18 Replies Latest reply on Aug 15, 2011 6:30 PM by Frédéric Segard

    No SSD's or..

    Zoop studio Level 1

      Here, on the forum the SSD is no go, no benefits to PREpro or AE, and I get why.

      Now via Twitter I get this Adobe tweet about the benefits of SSD to us..

       

      http://adobe.ly/qEIvrZ http://fb.me/1cqcfMA5o

       

      What your opinion?

      I think, it's the same HP, Intel, Adobe deal like always.. If right, i feel sorry for the customers who aren't diving in this great forum for a few hours.

        • 1. Re: No SSD's or..
          Jim_Simon Level 9

          I wouldn't say SSDs offer no benefits.  I'd say at the capacities most editors need, the cost for their benefits is prohibitively high.

           

          Consider that a 2TB RAID 3 (using 3 1TB drives) will cost about $180 using Samsung F3 drives.

           

          Going the SSD route, 3 1TB drives will cost you $8,595!

           

          That's almost 48x the cost, for what, maybe double the real world performance?

           

          And even if you go with 6 500GB drives, you're still looking at over $4,500.

           

          Solid state drives, in my view, just aren't worth the price for use with solid state media (which I feel really needs that built-in backup of a RAID 3 for security).  A boot drive, maybe.  But not for media.

          • 2. Re: No SSD's or..
            Harm Millaard Level 7

            SSD's in laptops are worth considering, since the boot time is reduced, albeit at a price. For desktops this is not true. You only boot your machine once a day (normally) and then the 3 to 5 second performance gain in loading your programs is negligent in comparison to the additional cost.

             

            SSD's do not offer a noticeable performance gain over conventional disks while editing. The only thing they have in their advantage is that they empty your wallet much quicker.

            • 3. Re: No SSD's or..
              Todd_Kopriva Level 8

              I mostly agree with Harm. One exception is that SSDs can improve performance during editing if you put cache files there. On the After Effects side, especially, we notice a performance bump with the disk cache on an SSD.

               

              But these drives are so much more expensive that it's hard to make a blanket recommendation.

              • 4. Re: No SSD's or..
                Frédéric Segard Level 2

                Todd_Kopriva wrote:

                 

                I mostly agree with Harm. One exception is that SSDs can improve performance during editing if you put cache files there. On the After Effects side, especially, we notice a performance bump with the disk cache on an SSD.

                 

                But these drives are so much more expensive that it's hard to make a blanket recommendation.

                 

                Todd,

                 

                Price aside, using an SSD (or 2x SSDs RAID0) for caching is a good idea then? Even if I'd have a 10 disk HDD RAID3 setup?

                 

                My system integrator is strongly suggesting using a good performing 60GB SSD for caching. Ideally two.

                • 5. Re: No SSD's or..
                  Harm Millaard Level 7

                  Frederic,

                   

                  I haven't tried it, but in a situation where funds are no bottleneck, I could imagine a setup like this:

                   

                  C: 4 x SSD in raid10 for OS & programs on board

                  D: 4 x SSD in raid0 for pagefile, media cache and previews, either on board or Areca.

                  E: 16 x 7200 in raid30, including 2 hot-spares for media and projects on Areca ARC-2xxx PCIe-3.0

                  F: 4 x 7200 in raid3 for exports and stock footage external on Areca ARC-2xxx, due to lack of internal space.

                   

                  It only requires deep pockets.

                  • 6. Re: No SSD's or..
                    Frédéric Segard Level 2

                    Harm,

                     

                    Not that I have deep pockets, but I am getting a business lease for my new system, so I can push the limits of certain items to get optimal performance in an acceptable budget limit. It comes pretty close to your ideal solution... hehehe

                     

                    I just got off the phone a few minutes ago with my system integrator, and this is what we etched out just now (just before seeing your post):

                     

                    C: 1x OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2 240GB, for OS, programs AND pagefile, on a PCIe x4 card

                    D: 1x Corsair Force Series GT 60GB, for cache, on SATA III on-board

                    E: 1x Corsair Force Series GT 60GB, for scratch, on SATA III on-board

                    F: 16x 7200RPM Seagate SV35 series 1TB 32MB in RAID3 (or maybe RAID30?) with hot spare, for everything else, on Areca 1880ix-16/4GB

                     

                    He has built many systems using separate disks for cache and scratch. And he found that it was the best combo for a performance tuned editing rigs. Although he did say conventional HDDs would do for the task, considering the access type and random nature of the read/writes of these functions, lower cost, small capacity SSDs work nicely, especially if you have PPro, AE and PS opened and working at the same time. I decided to spend a bit more to get GTs instead of "conventional" "slower" SSDs to get better performance... just in case. But that was a personal choice with no basis on tested systems. I admit the RevoDrive is overkill for an OS and app drive, but that's a small birthday present I'm treating myself to. But since I'm putting the pagefile on it, and needed the 2 on-board SATA IIIs for the cache and scratch disks, I imagine pagefile access won't ever be an issue at 1500MBps.

