|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 6, 2016 21:01:50 GMT -6
I was going to follow up in the "loud ass HD" thread, but thought I'd just post a separate thread. In one word - wow. I already had an SSD as my boot drive, but didn't think I really needed an SSD for my write-to drive. Well, boy, was I wrong. I have SOOO much more CPU power in my DAW. I was getting CPU overloads in PT12 with a USB3 3TB Seagate...ended up taking it back, buying an SSD and enclosure (USB3)...and it has been fantastic. Looking forward to the sizes getting bigger and the prices smaller.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,971
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Apr 6, 2016 21:36:47 GMT -6
I'll say it again for the billionth time DUH! As we were taught in the early days of DAW, the audio drive is doing constant write rewrite rewrite. The Audio drive is grabing stuff and putting stuff all over the place, this is where the nonlinear in nonlinear recording is at ! The Audio Drive is the one in the grand old days that needed a better dedicated SCSI card, the Audio Drive was the one that had to be a Qualified drive! With the explosion of plugins, and virtual instruments and the fact that super fast boot times were cool so many started to theoretically say boot drive more important. Funny every body I know who professionally built computers for edititing and everybody who understood the Arcitecture of an Audio or Video editing computer put the importance on the work drive!
So my friend congratulations, but I have to say DUH!
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 6, 2016 22:54:06 GMT -6
I bow to your genius.
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on Apr 7, 2016 2:18:48 GMT -6
I remember when I first installed an ssd and immediately noticed the difference. It was jaw dropping. And now you're telling me it gets better if I put one as the write drive. Too many instances of True verb + valhalla + waves ssl was just choking an editing session. I think I just read a remedy.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,971
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Apr 7, 2016 7:30:36 GMT -6
It was all those years studying. homer That's Homer Simpson!
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 7, 2016 8:45:06 GMT -6
Except all those writes/reads wear the SSD down quickly. 2-3 years at full capacity before the drive is toast..
|
|
|
Post by warrenfirehouse on Apr 7, 2016 8:57:02 GMT -6
Except all those writes/reads wear the SSD down quickly. 2-3 years at full capacity before the drive is toast.. My computer programmer friend who is very tech savvy told me this same thing. Constantly writing and rewriting to ssd will fry them. They are meant for system files.
|
|
|
Post by 79sg on Apr 7, 2016 8:59:54 GMT -6
This is correct, however I don't ever get to full capacity on any drive. Once I'm at about 80% it's on to the next.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,971
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Apr 7, 2016 9:54:35 GMT -6
Yes they will fry but this why you keep a big old magnetic drive for archiving! Who keeps a drive or a computer for more than 3 years today anyway! Still ill take an SSD over a first gen Cheetah any day !
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 7, 2016 10:02:19 GMT -6
Yes they will fry but this why you keep a big old magnetic drive for archiving! Who keeps a drive or a computer for more than 3 years today anyway! Still ill take an SSD over a first gen Cheetah any day ! I do. My last recording pc was 13 when i retired it. This new one better last just as long.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 7, 2016 10:34:36 GMT -6
you want to go really nutz, get a NVme pcie ssd drive, smoking fast, makes thunderbolt look bad if i remember correctly.
BTW, my mac is 7 years old and still at the top of the game as far as i can tell.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Apr 7, 2016 17:10:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 7, 2016 18:54:22 GMT -6
so much for SSD's not lasting, multiple petabytes!!
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 7, 2016 20:42:32 GMT -6
Actually, that's not what I would take from that test at all.
Nothing beyond the rating is trustworthy. Another set of those 2PB drives might barely make the minimum. You just don't know. There is a reason that those companies aren't calling them 2PB write-worthy drives and give them much, much lower write ratings..
Anyway, those numbers are still only about 2-3 years worth of writes for the average audio drive running 24/96K at 24+ channels when you factor in all the takes, mixdowns, etc.
If you're doing AV work and edit a lot of 2K/4K video, you can move a TB in a single day.. Your SSD is worth maybe 6-12 months at best.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 7, 2016 21:49:57 GMT -6
well, i don't know, but i've been running this 90gig SSD for 4 years, and it's working a treat, the age scares me a bit though, i'm upgrading to new drives across the board.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 7, 2016 22:27:35 GMT -6
Yeah - I mean...am I really going to wear out this 480GB? I would take me 2 years to fill it up...If not longer. By then, I'll probably be moving on...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2016 1:27:18 GMT -6
Just upgraded all my hard drives a few weeks ago, 500GB SSD internal, 240 GB SSD which is my read/write session drive and I have the old internal 500GB SATA as long term backup. Hope this keeps things running smoothly for a few years anways.
