partitioning question

  • Thread starter Thread starter andyhix
  • Start date Start date
andyhix

andyhix

:dank:
So I'm delving into this whole realm of computer recording, I have a new computer on the way, and want to make the most of it. I've read the following article a few times, and in it, the author suggests that improved performance may be had by partitioning your drive (in a single drive system) from outside to inside as such:
1. current audio project
2. streaming samples
3. windows + apps
4. audio backup, innactive files

My question is about #2 - I guess I don't know for sure what that means. Would that be simply the place to store all your VST plugins, etc? Is that what "streaming samples" means?

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may05/articles/pcmusician.htm

It's a really interesting article (at least to a computer noob like me).

Another question - with a 160 GB harddrive, how would you size each of the partitions in the above scenario?

[I know 2 drives is better than 1, but I'm only going with 1 for now...]
 
Sorry, no help - but thanks for the link....interesting stuff.
 
andyhix said:
...My question is about #2 - I guess I don't know for sure what that means. Would that be simply the place to store all your VST plugins, etc? Is that what "streaming samples" means?...
Click to expand...
First of all, a sampler (on a PC,) would be software that has the ability to record short pieces of audio and then play them back based on MIDI notes. For example, each different sound clip (or sample,) can be assigned to different notes on a keyboard. Playing the keyboard then causes those samples to playback, one for each key press.

Streaming samples describes a condition where the playback of many samples must occur continuously or perhaps even simultaneously. Earlier software samplers kept a handful of samples loaded into the computer memory for quick retrieval. However, modern hard drives have gotten so fast that they can now be "streamed" straight from the drive to the soundcard.

It puts the hard drive under a heavy workload because it must deliver a lot of data for sustained periods of time. Smaller partitions are better suited for heavy data streaming.

My hard drive is not partitioned. Instead I have two physical drives. The system drive (OS and audio software,) is 36GB. The data storage drive (audio files,) is 200GB. I can hot-swap that storage drive out with another empty one anytime it gets full.

RawDepth
 
I've read that using smaller hard drives is better than massively big ones for streeaming audio. So using several super inexpensive 80 gig drives rather than one big would be advantageous.

I have my samples on several different drives, in order to spread out the load. Even if you partition a drive, it's the same read head(s) accessing the data across all the partitions. As opposed to several different drives with their own read heads accessing the data independently.

That said, I do not partition my drives with more than one partition. I've found that for me it just gets awkward. I'd rather have multiple drives than multiple partitions.
 
Any given HDD needs to be partiioned into one or more logical drives. The physical drive is the thing you hold in your hand, the logical drive may encompass the entire physical drive or you may have multiple logical drives on a single physical drive.

In advanced OS (OS/400, MVS) a logical drive can span multiple physical drives, but I digress....

So, if you have a single physical drive (as you do) instead of having the whole thing be drive C:, you could have C:, D:, E:, F:, etc...

Now, two things pop out at me regarding this idea. First, this does nothing for you in terms of performance, and second, it will force your CD/DVD drive to use G:, or F:, or whatever. Which may or may not be an issue, depending on your software. I've run into software that insisted that the optical drive by D: or E:, but YMMV.

There are only two reasons... to my perception... to partition a single physical into multiple logicals. Because the physical HDD is too large for the OS to recognize as a single partition (unlikely any more... but still), or for organizational purposes.

If it is done for the latter then it is entirely up to you and your taste. If you find it easier knowing that your audio files are on logical drive E:, then by all means, do it that way. But there is a downside!

When you partition your physical HDD as a single logical drive your directory structure is managed by the OS... you never have to worry about how much space you are using (as long as you don't eat the whole disk), but when you partition your physical HDD into multiple logicals... well... do it right the first time, because when you run out of space in that logical partition, you will be well and truly hosed.

Unless you want to pay someone like me to fix it.

Hey!!! Everybody!!!

You WANT TO PARTITION YOUR PHYSICAL HDDs INTO MULTIPLE PARTITIONS!

