write) so that's not the best example   but these are much nicer:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227801

     

    and this:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167120

    is the one I put in my "how fast is an SSD" demo system in my shop.  It can write at 450MB/s and I verified speeds close to that with an actual benchmark test.  I'm not sure about firmware garbage collection but I don't think it has it since it's the older Sandforce controller.

     

    I've put a couple of the 128GB versions of these in laptops in place of failed hard drives and they've worked very nicely.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227810

    At double the speed of a raptor for $70, it's the perfect cache drive without breaking the bank.  Just remember to flash to the latest firmware with OCZ's utility or it totally freaks out lol.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 15, 2012 7:03 AM   in reply to VHC-CO-IT

    Wow that was an awesome answer...thanks!

     

    My current SSD is a corsair force GT 180 GB with TRIM and it screams. I'm using that at the moment for OS and programs.

     

    So Are you saying SSDs with TRIM or garbage collection won't wear out over time and will be ok for scratch and cache drives? 

     

    Also, Is a 64GB SSD large enough for premiere preview files and/or an after effects disc cache drive?

     

    Thanks for your help!

    Jim

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 15, 2012 8:27 AM   in reply to MagicManASC

    It been my experience that Premiere doesn't typically use (concurrently) more space for cache files than all the source files added together but depending on rendering quality, it could.  If it does, it sort of indicates that you're taking a low quality video and upscaling it except that some things in premiere are held unencoded or purposely temporarily at a higher resolution, which is enormous regardless.  I just don't see it getting into the 60GB range for normal operations but if you're editing an entire HD Dateline NBC news report, I could see that The 128GB models are much cheaper than 2x the price of the 64GB ones though so it might be worth it.  Plus, double the space to wear out by repetetive writes so double the useable life

     

    Bad news though!  All the modern desktop chipsets only allow for 2 SATA III connectors and they're on 1 controller (the chipset contains the controller).  The absolute maximum bandwidth available on a SATA III controller is 600MB/s.  That means if you're attempting to read from your main SSD while writing to the other SSD and they're on SATA III ports 1 and 2, it's going to run out of bandwidth and slow down to a maximum total of 600-ish.  I would assume it'd split it approximately 50-50 as well.  I'm fairly certain it's not 600MB read and 600MB write either.  I think it's grand total.

     

    You can buy a 2nd separate PCI-E-based SATA III controller for the 2nd drive but I've heard they're almost all super glitchy and fail a lot.  Check out these rave reviews lol

     

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816124044

     

    The 3rd party makers of them aren't exactly known for quality so really only Intel's original one works the best.  While it's not amazingly common to use both SSDs at full speed at the same time, it can certainly happen while editing a video project.  The good news is, you could just buy a slower SSD for cheaper and run it on the SATA II controller that's also on the board.

     

    Check out this SSD:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227807

    It's 128GB, a mere $99, I've used it in 5 builds without problems (after flashing the firmware, otherwise PROBLEMS! lol) and it only runs at about 420 read, 300MB/s write.  A SATA II controller runs at 300MB/s tops so you wouldn't really lose much there.  Some SSDs actually state what their speeds are if ran on a SATA II controller too so you can see how much you're losing.

     

    Btw, I noticed modern corsair drives claim to have "Advanced Background Garbage Collection for consistent performance."  That sounds firmware based unless they're just referring to TRIM.

     

    P.S. it's worth mentioning that I'm not 100% sure if an H67 or 77 chipset for example uses a dedicated, separate SATA II controller and SATA III controller so using the III one may affect bandwidth on the II one.  Anyone know for sure?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 15, 2012 8:45 AM   in reply to MagicManASC

    MagicManASC wrote:

     

     

    So Are you saying SSDs with TRIM or garbage collection won't wear out over time and will be ok for scratch and cache drives? 

     

     

    That's what he's saying.

     

    I've asked repeatedly, and I'm still waiting for someone to point to a scientific study of this issue so we can get an answer.

     

    [Personal comments deleted]

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 15, 2012 10:07 AM   in reply to VHC-CO-IT

    Unless you are going to drop on a RAID controller, RAID 0 with daily backups is absolutely the way to go. RAID 5 affects performance and if you are having automatic daily backups run you will never lose less than half a days work. Considering the performance advantage, the RAID 0 setup will more than make up the time loss with it's superior speed. If you want to move away from RAID 0 and drop on a RAID controller, I would never recommend a SYBA to someone serious about video editing first of all. I would recommend something like this:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816151112&nm_mc= OTC-FroogleNEW&cm_mmc=OTC-FroogleNEW-_-Hard+Drive+Controllers+/+RAID+C ards-_-Areca-_-16151112

     

    I would highly recommend the user configure their drives in RAID 3. The data block is striped and parity is generated on Writes, recorded on the parity disk and checked on Reads. This gives the advantage of Very High Reads & Writes, instead of the substandard Writes and High Reads of the RAID 5.