|
|
|
Post by jayson on Apr 8, 2016 5:39:13 GMT -6
So I wonder if there's any advantage in striping together multiple SSD drives. I wouldn't be opposed to grouping a bunch of them together if it increased the long term reliability, the performance advantages seem obvious enough. Do you think distributing the load among multiple units adds any value? From a packaging perspective it seems like they'd be a nice means of archiving projects for the long term. In practice though I can't help but wonder how much retrievable data could be pulled from one of these things that's been stored in a file cabinet or a Banker's Box for 10 or 15 years. How do they stand up for archival data storage? I'm not sure I could give up spindle drives just yet, but it is getting more tempting.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,971
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Apr 8, 2016 8:43:34 GMT -6
So I wonder if there's any advantage in striping together multiple SSD drives. I wouldn't be opposed to grouping a bunch of them together if it increased the long term reliability, the performance advantages seem obvious enough. Do you think distributing the load among multiple units adds any value? From a packaging perspective it seems like they'd be a nice means of archiving projects for the long term. In practice though I can't help but wonder how much retrievable data could be pulled from one of these things that's been stored in a file cabinet or a Banker's Box for 10 or 15 years. How do they stand up for archival data storage? I'm not sure I could give up spindle drives just yet, but it is getting more tempting. Since unlike spinners SSD's are an array of chips already not much of an advantage !
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Apr 8, 2016 10:33:03 GMT -6
So I wonder if there's any advantage in striping together multiple SSD drives. I wouldn't be opposed to grouping a bunch of them together if it increased the long term reliability, the performance advantages seem obvious enough. Do you think distributing the load among multiple units adds any value? From a packaging perspective it seems like they'd be a nice means of archiving projects for the long term. In practice though I can't help but wonder how much retrievable data could be pulled from one of these things that's been stored in a file cabinet or a Banker's Box for 10 or 15 years. How do they stand up for archival data storage? I'm not sure I could give up spindle drives just yet, but it is getting more tempting. I think the consensus is that you back up to HDD'S. Apparently SSD can loose data when disconnected for long periods of time. The advantage of spanning on HDD goes away once you move to SSD. The "seek" times are so low... no moving parts.
|
|
|
Post by LesC on Apr 8, 2016 11:28:29 GMT -6
I have a related question that may just have been answered, I just want to make sure. For many years I've used a 3 disk drive configuration, one for the system (including Windows, DAW and plugins), one for recording, and one for samples. When going to SSD's, does it still make sense to have 3 separate drives, from a performance point-of-view, or is it just as well to have one SSD for the system and one larger SSD for both recording and samples?
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Apr 8, 2016 11:35:26 GMT -6
I have a related question that may just have been answered, I just want to make sure. For many years I've used a 3 disk drive configuration, one for the system (including Windows, DAW and plugins), one for recording, and one for samples. When going to SSD's, does it still make sense to have 3 separate drives, from a performance point-of-view, or is it just as well to have one SSD for the system and one larger SSD for both recording and samples? I would still keep them separated just from a backup and safety standpoint.
|
|
|
Post by LesC on Apr 8, 2016 11:44:08 GMT -6
I'm backing up to a Synology DS1812+ with 5 3TB WD Red drives in a raid configuration, so I'm comfortable with that. But from a pure performance perspective, would there be a difference if the recording files and samples were on a single drive?
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Apr 8, 2016 12:29:11 GMT -6
Don't overcomplicate things. Everyone has their own comfort level, but it's easiest to just assume that any drive no matter the type can fail at any time from a manufacturing fault, wear or be damaged.
So it follows that you should use the fastest drives (SSD, followed by RAID 0) for work in progress/scratch and assets like sample libraries, and back up finished projects and milestones to a redundant system like non-striped RAID or one of the hot-swappable alternatives, where you can replace failed disks to regain redundancy.
Then ideally you should have an offsite backup, maybe a cloud account, or a periodic back up at someone else's studio or a friend's house. Whatever makes you comfortable.
This is all ideal strategy, I myself don't always abide by these rules, and am often lazier than I should be about copying work in timely fashion that needs to be backed up from the scratch drive. But I'm the same way with dishes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2016 19:03:39 GMT -6
My 240gb Samsung has now 30000 hrs. power-on time i.e. near 3 1/2 years of power-on as a system drive that is really quite full most of the time. No sign of reallocation problem whatsoever if i trust SMART. Great drive. Now, that a reserve drive is about 60 Euros, i consider having one at hand with a emergency backup system on it. For archival they are not ideal. They lose information very quickly if not powered, in just a few weeks already... conventional harddisks seem to be the better option right now.
|
|