                     

                    I do however have a limit of 14x 3.5" drives in the Lian-Li PC-V2120 (with a 4-in-3 cage, and 2 optical drives). But since I don't have an HPTX motherboard in a HPTX case, I'm hoping to rig in the 2 remaining 3.5" HDDs next to the 2x 2.5" mounts on the PSU separator plate. I'd like to find an alternative case with more drive space, but they are hard to find (aside from the ridiculously expensive, but very nice "Extended Ascension" custom case from Mountain Mod).

                     

                    My system integrator suggests a little know secret about the SV35http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?name=st31000526sv-sv35-sata-1tb-hd&vgnextoid=314881f 69299c210VgnVCM1000001a48090aRCRD&locale=en-US&pf=1#tTabContentOverviewseries of Seagate drives. They are enterprise class, RAIDable, rated 24/7 for multiple streams of HD surveillance video recording and playback per drive. If they can do that, they must surely be worthy drives in a RAID for an editing rig? They are robust, have a 5 year warranty, and a lot less costly then the classic enterprise class HDDs. Costs about $68 for 1TB 32MB SATA III per disk from my vendor.  Any thoughts on this series of drives?

                    • 7. Re: No SSD's or..
                      Harm Millaard Level 7

                      I've been bitten severely by the Seagate 7200.11 (7 failures out of 13) so my opinion is biased. I am not inclined to use Seagates because of that experience, but I do not know about the SV35 series. I know that the replacement disks I got, 7200.12 were a lot better and have not had a single failure yet.

                      • 8. Re: No SSD's or..
                        Frédéric Segard Level 2

                        Perhaps because the 7200.11 disks are conventional desktop drives, and not rated 24/7? Who knows! But I've been reassured by my vendor, that he has rarely seen bad SV35 series drives. I mean, like all things, nothing is ever perfect. But he sells a lot of them regularly, all RAIDed, and clients expect and rely heavily on their reliability, so I'm guessing it's a good indication. I'm crossing my fingers and will give it a try. I'll post benchmarks (and PPBM) and give my impressions when I get my system.

                        • 9. Re: No SSD's or..
                          JEShort01 Level 4

                          Frederic,

                           

                          Your system integrator's "experience" definitely is not in line with my personal testing...

                           

                          I was encouraged that SSDs could help Premiere Pro CS5, but in the end they really can't much. My JES4 PPBM5 score, which last time I looked was the fastest single CPU result to date, was done with a PC using a 5x64GB C300 SSD array that was ONLY used for CS5 "media cache DB" (and attempting to use it for "media cache", scratch, swap, etc. either didn't help or slowed things down). Projects and media were on an Areca 7x1TB RAID 0 array and "media cache" and render outputs went to a 5x1TB motherboard RAID 0 array.

                           

                          Bottom line:

                          - don't get a Revo drive if you already have an Areca! They put multiple controllers on a single PCIe 4x card, whereas Areca gives you a dedicate controller for each drive plugged into it and connects to the bus with 16x PCIe. Even with benchmark reads of 1.5GB/sec from my 5xSSD array (SSD writes are much slower), putting projects on this array was slower than the HD arrays.

                          - you are planning to have a massive controller and many drives; CS5 will work wonderfully - you can rest assured about that!

                          - if you want to "treat" yourself in the OS/boot/programs area, there is nothing wrong with that, but do it with 1 240GB latest gen SSD, or 2 or 3 64/80GB Sata III SSDs in RAID0; anything past that is not really "noticeable" for real world use; if you must spend more buy better monitors, or an auto-cappuccino maker, or a new camera... (you get the point)

                          - 2TB and 3TB drives have faster read/write capabilities than 1TB drives, so a 8x2TB RAID3 may serve you well and leave some Areca channels left over for backup drives and expansion

                           

                          Regarding your main drives, 7k3000 drives have excellent platter density, new (read fast) electronics, and are probably still your best choice at that price point. Larger 7k3000 drives (2TB or 3TB) would be faster still. AV drives are not built for raw speed; they are designed to work continually at write speeds that need not be top of class.

