RAID or Not to RAID?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bongolation
  • Start date Start date
bongolation

bongolation

New member
Still shopping parts to build the DAW...

I've gotten a lot of confusing and contradictory information about RAID drive setups in DAWs and their value in speeding things up.

If RAID is valuable, I'm preparing to go get a pair of Quantum 7200RPM 8.5MS UDMA/100 40G EIDEs on sale at Fry's for $109 each (after rebate). So:

1. What's the concensus on the effectiveness of RAID speeding up the DAW's various functions? If this has been explained clearly and competently in a previous post or on a tech page, please just direct me there.

2. If RAID is a good thing, are these suitable drives? They appear to be to me, but I'm no expert.

3. Is integrated RAID capability on the motherboard materially different than using a PCI RAID card? There was a recent question here about a PCI RAID card slowing something else down, but I don't think this was answered (getting a motherboard with DDR and RAID with the "right" AMD chipset has so far proven impossible).

Thank you for any help. I don't know much, but I'm trying to learn.
 
udma raid 0

i've been using a raid 0 configuration in my audio PC for about 2 months now, and the new system was worth the cost to put it together.

i've got 3, 7200 rpm udma drives. 1, 20gb, which is not RAIDed for housing the apps, and the other 2, 40gb, which are the data drives. using cakewalk, i am getting very good performance, which is typically less than 20%.

in RAID 0, you write to drive A, while you read from drive B. this way, the heads on the individual drives don't have to move to the write spot, then to the read spot while you're recording.

one thing i have noticed in cakewalk is that after recording, it's best to peform 'compact audio data', so that the stuff you just recorded is placed on the same drive as the stuff you already have.
 
seems to me that RAID is more hype than anything else....but if ya got a need for it....go for it...
 
j said:
seems to me that RAID is more hype than anything else....but if ya got a need for it....go for it...
Click to expand...

[sigh!]

It seems to me that RAID is one of the few things discussed here that is subject to fairly objective and simple testing, which is why I asked.

It's either faster for DAW use or it isn't, and doesn't lend itself to the typical brainless flamewars that go on interminably here over purely subjective and vague nonsense like the coloration of closely-matched A/D converters.

So, once again: Is RAID faster in typical DAW functions or not? If so, in which processes and by how much?

If there are test sites addressing this question, please provide links.

Thanks.
 
if your'e thinking RAID for performance, and not for backup, then I think there can be a significant increase in performance with a RAID configuration....however, i have not looked into this much because i have never run enough tracks to push my hard drive to the limit...i'd go with a solid motherboard configured for RAID over PCI solution...
 
ola said:
Try this thread and go from there: https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=9277&highlight=raid
Click to expand...

Interesting - What appeared to be the identical link in a previous message went to an entirely different thread!

Weird...

Thanks.

One thing I see here that isn't addressed is the various RAID implementations: Board, card and software.

I'm having a bitch of a time finding a MB for AMD with RAID, DDR and the AMD chipset, so I may have to go with a software RAID or an add-on card.

Thank for any help with that issue!
 
ola said:
Don't go for SW RAID. It's not as fast as the real thing.
Click to expand...

I knew there would be some sacrifice in performance, but I wasn't sure how much.

The problem here, as I've said, is how to find a MB with all the features I need.

Do you lose anything buy using a RAID card over MB implementation?

Thanks.
 
I am currently using a raid setup on the Digi 001 with ProTools LE software. I have a 1.2 ghz Athlon and Gigabyte GA-7DX configured with two WD Caviar 40G harddrives in raid, for a total of 80 gig. The raid is then partioned into two 40G partions. The operating system (Win ME), programs and PTLE are on the first partition (C partition) and the demo and audio files are on the second partition. This is all accomplished through a Promise PCI 100 Ultra Raid card in slot #1.

When I pruchased this Micron PC it was already set up this way. I then installed an additional IBM 40G Deskstar drive in IDE channel #1 (as master) because I had read that the audio and programs should not be on the same drive. To the computer the raid is one drive.

However, there is a performance test on the Digi Users Conference (DUC) many are using to gauge the DAW speed, and it is known as the Davec performance test. I got a substantially lower track count than another 1.2 Athlon user (DaBaSsTaRd), who had the same motherboard and a 'straight' two drive system. It turned out that when I used the IBM drive on IDE #1 to store audio, my performance was much lower (17 tracks simutaneous record). I then recorded to the second partition on the raid and got excellent performance (24 tracks + 6 aux of simultaneous record -each with five plugins active!). I have been using my raid exclusively ever since. The IBM is now my backup. This lower performance seemed to effect mostly the recording aspect of the Davec test. When it was just editing and playback with plugins, it was still pretty good.

