Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
index680i

Fast, Reliable and huge.

Recommended Posts

I am interested in knowing what HDD would suit best for media converting, compressing, storage fast loading times. I am interested to know, if a Raptor WD 320 is the solution just give me a buzz if there is anything else that would suit these needs fine or best.

 

Thankyou.

 

 

 

Cheers,

Index680i/GamersStudio :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always, it depends :)

 

Depends on your usage case, and your budget. For 35mm film productions you'll need something like our online disk system at work uses 100's of 10k SAS drives for data storage and 60 or so 15k SAS drives for the filesystem metadata, all connected up somehow via multiply redundant fibre channel links, I'm just getting in to this side of work, so I'm not sure of the total specs, but something like 500TB, able to saturate many gigabit ethernet links, and has fairly solid random access times.

 

For editing youtube vids, you'd be fine with a 7200 rpm SATA drive in your case. If you wanted to get tricky, you could get two and use RAID0 for speed. Of course, if you can afford it, the Velociraptors are faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as I am keen on doing CG graphics, I surpose Ill take the tricky road.

 

The 640MB Solution sounds good though, seems though its 2x 320GB Platters in one HDD case.

 

So,

 

What do I need for this trickey yellow brick road mate :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. Your not going to get many arguements around here as to why you should not raid 0 for your task. As it will benefit your system since you do have a disk thrashing application, however. The entire time that your data is on a raid 0 array it is in danger of being lost. So you need another drive in which to backup or store your finalised work on. Which would mean that you would likely buy two 640's for the raid 0 array and one for your backup, at which point I would be enclined to say 'Why not raid 5 all three'.

 

Now to avoid the flame war thats comming, if I leave it at that.

 

Raid 5 is not a back up, but I'm sure it would prove more relieable than a 2disk raid 0 plus 'safe' drive. Since you no longer have to worry about where your data is resting at the end of your session. One day you would forget to transfer it and that would be the day your array breaks, Murphy's law.

 

I'd probably go with a 3 or 4 drive raid 5 array. Or raid 0 with some kind of automated backup process. For raid 5 you are going to need a hardware raid controller though or jump through some hoops to get it working in software under windows.

 

If you go with raid at all, then it is generally a lot easier to install the os to a standalone drive than to a raid array since you need to have drivers for the windows install.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAID5 won't give you performance.

 

RAID1+0 with a decent controller.

 

 

 

Or just go buy a SAN, An MD3000i might fit under your desk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

get the raptors....the Velociraptors i mean for your primary drive....then add another 1TB for your files..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disregard 2red, he's an idiot.

 

I seriously doubt a velociraptor is going to benefit you all that greatly.

 

My suggestion, which echoes previous sentiments:

 

Get 1 x WD 640GB HDD and use this for your OS drive.

 

Then have a second 640GB drive for your work space. The 640GB drives have excellent throughput for sequential reading/writing, and when working with video/audio, that's mostly what you're doing.

If you feel the need, yo ucan RAID 0 two of them to make it even faster, havign 3 disks total, but keep the OS on jsut a standard non-raided drive.

 

And if you go down the RAID0 path, realise you've doubled your chances of losing all your (non-OS) data. An external 1TB drive for backups would be a wise investment, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think raid 5 would be fine, we are dealing with mainly sequential stuff here and raid 5 is good at that. Its the random stuff that it fails at. But to each his own.

 

Eckythumps suggestion is bang on. If you do indead need more performance then raid 0 away. As stated the raptor are great for random reads and writes and small accesses, but your workload is all about big stuff, the 640's are best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem with RAID5 in this case, is that it has very slow writes, compared to RAID1+0 or RAID0.

 

As iamthemaxx says, RAID1+0 is the best combination of speed and redundancy. However, I have to ask, how much video editing are you going to be doing? You might find that a single 640GB drive is fast enough. You can always step up from there.

 

You can have even have a 20GB old slow pos for your OS, or whatever you're currently using. It just means it will take slightly longer to start up, but once the OS is in memory, there's nothing wrong with this setup (make sure you back up!). Also make sure that the page file is on a quick drive, along with your video files.

 

Having a quick OS and program drive is pretty silly I think. Once they are loaded into memory, the hdd won't be touched, unless you run out of memory and have to swap to disk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem with RAID5 in this case, is that it has very slow writes, compared to RAID1+0 or RAID0.

 

As iamthemaxx says, RAID1+0 is the best combination of speed and redundancy. However, I have to ask, how much video editing are you going to be doing? You might find that a single 640GB drive is fast enough. You can always step up from there.