                           

                          Jim

                          • 10. Re: No SSD's or..
                            Frédéric Segard Level 2

                            Jim,

                             

                            You bring up excellent points. And I'm glad you brought up the subject about AV drives not being fast performers. Just because they can run 24/7 with constant access, doesn't mean they can sprint when it's needed. I guess you could compare it to a work horse vs. a race horse. And when I think about it for 2 seconds, when do we, as editors, need our media disks to perform quickly? Basically: playback, renders, and exports. Other then that, disks arent solicieted as much. But when we do solicite the drives, we want our drives to run as fast as they can. I guess my systems integrator over estimated my need for reliability, in suggesting these drives. I'll stick to my initial Deskstar 7K3000 choice then. Could I dare say it's a Quadro vs GTX analogy?  hehehehe

                             

                            I initially chose the 1.5TB over the 2TB and 3TB models for two things. Price: $65 / $120 / $200 respectivly. But most importantly, data management. We all know what it's like when we have a bigger house? It eventually fills up, usually with useless junk, even if we have the best of intentions when we start. Bigger will just mean more stuff that I can procrastinate moving old projects off the system when I have the actual time... And worse, more data to backup! hehe

                             

                            As for SSDs and caching, Todd does mention there is a performance bump (more so in AE). But in your tests, you say it's not what you expected. Should I presume that this difference in opinion is due to the fact that you ultimately ran it on a 7 disk RAID 0 compared to users that probably have a few JBOD drives, or maybe a 2 drive RAID0, as their setup? I guess in the latter, caching would benefit from SSDs. After all, 7 HDDs in RAID 0 is a lot faster then most single SSDs. But I'm surprised that it was not beneficial with 5x SSDs in RAID0. Funny how we can't assume things until actually tested with real world applications!

                             

                            As for the RevoDrive, yes it's completely unwarranted for CS5.5, but is a gift to myself (got the better camera, and got the better monitor... hehe)... but you're raising something that I wasn't aware of, and it gives me pause, and want to know the implications further. How detrimental is having multiple controlers on a single PCIe x4 RevoDrive card? Will it conflct of fight for resources with the Areca in any way? Because if it is, I'm dropping it off my Santa list, faster then you can say "don't"!

                            • 11. Re: No SSD's or..
                              Jim_Simon Level 9
                              D: 1x Corsair Force Series GT 60GB, for cache, on SATA III on-board

                              E: 1x Corsair Force Series GT 60GB, for scratch, on SATA III on-board

                               

                              60 GB for cache and scratch!?  That's not likely to be nearly enough.  Add a third zero, maybe.  But doing that will add three more zeros to the price tag.

                              • 12. Re: No SSD's or..
                                Frédéric Segard Level 2

                                JSS1138 wrote:

                                 

                                D: 1x Corsair Force Series GT 60GB, for cache, on SATA III on-board

                                E: 1x Corsair Force Series GT 60GB, for scratch, on SATA III on-board

                                 

                                60 GB for cache and scratch!?  That's not likely to be nearly enough.  Add a third zero, maybe.  But doing that will add three more zeros to the price tag.

                                 

                                It's incredible how misconception, preconceptions and assumptions will lead us in the wrong direction most of the time. hehe Thank goodness for research and users with real world experience.

                                 

                                Anyway, I was checking late last night and this morning and yes, my mistake for scratch, I misunderstood it's function "slightly". it's definitely not enough. So it's going to be on my RAID.

                                 

                                But what about media cache? As per my previous post, and awaiting confirmation, Todd says there is a benefit using SSDs for media cache, yet it depends on the configuration, so a blanket statement can't be issued; and rightly so. As Jim pointed, an SSD may be pointless if you have a large enough RAID.

                                 

                                Of course my thinking is this. Jim specifies a 7 disk RAID0 in his example. RAID0, other then having no redundancy whatsoever, is the fastest RAID solution ever. Now, let's take that 7 disk setup and parity RAID them for security purposes. It is generally known that RAID5 (or 6) is the deacto standard for data centers, as they are usually dishing out large quantities of small files to large number of users. RAID5 is designed for this type of use (and is not as efficient for very large files). Whereas, RAID3 is designed for single users, accessing very large files, perfectly suited for video editing. Since media cache files are many and small (typically RAID5 suited, even better in RAID0), I was "assuming" that it would hamper RAID3 performance, when accessed simultaneously with the media files. Hence my thinking/assuming, that having media cache on a separate, speedy SSD, would actually help overall performance of a RAID3 setup.

                                 

                                This is all theoretical in my mind, and practically, it may not be an issue at all. Especially for RAID5 users. It's probably why my systems integrator suggested a separate SSD for media cache. Of course, I could go larger in terms of SSD if it's still a viable and efficient option (120GB or 240GB).... BUT.... really, the question is, in a large 16 disk RAID3, is there any real-world benefit in having a single speedy SSD for cache? Or should I just cut the 16 disk RAID in 2, and split the load? Such as 12x in RAID3 for media and previews + 4x in RAID0 for media cache and exports, or 10+6)

                                .

                                Out of curiosity, worst case scenario, how big can a media cache folder get with multiple projects in the system?

                                • 13. Re: No SSD's or..
                                  Jim_Simon Level 9
                                  Since media cache files are many and small

                                   

                                  More misconception.  The Media Cache Database files are many and small. (4K or so).  However, I don't think you'll notice any difference in performance whatsoever, no matter where you put those.

