Best Hard drive for audio
- Thread starter utsman
- Start date
seismetr0n
New member
even though a 10k rpm is bonus, my 7.5k rpm works just fine with audio 8in/8out.. seagate is good, dont buy a maxtor, mine is dying after only 3 years, but the original IBM (cannabalized out of a dell) has lasted me 8 years now (3 diff cases). i think with scsi, you'd probably need a seperate controller card, which doesnt cost much.?
gl
gl
HangDawg
bUnGhOlIo
For the most demanding disk intensive applications, SCSI is still used more than all others. I think audio apps quallify as disk intensive. I use SCSI for the fact that I'll never get close to maxing out data transfer before my processor is maxed. I've had projects in Cubase with 40 tracks and the disk meter doesn't even register.
Rstiltskin
New member
3.14195 cents worth
pcmac and tomshardware have tested eide and scsi drives head to head. for a single task eide usually comes out on top. for servers with multiple processes operating at once, scsi is still pretty much the way to go.
the next release of the sata interface is supposed to do instruction caching and reordering for greater throughput in multi tasking, which scsi already does.
seagate has been around a long time, ibm sold its drive division to hitatchi.
15 or so years ago (maybe more, I'd rather not say) I put out about 20 seagate st-238's, they all failed within 18 months. more recently I had 4 of the ibm deskstor glass platter drives and the all failed within 2 years. Ya just never know.
if you really want the lowdown check out www.tomshardware.com , they also have an interesting intel vs amd dual core test running live on webcams. Interesting results.
for digital video and audio streaming your cluster size can make a lot of difference. bigger is better.
utsman said:
pcmac and tomshardware have tested eide and scsi drives head to head. for a single task eide usually comes out on top. for servers with multiple processes operating at once, scsi is still pretty much the way to go.
the next release of the sata interface is supposed to do instruction caching and reordering for greater throughput in multi tasking, which scsi already does.
seagate has been around a long time, ibm sold its drive division to hitatchi.
15 or so years ago (maybe more, I'd rather not say) I put out about 20 seagate st-238's, they all failed within 18 months. more recently I had 4 of the ibm deskstor glass platter drives and the all failed within 2 years. Ya just never know.
if you really want the lowdown check out www.tomshardware.com , they also have an interesting intel vs amd dual core test running live on webcams. Interesting results.
for digital video and audio streaming your cluster size can make a lot of difference. bigger is better.
HangDawg
bUnGhOlIo
Rstiltskin said:
I wonder if there is a way to find out what size "Chunk" of data cubase writes. I know that this is an issue when formatting drives for Oracle and SQL Server. There's the tradeoff between speed and optimal storage usage. Ideally you'd want the cluster size to match the largest amount of data the app can write at any one time.
Rstiltskin
New member
windows xp.........
reads and writes a cluster, period(I think). for word processing, smaller clusters mean better utilization of space, as a cluster is the smallest size that can be allocated. if you have 42k clusters and a 3k note in word, 90 percent of the cluster is wasted.
with video or audio streaming, you are concerned more with fewer access (more speed) per given amount of data, and less with storage utilization.
with the 8meg cache drives this is mitigated somewhat, as some implement a read ahead algorithm (again, I think)
www.videoguys.com and www.tomshardware.com have lots of stuff on windows xp tweaks and drive proformance, respectivly
HangDawg said:
reads and writes a cluster, period(I think). for word processing, smaller clusters mean better utilization of space, as a cluster is the smallest size that can be allocated. if you have 42k clusters and a 3k note in word, 90 percent of the cluster is wasted.
with video or audio streaming, you are concerned more with fewer access (more speed) per given amount of data, and less with storage utilization.
with the 8meg cache drives this is mitigated somewhat, as some implement a read ahead algorithm (again, I think)
www.videoguys.com and www.tomshardware.com have lots of stuff on windows xp tweaks and drive proformance, respectivly
HangDawg
bUnGhOlIo
Rstiltskin said:
After checking, Oracle will read/write up to 32k. That's the recommended cluster size. What's the default for NTFS? 4k I think. So, there is alot more overhead involved if it wants a 32k chunk of data and it has to reposition the heads 8 times to get it. A 64k cluster size would always have at least 32k of wasted space. (I think)