Should you go for a raid? If you have one already, I would use it exclusively and backup to another drive. If you don't, I think that you may only get a small performance advantage at best. There are certainly no massive gains from a raid configuration. The other GA-7DX system with a straight two-drive system recorded 24 tracks + 4 Aux simultaneously), just two tracks (or ten plugins) less than my raid system. Until more people post with a 1.2 Athlon on a GA-7DX, I can only assume the performance gain is about two tracks on the Davec test. You could get a much bigger performance boost by getting a 1.33 Ghz Athlon. It would appear that $50 applied to a better processor will produce more gain than $50 applied to a raid setup.

I like my raid and will keep it set up as it currently is. There is one negative aspect to a raid configuration- if one harddrive goes out, I lose everything. On the other hand, with a conventional two-drive system on IDE, if you lose one drive, you still have the information on the other drive. This indicates that backup is extra important if you value your files.

There also may be some good reasons to get a raid board. The new GA-7DXR looks to be fully "tweakable" and uses a Promise controller. The current GA-7DX is not tweakable and uses the Highpoint controller. In addition, the raid slots do not have to be used in raid; they can be used in a "JBOD" mode (Just a Bunch Of Drives), which gives you lots of expantion room for additional harddrives.

I could have made this post a lot shorter by simply saying, it probably won't make much difference, but it should give you a small boost. If you are looking for onboard raid with the AMD 760 chipset, there are two new one out now; the Gigabyte GA-7DXR and the Epox 8K7A. You can read reviews on both of these boards at: http://www.amdmb.com/reviews.php If you are going with an Athlon CPU, the AMD 760 chipset is the best performer on the Digi 001 platform. The Via KT133 also does a good job. I would avoid the VIA KT266 and ALi Magik chipsets, as neither of these works with the Digi DAW, and they may have problems in other DAWs, too. Good luck and hope this helps!
 
Yes, this was extremely helpful. There's a lot here for me to digest, so I'll be checking all these links and reviews and studying it all. It looks like I can have the DDR, Raid and the AMD Chipset all on the same board. Now I guess I'll be looking at pricewatch to see about those MBs.

Thanks a whole lot!
 
One thing that should be noted is that JPS is running a RAID0 setup, which won't give a big performance boost in DAW application. RAID0 improves write performance, which isn't the big bottleneck for DAWs. Read performance is the important thing for DAWs as you usually read more tracks than you write. So, RAID1 will give better performance for DAWs than RAID0 and you'll also get the benefit of data integrety. At the cost of a disc though as RAID1 writes the same data to two discs (and thus can read from any of them). RAID0+1 is the optimal for DAWS but that uses a minimum of four discs and you only get half of the discs worth of storage. I doubt that even RAID0+1 will give any huge performance improvements.
 
ola, you are correct in saying thay my system is in RAID-0. You are also correct in saying that write performance is better than read performance on my system. I have a utility with DV Studio (Pinnacle), which measures the read and write performance of the hard drives. It shows that my write speed is always faster than my read speed. I have kinda wondered about this. I guess it makes since that RAID-1 (two drives each reading duplicate info) could read faster than RAID-0 (two drives each reading half of the info).

On the Digi 001 there really is no recording bottle neck. Most systems over 800 mhz can record 24 tracks simultaneously on the Digi 001 with the PTLE software. The Davec Performance test was special in that it also added 5 additional plugins to each recording track. This stress the DAW much more than normal. I believe the reason my first setup (using RAID-0 and IDE together) produced inferior results was that the CPU had to contend with two separate controllers: one Promise controller for the RAID drives on the PCI Raid card in slot #1 where the programs were stored; and one Highpoint controller for the IBM drive on IDE channel #1 where the audio was stored. By storing both my Audio and Programs on the RAID setup (on separate partitions), I cut out the need for the CPU to involve the Highpoint controller, which conserved CPU resources and resulted in better performance. Anyway, this is my theory.

It would be iteresting to know if other RAID users can confirm performance increases on RAID setups, or if there are setup combinations with RAID that can limit performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top