Yeah! That's the ticket!
 
i dunno how much better it is to partition a single drive into 4, but right now i have 3 hard drives going and it's extremely smooth. :D

i'd save at least something like 40 gigs for the system partition, keep your recording drive pretty big, and really you should backup to an external drive instead of on the same drive, cuz it's not really gonna make a difference if that one drive completely dies and you just backed up to a different partition.

i have my windows and program files and stuff on one 80gb hard drive. then i have a 250 gig hard drive split into 2. one 80gb partition for storing my personal files, like pictures, music, pr0n, etc., and a 170gb partition for storing my samples (like DFHS and stuff) and for storing old music projects that are all done and don't need to be recorded on anymore. then my 3rd hard drive is a 300gb drive where everything gets recorded to and kept for mixing/editing or whatever.

my previous rig was just 2 80gb hard drives, one for windows and personal files, and one for music, and that worked out well. you can probably get a 80gb or so hard drive for pretty cheap just to put your OS on, that way you can use your 160 drive for all your music.
 
Andyhix points to an article on partitioning drives. The author is not trying to tell us that partitioning is best for most workstations. Instead, he is demonstrating a method of keeping your read/write head always in the fastest tracks of the drive platter when streaming is required from a "single disk" system.

He explains that sustained transfer rates vary from the inside to the outside of the drive platter. They are always fastest at the outside tracks. So, he creates four partitions, tests each one for data transfer performance, and then chooses the fastest partition (the one that occupies the outside tracks,) for his streaming and transfer intensive needs.

He puts audio and streaming samples in the fastest partitions and OS and backup files in the slowest partitions.

(Did that all make sense?)

RawDepth
 
So, if I understand the replies here correctly I gather that RawDepth actually looked at the link. Thanks! I also gather that working with strict audio files and plug-ins have nothing to do with "streaming samples." So, I would then assume I could go with 3 partitions, eliminating the "streaming samples" partition, since it wouldn't be used.

Wheelema, the author of the sound on sound article disagrees with you that "partitioning does nothing for performance." I am in no position to choose sides on the arguement cuz I know nothing about this stuff. But the article made a lot of sense to me. Did you check it out? Just curious.

Thanks everyone for the thoughts. I'm still a bit uncertain about what to do, but I feel like I'm getting a better idea about how this stuff works a little bit.
 
As I understand it, when you play back audio files of any type you are streaming samples.

I also feel it is very important to keep the OS and apps on a different physical drive than the audio recording/playback drive.

The additional *major* problem you'll run into is that you are planning no backup drive. Obviously, if you have a drive failure or directory corruption all your data could be destroyed or unretrievable. Without a backup drive you are truly hosed.

I've actually read about some people "backing up" data from one partition to another on the same drive! In the event of a drive failure this approach will not be of much help.

Do yourself a favor and put your OS and apps on one 80 gig drive, and put the rest on a seperate 160 or bigger drive.

I'll check out that link, but I don't need to read it in order to give you the good advice I just gave you. ;)
 
That's good advice Al. I will actually be likely buying an external drive because at least for a while I'll be moving files back and forth tween my house and my bassists house, so there will be some back-up there. I've heard, though (possibly incorrectly) that accessing files via USB or even firewire is gonna be slower than from an internal drive. Basically the USB acts as a bottleneck of sorts. I don't know. I guess all of this is best sorted out with the comp in front of me running a few test scenarios and seeing what happens.

At the very least, I'll backup occasionally to DVD.
 
andyhix said:
So, if I understand the replies here correctly I gather that RawDepth actually looked at the link. Thanks! I also gather that working with strict audio files and plug-ins have nothing to do with "streaming samples." So, I would then assume I could go with 3 partitions, eliminating the "streaming samples" partition, since it wouldn't be used.

Wheelema, the author of the sound on sound article disagrees with you that "partitioning does nothing for performance." I am in no position to choose sides on the arguement cuz I know nothing about this stuff. But the article made a lot of sense to me. Did you check it out? Just curious.