     

    I'll go ahead and use the same enthusiast gaming site to point out how the OCZ 4 drives suffer horrible write performance drops (down to less then 100 MB/s) even with the latest firmware.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/vertex-4-ssd-write-performance,323 5-2.html

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/vertex-4-ssd-write-performance,323 5-2.htmlThis is a problem with most SSDs in general, and for the most part they should be avoided for anything besides OS/Pagefile type operations. The Samsung 830 drive shows considerable improvement in write performance over most other SSDs, but the $/GB will still keep it's appeal limited.

     

    Also, the SATA III and SATA II controllers have always been separate on the motherboard in the past (utilizing Marvell controller for SATAIII). Using more than one SATA III drive on the Marvell controller was troublesome because it didn't have the bandwidth for more than 1 high bandwidth SSD. Since the new Cougar Point chipsets have the functionality integrated into the chipset, the bandwidth problem you state is no longer an issue, and 2 SSD's would work fine.

     

    [Personal comments deleted]

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 15, 2012 10:08 AM   in reply to Marcus Murphy

    A reminder to everyone again: keep personal comments, including sarcasm and veiled insults, out of your posts and responses.  This topic will be locked if it continues.

     

    Jeff

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 15, 2012 2:15 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Wondering if anyone could help me with what would be the better setup. I am going to have an msata drive as my boot, and then three 7200RPM hard drives.

    So I was just wondering if I should replace one of my 7200 RPM drives with an SSD, and how that would help performance-wise? (And what I should place on that SSD). Should I be using the SSD as my boot and then the msata as another drive ? (And in case you're wondering, this is going to be in a laptop which is why there's an msata drive).

    I also have an option to use my external / esata dock for another 7200 RPM drive if necessary.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 15, 2012 5:32 PM   in reply to VHC-CO-IT

    VHC-CO-IT wrote:

     

    Btw, OCZ's 1-3 products SUCK!!!!!!!! Their 4's are nice though.  They bought out Indillinx to use their new Everest controller and now developed a new 2.0 Everest controller for their new drives.  It basically builds a RAID array inside the flash chip array inside the drive so if one fails, it can warn you but not destroy your data.  They're also REALLY fast and use low voltage rewrites so you get like 9000+ write cycles instead of 4000-ish from other brands.

     

    I happened to pick up an OCZ Vertex 4 and wanted to test it with a real application;  This application is a derivative of the Disk I/O part of PPBM5 test but much improved. 

     

    I checked the SSD and it was the latest firmware.version 1.5 so I did not have to update.  Here are typical results with different hard disk drive results with my benchmark:

     

    1. 8 x 146GB SAS 15,000rpm R0  9 seconds
    2. 2 x 2 TB SATA III 7200 rpm R0 20 seconds
    3. 1 x 2 TB SATA III 7200 rpm       68 seconds

     

    OK the first try I recorded a fairly decent score of 13 seconds but the next 5 trials were 45, 42, 45, 51, 41 so I decided to do a secure erase with the OCZ tool.and then I got 104 seconds and 165 seconds.  Now this SSD while a good price is on its way back to the dealer ASAP.  I hope they will allow me the purchase price on a good old-fashioned hard drive!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 16, 2012 3:57 AM   in reply to VHC-CO-IT

    What I got from that Tom's Hardware HDD charts link, was that the Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 seem to be the best value disk drives for read and write speeds. They didn't perform so well in some other categories, such as Random reads, random writes, and other benchmarks.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/benchmarks,134.html

     

    I don't know how relevant those benchmarks are to CS6 application's performance though.

     

    If anyone does, please enlighten me.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 16, 2012 5:07 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Where I live (Australia) Seagate Barracuda 14's are readily available, and very cheap.

    They're 8 times less expensive per GB than say; Velociraptors.

     

    I guess your comment : "a high failure rate, many are DOA or develop screeching noises" explains why they're so inexpensive here.

    Disk drive prices in Australia are normally much higher than in other countries.

     

    Decisions, decisions .  I'm eagerly waiting to see what you end up choosing for this build >

    http://ppbm6.com/Planning.html before I purchase components for mine.

     

    Edit: Why so much of my message came out highlighted, I have no idea.

              I hope it's still readable.



     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 16, 2012 6:39 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    You did read the last page of that article explaining that those results are completely incorrect, right? Anyway...

