-
1. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
Harm Millaard Apr 28, 2010 1:36 AM (in response to rmshro0)The best way to find the answer is to try it yourself.
Remember that scratch files are often modified, so it is not only reading, but also writing and that is where SSD's were pretty weak. The trim function corrects that to a large degree, but you haven't told whether your SSD supports the trim function. If not, then I guess it is not a very good idea.
A simple way to test one approach to another is to use the http://ppbm4.com benchmark, run it with your scratch files on the SSD and rename the output.txt file to output1.txt, then relocate your scratch files on the array and rerun the benchmark. Then compare the results in output.txt with the results in output1.txt.
If you are afraid that your disk setup is not fast enough, consider adding another Velociraptor to your raid5. That will increase sustained transfer rates by nearly 50%, going from slightly under 200 MB/s to around 280 MB/s, give or take several 10's of MB/s.
-
2. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
richard ar Apr 28, 2010 3:07 AM (in response to Harm Millaard)Hello Harm,
Thank's for reply, Englisch is not my native language, so can you tell me
what is SSD.
Greetings
Richard
-
3. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
Harm Millaard Apr 28, 2010 4:31 AM (in response to richard ar)SSD = Solid State Drive.
Google is your friend.
-
4. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
DVDmike Apr 28, 2010 4:37 AM (in response to richard ar)http://www.stealthcomputer.com/blog/2010-04/solid-state-drives-ssd-explained-slc-mlc/
Richard, SSD = Solid State Drive. Its a disk drive without any moving parts. They are smaller, use less energy, produce less heat and are faster, especially at reading (in most cases) than traditional (JBOD) disk drives. They are also an order of magnitude more expensive than "traditional" drives such as SATA.
-
5. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
Bill Gehrke Apr 28, 2010 6:27 AM (in response to rmshro0)rmshro0 wrote:
I am building a new rig for CS5 and have a 256GB SSD and a 3x300GB VelociRaptor RAID 5 array to work with. I was thinking of installing the OS and CS5 software on the SSD then copy files for the current project ONLY to the SSD while working.
THEN after it is done copy the source and project files to the larger array for later use if needed.
Does this sound reasonable? No Or would it be best to keep the project and source media on the larger disk array and just specify to CS5 to use the SSD for scratch only? Yes
If you are talking about having you OS, applications AND your project on the SSD that is completely wrong and does not meet Adobe's system requirments and will not work satisfactorily. There is no logical reason to use your RAID array for archiving it is a waste of resources.Get yourself one more large single disk to use for archiving.
-
6. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
rmshro0 Apr 28, 2010 6:46 AM (in response to rmshro0)Thanks Harm and Bill for the feedback. Bill, I think you underestimate the power of the SSD! :). I'll give that benchmark a try though.
-
7. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
rmshro0 Apr 28, 2010 6:49 AM (in response to Bill Gehrke)I agree using the array for that is a waste though. I just think the access time on the SSDs will make up the difference of what is usually co side red bad practice of putting it all on the same drive.
-
8. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
Harm Millaard Apr 28, 2010 7:15 AM (in response to rmshro0)You may be disappointed with SSD performance, despite all the hype. Bill has been using SSD's for testing in various configurations, single drive, multiple drives in different raid configurations, but all his testing has not shown any appriable benefit from SSD's.
If you take the price difference, € 2.35/GB for SSD (256 GB models) versus € 0.06/GB for SATA disks, which is about 40 times as expensive as conventional disks and only see a performance gain of maximum a couple of %-points, and often none at all, you are way overpaying for a hype.
-
9. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
rmshro0 Apr 28, 2010 7:38 AM (in response to Harm Millaard)Valid points. But I have is hardware here already, no extra cost. But do you basically say that better throughput (MB/s) is mor important for PPro than access time? Even for/especially for working on HD content?
-
10. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
ECBowen Apr 28, 2010 7:50 AM (in response to Harm Millaard)Intel SSD drives dont have the random write latency issue that other SSD drives do. If you want to avoid that then look
at the Intel SSD Drives.
-
11. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
Harm Millaard Apr 28, 2010 8:18 AM (in response to ECBowen)That makes the price at € 3.28/GB (160 GB) even more unattractive. That is nearly 55 times more expensive than conventional disks. It makes you wonder why anybody with a different name than Bill Gates would like to burn money like that.
-
12. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
rmshro0 Apr 28, 2010 8:31 AM (in response to Harm Millaard)My career is built around testing hardware. I know that SSDs are expensive but the advantages they offer in some cases is extraordinary. Check out reviews at pcper.com to see our work. I am just trying to see if the advantages might apply here.
-
13. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
Bill Gehrke Apr 28, 2010 8:40 AM (in response to rmshro0)rmshro0 wrote:
Thanks Harm and Bill for the feedback. Bill, I think you underestimate the power of the SSD! :). I'll give that benchmark a try though.
I have a set of 8 OCZ Vertex drives with a OCZ suggested RAID controller and one other brand (forgot which) as an individual drive.. I have tried these in about every configuration practical as OS/Application drives and as project drives and in no case did I find any justification for the price differential testing with my PPBM benchmark.
-
14. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
rmshro0 Apr 28, 2010 10:10 AM (in response to Bill Gehrke)If I am not worried about render time of the final product, but more interested in reliable editing (and thus fast scrubbing, etc) do the SSDs have the advantage there?
-
15. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
Bill Gehrke Apr 28, 2010 1:55 PM (in response to rmshro0)Since there is no way I know of to quantify scrubbing speed I cannot test for it and therefore cannot answer that question. But IMHO I doubt it.
-
16. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
Harm Millaard Apr 28, 2010 2:00 PM (in response to rmshro0)I bet that my scrubbing speed with conventional disks at less cost than SSD's will be far better and gives me about 75 times the storage space for less $$$.
-
17. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
rmshro0 May 15, 2010 12:57 PM (in response to rmshro0)Hey everyone, thought I would post the testing that I did to compare SSDs to standard storage: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=918
Let me know what you think. We ended up going with the SSDs.
-
18. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
Harm Millaard May 15, 2010 1:44 PM (in response to rmshro0)64 of them for some decent storage capacity, I assume?
-
19. Re: Is it better to use SSD for scratch or source files or both?
rmshro0 May 15, 2010 2:05 PM (in response to Harm Millaard)Ha, no. We went with a pair of 256GB Western Digital SSDs in a RAID 0 array backing up nightly to a single 1TB drive just in case.
For storing data we are not actively working on I went with a three-drive RAID 5 array of 2TB hard drives (4TB partition) that I picked up for $120 each.




