8 Replies Latest reply on Jul 22, 2011 6:23 PM by Bill Gehrke

    Re: A way to avoid using hard drive?

    ectobuilder50

      If given enough RAM, would Premiere Pro avoid using the hard drive altogether until the project is saved?

        • 1. Re: A way to avoid using hard drive?
          Harm Millaard Level 7

          Do you have more than 2 TB of RAM? If yes, then it is feasible.

          • 2. Re: A way to avoid using hard drive?
            Alex - DV411 Level 2

            Afraid not (unless you seriously tweak your OS) - hard drive caching is programmed to periodically get flushed - every few seconds I believe.  You could however run your project from something like this - at 2GB/s transfer rates and very low latencies, it's pretty close to memory performance.

            • 3. Re: A way to avoid using hard drive?
              ectobuilder50 Level 1

              But how much transfer rate does Adobe Premiere Pro need?  That's the main question.  I know that 2GB/s even on something like an Intel SSD PCI-E board cannot reach that theoretical maximum unless the queue depth of the I/O's coming in is like 32 deep or more.

               

              Therefore here is a question to any Adobe expert out there, what is the distribution model of bandwidth that Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5 need?

              • 4. Re: A way to avoid using hard drive?
                Bill Gehrke Most Valuable Participant

                I created a 10 GB RAM disk out of my 24 GB of RAM for testing.  I then opened our PPBM5 project in the RAM Disk and was able to have the project fully open with all input and output  in the RAM Disk.  I then rendered the timeline and encoded the MPEG2-DVD portion of the test and also the H.264 encoding.  I could not do the Disk I/O disk intensive test because it requires 13 GB of space.  So if you were to find a motherboard could have enough 4 GB RAM modules to hold your whole project the answer is yes it can be done.

                 

                Now the other alternative for me with an x58 chipset, it is possible to upgrade to a 48 GB of RAM with these new 8 GB DDR3 RAM modules (non-ECC) at the astronomical price of only $5834.40 and guess what shipping and handling for a set of 6 is free!.

                 

                8-GB-RAM.jpg

                Maybe these will come down with the emergence of Sandy Bridge E.  Incidentally, the 2 PPBM5 encoding scores were not appreciable improved, because they are CPU intensive.  Of course if you have multiple long clips at ~13 GB of data per hour it would not take long to use up even that 48 GB

                 

                So the answer is yes but hardly worthwhile

                • 5. Re: A way to avoid using hard drive?
                  Harm Millaard Level 7

                  Bill,

                   

                  You need way more memory than 48 GB, because not using a hard drive means that the pagefile needs to reside in memory, the media cache, previews, media, projects and even the program itself need to be in memory and the user directory as well. That requires a lot more than 48 GB. If the OP has around 2 TB memory, it is doable, but that is not yet possible and utterly unaffordable.

                   

                  The question is similar to: Can I go to the moon next week? Sure, if your contacts with NASA are good enough and you are willing to pay the price, it is doable. Is it realistic? Hell, no.

                  • 6. Re: A way to avoid using hard drive?
                    Alex - DV411 Level 2

                    ectobuilder50 wrote:

                     

                    But how much transfer rate does Adobe Premiere Pro need?  That's the main question.

                     

                    It's less Premiere Pro and more your workflow.  Premiere Pro is capable of addressing huge amounts of memory and working with nearly unlimited resolution files.  You can always come up with a theoretical project that will stall Premiere Pro (or any other editing software) even on the fastest of today's computers.

                     

                    So before you ask the question above, you gotta have the answer for, "what are the demands of your workflow"?

                     

                    I know that 2GB/s even on something like an Intel SSD PCI-E board cannot reach that theoretical maximum unless the queue depth of the I/O's coming in is like 32 deep or more.

                     

                    Umm... What?

                    what is the distribution model of bandwidth that Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5 need?

                     

                    I can't wrap my brain around the question, least of all try to answer it.  Could you maybe try to rephrase it while keeping an eye, again, on the workflow?  Thanks.

                    • 7. Re: A way to avoid using hard drive?
                      Alex - DV411 Level 2

                      Bill Gehrke wrote:

                       

                      Now the other alternative for me with an x58 chipset, it is possible to upgrade to a 48 GB of RAM with these new 8 GB DDR3 RAM modules (non-ECC) at the astronomical price of only $5834.40 and guess what shipping and handling for a set of 6 is free!.

                       

                      Sounds expensive. :-|  Outfitting a Z800 with 96GB ECC DDR3-1333 RAM is about $2700 (or less) in street prices.  It's not that expensive any more - especially for people who need all the performance they can get - scientific research, animation, rendering, etc.

                       

                      Some HP servers have 18 memory slots - with 16GB sticks in each, the total is 288GB.  Win7 64-bit client OS can address only 192 of them though - Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise - 2TB.

                       

                      Bottom line though - why?  What current Pr workflow would realistically need that much memory?

                      • 8. Re: A way to avoid using hard drive?
                        Bill Gehrke Most Valuable Participant

                        Harm Millaard wrote:

                         

                        Bill,

                         

                        You need way more memory than 48 GB, because not using a hard drive means that the pagefile needs to reside in memory, the media cache, previews, media, projects and even the program itself need to be in memory and the user directory as well. That requires a lot more than 48 GB. If the OP has around 2 TB memory, it is doable, but that is not yet possible and utterly unaffordable.

                         

                        The question is similar to: Can I go to the moon next week? Sure, if your contacts with NASA are good enough and you are willing to pay the price, it is doable. Is it realistic? Hell, no.

                        Guess I assumed the OP in saying "No hard drive" had an SSD with the basics; OS/\applications/Page files/etc as a staring point.  Then depending on his project size I still content that although expensive as hell right now it could be done with RAM. But this OP seems to be RAM crazy, see his video RAM thread..  Of course saving it/archiving it would still require disk drives.  Incidentally, for laptop usage 8 GB SODIMM's are currently less expensive than the desktop versions  ($760 each)  By the way these are the devices in the Mac Book Pro, so you Macites buy these things like crazy and drive the price down so we PCites can afford them.

                         

                        My last 45 minute final project length with with single camera AVCHD is only slightly less than 10 GB in total project size. Even if you had a two camera shoot it would be less than 20 GB.  My editing system only has about 1.5 TB (excluding archiving) of disk and I could easily get by with much less

                         

                        If you are interested here is the write performance of an 8 GB RAM disk, (beats any Intel or Areca controller by an immense margin--5x my best write performance).

                        8GB RAM Disk Write.png