6 Replies Latest reply on Nov 3, 2010 6:29 AM by Harm Millaard

    Reconciling HDD config recommendations

    leecow Level 1

      Hi folks,


      I'm in the process of finalizing a machine build and would like to reconcile the various drive configuration recommendations found on the forum. The plan is to use an Areca 1880i controller in the following mix.







      1x150gb – WD Velociraptor



      OS, Programs

      4x1tb – Samsung F3



      Media, Projects

      2x500gb – Samsung F3



      Pagefile, Media Cache, Exports



      Concept is based on  the 3 disk/3 volume config in Harm's "Guidelines for Disk Usage" rather than the 7+ disk/2 volume config.


      My primary questions involves performance gains realized by segregating particular asset types. Is it generally better to place Media and Project files on separate volumes as listed in post #3 and why the departure from the 3 and 4 disk recommendation in Guidelines? Are there workflow or media size considerations that would make Projects + Media Cache more performant than Projects + Media?


      I grok load distribution but lack background on how and when Premiere is utilizing various asset/temp file types which would make creating an optimal config matrix for a given workflow a fairly easy exercise. The machine is pretty zippy using the above configuration (PPBM4 w/ CS4 results are good enough for #5 once posted I think) but wringing out every efficiency is a good thing.


      Regards and thanks for any additional info,






        • 1. Re: Reconciling HDD config recommendations
          Harm Millaard Level 7



          Your 4 drive R6 would benefit noticeably from an extra disk, or if that is not possible, you may consider a R3 or R5 configuration. It will give you better performance than a R6 array with more storage capacity at the loss of a parity disk. For the rest I have no remarks, it looks good.

          • 2. Re: Reconciling HDD config recommendations
            leecow Level 1

            Thanks Harm. I do like the security afforded by R6 so will look to add more drives.


            Regarding what bits of a project go where, I'm very interested in your views on combining Projects and Media Cache on a single volume versus combining Projects and Media. I see both configurations recommended but cannot seem to locate a rationale for one choice over the other.



            • 3. Re: Reconciling HDD config recommendations
              Harm Millaard Level 7

              Lee, the reasoning behind it is that you want to spread the load across as many disks as you have available, taking into consideration speed and storage capacity. A two disk R0 on the mobo often has a high burst speed, so that would be ideal for many small files like media cache. A R3/5/6 on an Areca controller will usually have the higher transfer rate but lower burst rate, so that would be ideal for large files like media. Export is not really important, because it is a one time action.


              I know this is not a direct answer to your question, but there are so many factors influencing this, there is no clear cut answer. For example your editing style. Editing documentary movies (few effects/transitions, longer shots, longer timeline, few preview files) or music clips (lots of effects/transitions, short shots, short timeline, many tracks, lots of preview files, etc.) impact that decision.

              • 4. Re: Reconciling HDD config recommendations
                JCschild Level 3

                """"Export is not really important, because it is a one time action.""""


                i have to disagree with this Harm. for many (pro level) time is money if the export disks are not the same speed as the Capture (media) drive

                then your exports(render) are going to be slower and take more time.


                i think you work from 1 big drive array dont you?

                which is the other option (600-800Meg/s)




                • 5. Re: Reconciling HDD config recommendations
                  Harm Millaard Level 7



                  Of course export time can be an important factor, but if you have just spent days or even weeks to edit and tweak the final timeline, a 60 minute or 70 minute export makes it a pretty irrelevant factor and at best secondary in comparison to editing time IMO.


                  Consider that in the broadcast industry there is a rough rule that says to edit 8 minutes of footage takes about one day. If you have a final movie of 60 minutes that equates roughly to 7.5 working days to edit. In that light 10 or even 20 minutes extra export time is negligent. It is even less than a single extra coffee break during those 7.5 days of intensive editing.

                  • 6. Re: Reconciling HDD config recommendations
                    JCschild Level 3

                    very valid point

                    considering most are not doing long play, render times are/can be critical.

                    frankly thats one of the biggest complaints we hear. "my renders are talking too long!"