 

You can have even have a 20GB old slow pos for your OS, or whatever you're currently using. It just means it will take slightly longer to start up, but once the OS is in memory, there's nothing wrong with this setup (make sure you back up!). Also make sure that the page file is on a quick drive, along with your video files.

 

Having a quick OS and program drive is pretty silly I think. Once they are loaded into memory, the hdd won't be touched, unless you run out of memory and have to swap to disk.

Where talking about, CG storage at high res captures. That will take a lot of space, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAID5 won't give you performance.

 

RAID1+0 with a decent controller.

 

 

 

Or just go buy a SAN, An MD3000i might fit under your desk.

This reminds me, when are you putting back the SSD Watch thread.... I enjoyed that one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem with RAID5 in this case, is that it has very slow writes, compared to RAID1+0 or RAID0.

As usual, I agree with your statement...but, this statement is warped/changed a little when implementing a more intelligent sw layer style RAID, using kernel cache, such as ZFS RAIDz1 or RAIDz2, of course, where the round robin nature of spindle selection algorithms goes out the door, so all spindles are sort of "concurrent" I/O written and read from, making it just as fast as a straight 0 stripe, if not better.

 

Unfortunately, he'll probably run Windows...and won't use a dedicated storage box, for storage, so this is all just academic.

 

The md3000i, outside of his price range as it may be, sounded like a hot idea ;).

 

z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem with RAID5 in this case, is that it has very slow writes, compared to RAID1+0 or RAID0.

As usual, I agree with your statement...but, this statement is warped/changed a little when implementing a more intelligent sw layer style RAID, using kernel cache, such as ZFS RAIDz1 or RAIDz2, of course, where the round robin nature of spindle selection algorithms goes out the door, so all spindles are sort of "concurrent" I/O written and read from, making it just as fast as a straight 0 stripe, if not better.

 

 

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem with RAID5 in this case, is that it has very slow writes, compared to RAID1+0 or RAID0.

As usual, I agree with your statement...but, this statement is warped/changed a little when implementing a more intelligent sw layer style RAID, using kernel cache, such as ZFS RAIDz1 or RAIDz2, of course, where the round robin nature of spindle selection algorithms goes out the door, so all spindles are sort of "concurrent" I/O written and read from, making it just as fast as a straight 0 stripe, if not better.

 

 

...

 

Get reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noooiiice!

 

When will MS have something can compare?

 

LOL

 

Maybe you should go read The Big Iron in Atomic 93 ;)

 

Nah I hate Atomic, I think it's a crap magazine. :P

 

I don't have it, Im not that interested in the mag, as all the stuff ends up on the forum anyway.

 

BTW: where is your SSD thread you lazy bastard!!!!!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have it, Im not that interested in the mag, as all the stuff ends up on the forum anyway.

This particular stuff probably won't end up on the forums. It is far too complex/deep/needs diagrams to explain. I suggest you go into the news agency and check it out, if at all keen man.

 

z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have it, Im not that interested in the mag, as all the stuff ends up on the forum anyway.

 

BTW: where is your SSD thread you lazy bastard!!!!!?

You mean this one - http://forums.atomicmpc.com.au/index.php?showtopic=392?

 

 

But yeah, get the mag, worth a look if only for the new layout. As zebs mentions this is pretty awesome stuff that might not make it over (unfortunately).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of ZFS.

 

Wait for something... interesting... from me.

 

It'll show you what you can achieve with this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of ZFS.

 

Wait for something... interesting... from me.

 

It'll show you what you can achieve with this stuff.

Guide on how to set it up or just benchmarks?

 

Assuming you can't answer so that's ok, the former would be awesome though :o

 

Maybe a guide to set up zfs on a dedicated box for network storage on the (reasonably) cheap, i.e. hardware recommendations as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm getting 400mb/s sec out of 4 drives from ZFS - I'd say I'm happy with that.

 

Index: I don't quite understand anymore what you really want to do. You see before I thought you wanted to do Video editing which is very disk intesive. But now I' think you are talking about 3d Modelling - which is not very disk intensive, but very cache and memory intensive - Use your Q6600 - put the Q8200 in your games rig and oc the crap out of it. You will want the extra cache. 8Gb of ram will keep you happy.

 

The disk system will not be trashed, since to render a frame will take at the least a few seconds and it your hdd cant keep up with writing a tiff file to the drive every few seconds then you must be working from tape :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×