                                   

                                  But the Media Cache files themselves do include conformed audio, which are essentially 32 bit floating-point Uncompressed .wav files.  Granted, audio is smaller than video, but these are hardly the 'small' files that RAID 5 performs best with.

                                   

                                  Now I personally do separate them from the Media drive. I put them on my Project drive.  But I run single drives.  I suspect they'd not get in the way at all if stored on a RAID 3 that includes media.

                                  • 14. Re: No SSD's or..
                                    Frédéric Segard Level 2

                                    JSS1138 wrote:

                                     

                                    Since media cache files are many and small

                                     

                                    More misconception.  The Media Cache Database files are many and small. (4K or so).  I don't think you'll notice any difference in performance whatsoever, so matter where you put those.

                                     

                                    But the Media Cache files themselves do include conformed audio, which are essentially 32 bit floating-point Uncompressed .wav files.  Granted, audio is smaller than video, but these are hardly the 'small' files that RAID 5 performs best with.

                                     

                                    I'm glad light is being shed more and more on the subject! And the veil of misconceptions is being removed. Besides... I'm tired of over-thinking things through, it's becoming unproductive.

                                     

                                    Seems then, that the best approach would be to have to two RAID sets, as I suggested in my last post?

                                     

                                    I wrote:

                                    ... just cut the 16 disk RAID in 2, and split the load? Such as 12x in RAID3 for media and previews + 4x in RAID0 for media cache and exports, or 10+6)
                                    • 15. Re: No SSD's or..
                                      Jim_Simon Level 9

                                      With that many drives, here's how I'd arrange things.

                                       

                                      C: System/Programs - 2 in a RAID 1 (Onboard)

                                      D: Projects - 2 in a RAID 1 (Onboard)

                                      E: Media - 8 in a RAID 3 (Areca)

                                      F: Scratch/Media Cache - 1

                                      G: Exports - 1

                                      H: Images (from Encore as Masters) - 2 in a RAID 1 (Onboard)

                                       

                                      If 7 TB isn't enough for the Media drive (holy cow what the hell are you editing?), you can add the 2 used for the C: drive and get a smaller model for System/Programs.

                                      • 16. Re: No SSD's or..
                                        Frédéric Segard Level 2

                                        JSS1138 wrote:

                                         

                                        With that many drives, here's how I'd arrange things.

                                         

                                        C: System/Programs - 2 in a RAID 1 (Onboard)

                                        D: Projects - 2 in a RAID 1 (Onboard)

                                        E: Media - 8 in a RAID 3 (Areca)

                                        F: Scratch/Media Cache - 1

                                        G: Exports - 1

                                        H: Images (from Encore as Masters) - 2 in a RAID 1 (Onboard)

                                         

                                        If 7 TB isn't enough for the Media drive (holy cow what the hell are you editing?), you can add the 2 used for the C: drive and get a smaller model for System/Programs.

                                         

                                        Jim,

                                         

                                        You'd really split it up that much?

                                         

                                        7+TB is way more then I'd need, granted. But it's the speed advantage and data consolidation/management that attracts me to big RAID sets. Splitting it in two seems like a nice trade off; especially when services are fighting for the same resources, like exporting while reading media, or reading two or more uncompressed streams while accessing random elements in the media cache. Having two RAID sets seems like a great idea in these cases (perhaps even 3). I have to be able to sustain at the most 4 streams of uncompressed video (but typically 2). Add some overhead, and it results in the need for lots of disks in the RAID set. But hey, if I only edited DVCProHD or AVCIntra, I wouldn't even have these lengthy conversations. hehehe

                                         

                                        In any case, regardless of how I plan to split the disks now, I could always reconfigure them appropriately down the road according to my evolving needs, or if someone comes up with the ideal recipe.

                                        • 17. Re: No SSD's or..
                                          Jim_Simon Level 9
                                          You'd really split it up that much?

                                           

                                          I would.  But then I don't edit Uncompressed.

                                           

                                          Harm could probably tell you better than I what performance gain there would be going from an 8 drive to a 12 drive RAID 3.

                                          • 18. Re: No SSD's or..
                                            Frédéric Segard Level 2

                                            Frédéric Segard wrote:

                                             

                                            As for the RevoDrive, yes it's completely unwarranted for CS5.5, but is a gift to myself (got the better camera, and got the better monitor... hehe)... but you're raising something that I wasn't aware of, and it gives me pause, and want to know the implications further. How detrimental is having multiple controlers on a single PCIe x4 RevoDrive card? Will it conflct of fight for resources with the Areca in any way? Because if it is, I'm dropping it off my Santa list, faster then you can say "don't"!

                                             

                                            Still no answer to this one! Would a RevoDrive conflict in some way with the Areca?