You can certainly put output files on a separate drive or array, here's how:
- Copy PPBM5 project files to your project drive (i.e. p:\PPBM5)
- Open project and do render test; close Premiere Pro
- Open AME and after setting each Preset (and before going to settings to turn audio off for DVD and BR tests), redirect the output file to a separate drive or array (i.e. o:\PPBM5); run the queue
- Move (do not copy) output files from output drive back to where the PPBM5 project files are (note names should all be Benchmark.*, not Benchmark_1.* or the script will not work)
Execute the vbs script to generate the output.txt file
For redirects of media cache and media cache DB to a separate drive or array, no special steps are required.
I've never considered splitting the project and media files.
Very good Jim, I will award you a gold star for helping us.
I would just like to remphasis your "Move (do not copy)..." If you copy and paste you change the modified time of the file. If you cut and paste you do not change that time.
thanks Bill, thanks Jim, I figured there had to be a way. Since you don't specify doing it this way (splitting up the files>disks)....I guess you don't anticipate much of a difference in the scores, whether we use separate drives or not?
It is more a question / matter of our very limited capabilities with scripting and the limitations of the current script. Let's keep it at our utter noob level that is keeping people from using PR in the best way they can, at least for this benchmark.
Well if you really want to see how different disk drives perform specific functions it is a great way to do so. I myself do not separate and use different disks for different functions as nothing matches having all on a extremely fast RAID array
Thanks Bill - you mean *everything* on the same RAID array including the OS?
Thanks Harm - makes perfect sense, naturally you want to keep it simple.
re: separate disks "vs." a RAID array:
With a wicked-fast RAID, a system like Harm's Monster for example, I guess file-allocation>separate disks isn't a concern. But for us mere mortals :-) ... folks like me who've read for years that separate disks are necesary for optimum performance (in AfterFX and/or PremPro), do you think we're better served following that formula [ie. the "separate-disk" solution]?
Maybe there's no general answer to that question since so much depends on the exact hardware (and the idiosyncracies of the various codecs in the project)...?
Anyway thanks again you guys. Hopefully I'll get a chance later today to run the benchmark using my regular workflow...see if that improves my initial scores (Output-MPE 167, 104, 71, 6).
Sorry that I was not more specific, no the OS and all applications are on one disk an then for my projects, there is my 8 disk (2.5-inch 15,000 rpm) RAID 0 array with read and write times well in excess of 1 GB/sec. plus archive/backup drives, a total of about 16 drives in the system.
Separate disks are required for the typical hobby user or those that go out and buy a single disk system
Ah okay, that's what I figured - OS / Apps on a separate disk.
Yeeowza - 1 Gbps - mighty sweet!
So...no SSDs then in your system? I keep reading conflicting advice about SSDs for AfterFX and PremPro. Adobe comes right out and says "use an SSD if you can" - in so many words - on the AfterFX "disk cache" preference page [edit: in CS6. In earlier versions there's no mention of what type of disk to use]. But I'm sure I've read Harm say - or maybe it was your post? - that the liabilities of SSD drives outweight the benefits (for video editing).
Scroll down this page Reflections till you see some graphs on transfer rates. It might be illuminating.
This is my drive setup, with effectively 4 volumes, C: & D: being SSD's, and E: the big raid. F: is currently only a single disk:
Thanks Harm. Yeah that's a killer Areca controller - big bucks but wow does it deliver. ~3Gbps???!!! quite simply: Awesome.
You need to know that you have been referring to Harm and my transfer rates as Gbps which is Gigabits/second when it is actually 8 times faster than your numbers. We are talking 1 to 3 GigaBytes/second.
My cheapskate system consists of a two generation old Areca controller and 8 older SAS 2.5-inch drives have been "pulled" from demo Dell systems and are in RAID 0 and provide non of the reliability/availability/capacity of Harm's system.
Oh come now Bill, was it really necessary to correct me about such an insignificant detail?
lol, seriously - thanks - GB/s not Gbps - quite a difference indeed!