ok where's it choking??

  • Thread starter Thread starter James HE
  • Start date Start date
J

James HE

a spoonfull weighs a ton
I can play back 14 simultaneous tracks in Vegas no problem (maybe more, but haven't had to yet) But If I am recording, I can only listen to six while I record. Is this normal? What would allow me to run more trcks while recording? is it a ram issue? I have 128 MB now, but it dosen't seem to be a Ram thing, cuz the RAM meter on vegas dosen't shoot up or anything, in fact neither does the disk meter either. So is it the CPU? (533 celeron) hmmm... wouldn't think so either...
the playback jumps and garbles when I'm playing back more than six tracks, causing the recording to loose sync.

hmmm... what could this be? or is it pretty normal... (btw I'm one of these idiots recording at 24/96 :D)

-jhe
 
One big thing about this, is the fact that your recording 24/96. This can really load your computer while your recording especially on playback. It depends on what kind of sound card you have. Some sound cards have chips to help keep the cpu load down (i think). Some things that always help the performance on my computer, is adding your own virtual memory. i usually set it at about 2000MB but i have had it at 4000MB i think. And depending on how many drives you have the more you can load. I dunno, thats just my opinion that you can try out. Also, make sure you dont have any real time effects running. This can really slow it down, especially if you have it running on the track thats being recorded.
 
I use vegas pro and I have had that problem as well sometimes running only 4-5 tracks. I runs a 566 and I believe that the problem is that no name hard disk that came with my emachines puter.

that thing is slow as anything even though it claims to be ultra dma.

a solution would be to get a name brand had with fast seek times. 30 mb per second

I just wanted to add that my disk meter doesnt shoot up either, but if it ever goes above ten percent(10 % only) it starts to choke and puff and heave etc)I also think that related to seek time

[Edited by CyanJaguar on 10-09-2000 at 19:23]
 
i have two 7200rpm Maxtor drives in a RAID configuration... the thing really smokes! :) I can get the meter reading up to the red on playback and still no stuttering...

hmmm... maybe if i recorded the audio to my other drive (if possible while playing back) and then trasfered that over to the RAID drives afterwards. So that the drive wouldn't be reading and writing at the same time. hmmm... that's just crazy, I must be insane... I'll try it though- what's the worst that could happen? :D

-jhe
 
James - What RAID configuration do you have, RAID0 or RAID1? (I.e. do you have mirrored or merged disks?)

RAID0 is fast at reading as it can read the data from any of the two mirrored disks but slower at writing (depending on the controller) as it has to write the same data to both disks.

RAID1 is the opposite as it can spread the writing load to both disk but (may) have to jump between the disks to read one piece of data as it it (may) be spread over both disks.

What you "need" is RAID0+1 so it can utilise the benefits of both configurations. However, that'll cost you two more disks and you won't get any additional storage space. You'll get redundancy though so it might be worth it.

Having one "read disk" and one "write disk" would probably help but gain in speed would probably not justify the hassle of moving the data all the time.

In any case, defrag like crazy.

/Ola
 
is it possible to get this kind of perfomance without a RAID setup?

It will be way too cool to have my disk meters in the red without any stuttering.
 
cool ola! I have it in a RAID1 configuration. And the info that you've given here makes a lot of sense. With the RAID1 I do notice that sometimes certain tracks or combinations of tracks tend to make it stutter more. hmmm... a nice headache would be to have a RAID 1 config for recording data and a RAID0 for reading it!!! I bet that would smoke, but having to move things around would not be worth it!! he he... oh the defragmenting madman and his files! :D

I'll look into the RAID0+1 but don't think at this point could spare the expence of more drives.

-jhe
 
CyanJaguar - No, not with the kind of disks you can buy in the store anyway. I'm sure MIT or NASA have a few disks that outperform any commercially available RAID setup but nothing beats a RAID0+1 in our world (as far as I know). There are faster disks than the 7200rpm IDE, which James refers to, but if you look in that direction, the price/performence ratio goes right out the window. And you can always put the faster disks in a RAID configuration... Are you using a 7200rpm IDE disk at the moment? If not, you can really boost your disk performace but getting one. Keep the one you have now for OS and programs and use the new one for recording only. There is lots of information on disk configuration available here if you do a search.

James - A separate RAID0 for recording and a RAID1 for writing could possibly beat a RAID0+1 configuration but keep in mind that the RAID1 configuration offers no data integrity (I forgot the word, redundency?). Any of the four disks in a RAID0+1 configuration can fail and you can still restore all your data. In a RAID1 configuration, you loose all data if one of the two (or more) disks fail. Maybe separate RAID0+1 for writing and reading... That would only require eight disks:)

I would recommend that you set up a RAID0 configuration instead of RAID1 with the two disks you have. I know it's cool to have the extra space that the RAID1 offers but read performance is more important than write for a DAW as you read more tracks than you recor when you're near the limit. Also, and most important, if a disk crashes, you won't loose all your music.

Just my 0+1 cents

/Ola
 
ola,

thanks a bunch for that info. I gather that I can get another hd (a 7200 rpm one) and put it in a raid configuration with the one I already have. I will prefer a raid0 system which is optimised for reading.

What all will I need to get,apart from another HD, to set up two disks in RAID0?

thanks
 
ola, if only 10GB would be enough, I'd mirror those drives in a heartbeat. Very very soon i will be upgradiing, till then, I will have to keep my fingers crossed and the backups labled and ready :D

or maybe I just need an assistant to backup and move files so that I won't have to deal with the headache! :)
-jhe
 
First of all, I confused RAID0 and RAID1. RAID0 is merged (striped) disks and RAID1 is mirrored disks. Sorry about that. So, James, you have a RAID0 configuration, right?

To setup a RAID configuration you need two, or more, disks and a RAID controller. I have read claims that the disks don't have to be of the same make and size but I wouldn't mess around with mixing brands, sizes and speeds. For RAID1, the disks must be of the same size as both disks will contain the same data. Some motherboards have built-in RAID controllers, most don't. The choice in RAID controllers for most of us is the FastTrak66 from Promise (http://www.promise.com/Products/ideraid/ft66page.htm). There are other models but the FastTrak66 is what fits most people. This RAID controller fits in a PCI slot.

CyanJaguar - In your case, simply getting a second HD (no RAID configuration) that you use soley for recording would most likely yield great improvement. Just about any modern 7200rpm IDE disk will do and I'll leave it to you to search this forum for brand recommendations. Get a pretty big disk because if you want to upgrade to a RAID1 configuration later, you'll still have the same storage space after you get a second disk.

If you feel that it isn't enough, get a second HD of the same model and a FastTrak66 and set them up in a RAID1 configuration. If you want even more power, get a total of four disks and set them up in a RAID10 configuration. Yum.

With or without RAID, the most important thing is to keep your audio data and your OS and programs physically separated, i.e. on different disks, not just different partitions.

/Ola

[Edited by ola on 10-12-2000 at 04:02]
 
oh yeah ola...

heh... surprised I didn't catch our little mistake...

-jhe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top