     

    Tomshardware has a little oversight there.  If you instantly fill like 60GB of data onto a 128GB drive then a couple minutes later, attempt to use it, that's not "natural" use of the drive.  The firmware would get extremely confused and didn't have time to update its index of which chips have which write counts, attempt to move the data around intelligently, do garbage collection, etc.  It also switches into something called "storage mode" instead of "performance" mode which results in a very short time performance drop as it moves stuff around to adapt.

     

    Also, that entire test said "out of the box" and didn't say anything about updating the firmware.  Well, there's your problem. And this data is from June 25th, which is before the 1.5 firmware was even released so they weren't using it for the test.  It even says, they used the 1.4 firmware.  That's at least 2 versions ago.  1.4 even had drive detection problems in the BIOS.  It was useless!  Any benchmark using it is wrong.

     

    Also, OCZ's own website claims they already fixed this sort of problem in the changelog for 1.5, likely by telling the wear leveling to ignore files over a certain size or to terminate wear leveling chip write count searching after a certain time period or by limiting the period of time for processing to change over into bulk storage mode.

     

    Also, read speed never degrades on any drive ever.

     

    Also, other manufacturers don't have this specific problem anyway as long as they do garbage collection (except Kingston).  But as the final page states, this isn't a problem, it's a feature and it only affects the drives for a couple minutes after doing something stupid like filling it half full with data all at once.

     

    If you read the final page..."Effectively what this means is that drives that are less than half full will enjoy further optimized performance and after crossing more than half full the garbage collection algorithm will re-optimize the drive for maximum efficiency based on a larger data footprint. During this transition there may be a small latency hit, but this is a onetime event, and overall performance quickly improves as the drive is now optimized for the larger amount of storage."

     

    It's a one time deal.  Like I said, you write a sequential 50-60GB data file, it gets a little confused about what you're using the drive for and re-optimizes itself the maintain the best speed BUT only temporarily until the firmware adapts and then it operates at full speed again.  From the article: "From our observations on a partitioned drive, “storage mode” is encountered when sustained write activity exceeds 50% of the available free space."  So if you slowly fill the drive up over a month, it won't do that.

     

    And the biggest also is also, Premiere cache drives are usually around 100% empty lol.  They're cache drives.  They cache stuff, not store it long term

     

    P.S. why aren't they using cold fusion for the forum? lol.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 16, 2012 6:24 AM   in reply to Media747

    To answer media 747's question, no spinning hard drive is going to even be on the same planet as a good SSD for your main booting drive.  I have a demo system with a little 60GB Intel maplecrest 330 SSD and when it's loading windows 7, the little floaty glowing ball things don't even touch.  They're supposed to form into a flag and then pulse while the OS loads but it finishes so fast, it doesn't even get that far.  It also loads the desktop, all applications, the antivirus, etc in 3 seconds.

     

    My very high performance Seagate 7200 1TB drive in my home computer will do about 4 pulses on the flag and take at least 30 seconds to fully boot everything.  There's just no contest.  The only problem is, SSDs above 120-128GB are quite expensive!  Also, the majority of SSDs brands have quality control problems, inferior flash chips, bad wear leveling, etc.  It changes weekly but just look online to see which are the best.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 16, 2012 6:51 AM   in reply to El_Plates

    In my post above where I gave details on my SSD benchmarking failure those 2 TB drives are the 7200.14 (ST2000M001)  I now have 5 of those drives and 4 0f the 500 GB version.  They all are working well and show no signs of any problems and they are excellent performers.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 16, 2012 7:03 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    I wanted to jump in quickly on this point as I've been trying to recieve clarification on this issue. Is it ok to store other frequently unused items on the cache drive, or am I negatively affecting performance by doing this?


    I've been throwing some archives of install files on there thinking 'I have all that free space, might as well put some boxes in the back of the closet'. Is this a mistake?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 16, 2012 7:07 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    I forgot, that's how it works by default but that's not how I use mine.  When the final project is done and encoded and there's a low chance I'll edit it later, I either delete the cache files and they'll just have to regernate on the fly if I decide to reopen the project later or I move them to my long term storage drive within the project preferences, which is the way everyone should do it unless they have a reeeeeeeeally big SSD.

     

    Large, bulky files are fine on SSDs as long as you have room but if they're not frequently used, throw them on a stable low powered drive or something instead.  I use a 640GB green drive for backup images of all my software CDs and DVDs.  It spins at a low speed, gives off almost no heat, and basically is extremely unlikely to fail because of that.  It's around 130GB so that'd be a total waste of space on an SSD considering I pretty much never use those images unless the original disc gets destroyed

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (14)