Thanks everyone for the thoughts. I'm still a bit uncertain about what to do, but I feel like I'm getting a better idea about how this stuff works a little bit.
Click to expand...
I did not read the article, and it is not entirely beyond the realm of possibilities that you might squeeze a performance edge by following his advice, but quite frankly my observation that you better partition it right the first time lest you run out of space down the road remains true.

Can you not pop for another HDD? They're really really cheap and super easy to install!
 
andyhix said:
That's good advice Al. I will actually be likely buying an external drive because at least for a while I'll be moving files back and forth tween my house and my bassists house, so there will be some back-up there. I've heard, though (possibly incorrectly) that accessing files via USB or even firewire is gonna be slower than from an internal drive. Basically the USB acts as a bottleneck of sorts. I don't know. I guess all of this is best sorted out with the comp in front of me running a few test scenarios and seeing what happens.

At the very least, I'll backup occasionally to DVD.
Click to expand...
Your interfaces vary in speed as follows...

USB.... eh
Firewire... fast
eSATA... faster
PCI... fastest
 
I got myself one of these puppies.

Mine is model 102FD

Some other brands are here.

It is a hard drive holder/housing that will hold any standard IDE drive. It allows you to quickly swap hard drives at will. You install this unit into a 5.25" drive bay, (where the CD burners go,) then put your HD into a small removable tray, then slide the tray into this drive holder.

You can buy a bunch of cheap drives and use a different one for each session if you wish. Simply remove the used drives and shelve them for archiving. (Of course, my system drive always stays inside the machine. This is just for the storage drive.)

You can get them for IDE, SCSI, or SATA type drives. The data cable connection is carried through to the drive fully intact so performance doesn't suffer.

I love it! :)

RawDepth
 
wheelema said:
I did not read the article, and it is not entirely beyond the realm of possibilities that you might squeeze a performance edge by following his advice, but quite frankly my observation that you better partition it right the first time lest you run out of space down the road remains true.

Can you not pop for another HDD? They're really really cheap and super easy to install!
Click to expand...

I guess that is pretty cheap. I'm pushing the envelope by buying the comp in hte first place. It could be entered in the "hiding purchases from your wife" thread, wherever that is. She knows I am buying one, but I think she thinks I spent about $100 less than I actually did. Anyway, maybe what I'll do is just install everything in one big partition for now, see how it works, and then I'll give some thought to buying a cheap small HDD to plop the OS and programs on at some point in the not-too-distant future. You mofo's are constantly making me spend more money than I thought I'd have to. Oh well, it's kinda fun.

Super easy to install, eh? Well, you can bet if I decide to buy one, I'll be posting a new thread about that. Cuz I'm pretty clueless. I don't know what SATA or a SATA Cable is, for instance. (or IDE or SCSI, or that matter).

Thanks again everyone. Once again, posting a Q here, has made me question everything and likely resulted in spending more $. Great. :mad:


;)
 
Posting questions here frequently leads to spending more money! :D

If you want files to be transportable, then I think firewire is the way to go. All my external drives are firewire, and I've taken them around to quite a few different places, played live gigs streaming samples off them, etc.

I have found firewire to be faster and more reliable than USB. I know the specs say that USB 2 is supposed to be just about as fast, but in the real world I've had a lot better luck with firewire when it comes to audio.

I use USB for my peripherals like midi interfaces, input devices, printers, scanner, that kind of thing. All my drives and audio interfaces are firewire. Once again, I spread the load out between all the various things I have attached to my computer.
 
wheelema said:
Your interfaces vary in speed as follows...

USB.... eh
Firewire... fast
eSATA... faster
PCI... fastest
Click to expand...

USB 1.1 - 11Mbps
USB 2.0 - 420Mbps
Firewire - 400-800Mbps
eSATA - 300MB/s (or 3.0Gb/s same thing)
PCI - 132MB to 538MB/s (5Gb/s)

USB shares
Firewire - dedicated
eSATA - dedicated
PCI - shares

Nothing currently outperforms PCI (PCI, PCIE, PCIX)


Anyways, I just spent $80 on 2 160GB HD's & RAID 0 em together. That's how cheap HD's are now a days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top