To RAID or Not to RAID

[Dave Perry]

Hi again,

I'm planning to put together my custom PC primarily to run the latest edition of Tascam's Gigastudio. It uses streaming technology to draw large music sample files off the drive in real time for MIDI playback.

There seems to be some confusion as to what is ideal, but on one hand they suggest having the app on one drive and the content files on another, and somewhere else they say a RAID is ideal.

Should I have app and content on a RAID, or one on one indepent drive, and the other on another?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Less setup headaches if you keep them separate, and half the chance of losing everything compared to RAID 0.

With 2 separate drives, you can also use each to back up the other, again without the setup hassle of RAID 1.

For example, you get 2 dirt cheap 120 GB drives (old IDE "PATA" for even simpler setup) partition drive 1 as 40 GB C: plus 70 GB E:. Partition drive 2 as 120 GB D:.

Then you can use Ghost or Acronis True Image to make an image backup of the OS to D: (drive 2), and copy any data you want to from D: to E: (the second partition of drive 1).

Typical 7200 RPM drives can supply 20 MB/sec bandwidth or more, which should be plenty for streaming samples and recording. But to maximize bandwidth you could have the samples on 1 drive and record to the other (using the D: and E: partitions, not C: ).

All this is really simple to set up if you avoid SATA, RAID, and drives larger than 120 GB. But if you want any or all of those, you can search for the existing setup problem threads.

 

[Dave Perry]

Thanks, that's great advice. I'm gathering from the tone of your post that you think the complications outweigh the benefits of RAIDing, i.e., a RAID doesn't cause data to fly off the HD with such blinding speed that it's worth the trouble or the risk of doubling the hardware up.

 

[jbond04]

Dave (Perry), I read in an earlier post that you made that you do digital content creation. I do 3D animation and CAD work extensively on my computer, and as a result, I deal with large files (uncompressed video, textures, etc.) on a regular basis. I can confirm that my RAID 0 array is a boon for this type of work. Large files open much faster with RAID 0, and I've been running my RAID setup for 2 1/2 years without error. Plus, I feel I have fewer headaches as a result of my RAID 0 array...for instance, the storage space on both drives is combined under RAID 0, so I don't have to worry about separate partitions...Windows recognizes it as one big volume. While most normal users may not see the benefit from RAID 0 (gamers, office app users, internet surfers), content creation professionals do. Anytime you have a large file, RAID 0 is automatically faster than a single hard drive - without question.

All of my machines I use for work have RAID 0 setups, and every computer I build in the future will, too. I'm not ignorant of data loss, I back up my important work, but I have yet to have a problem with my RAID 0 arrays. I think you would benefit from one very much.

 

[Bar81]

There are better solutions than RAID 0; I would go so far as to say it's NEVER a solution. I would suggest you head on over to www.storagereview.com and ask the same question. You'll get a proper answer there.

 

[caz67]

It really depends on your personal needs..Most people never really need RAID..They do it because its popular..

So read about it and make an informed decision..

 

[HardcoreRobot]

If I ever do RAID it will be a 5disk RAID 5 + one hot swappable. I dont think the risks of RAID 0 justify the performance gains. I would keep just two disks separate and back stuff up to DVDs, or keep an OS partition image on the other drive + any data files. All IMO

 

[DaveSimmons]

I deal with large files (uncompressed video, textures, etc.) on a regular basis. I can confirm that my RAID 0 array is a boon for this type of work.

This particular PC though is essentially a sample-based music synth plus a multi-track audio recorder. For that you need a certain amount of read bandwidth (streaming samples) plus write bandwidth (recording) at the same time.

With two separate drives (not locked together in a RAID array), each can be assigned one task, and each drive's read/write heads and onbard cache are dedicated to one task instead of constantly switching between reads and writes.

 

[jbond04]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

I deal with large files (uncompressed video, textures, etc.) on a regular basis. I can confirm that my RAID 0 array is a boon for this type of work.

This particular PC though is essentially a sample-based music synth plus a multi-track audio recorder. For that you need a certain amount of read bandwidth (streaming samples) plus write bandwidth (recording) at the same time.

With two separate drives (not locked together in a RAID array), each can be assigned one task, and each drive's read/write heads and onbard cache are dedicated to one task instead of constantly switching between reads and writes.

Reading through Tascam's site, they appear to recommend two separate hard drives for Gigastudio, with no mention of RAID anywhere. If he got 2 Diamondmax 10 drives or a couple WD Raptors, I'm sure they would provide sufficient bandwidth in that case.

I guess it really depends on how the program operates. The programs I work with keep everything in the RAM until you save, at which point a large, sustained write is necessary...apparently his program works differently. I would envision the program buffering the MIDI files from the hard drive to RAM, then also taking the recording directly to RAM, that way when editing occured, it could be done much faster (since it would all be in the RAM). Then, after a save, all info is written from the RAM to the hard drive - but I guess that isn't the case.

At any rate, Dave Perry, it appears that you would benefit from going with two separate over a RAID array.

 

[imported_Nacelle]

You can always try both setups out. Then see which is the fastest.

 

[Dave Perry]

Thanks to all for the replies.

Actually, it's been conventional wisdom not to record and run Gigastudio on the same machine (much less the same drive). Power users have always had a dedicated PC for GS, and in some cases multiple machines for increased complexity of operation (greater "polyphony"). It is standard to do "sequencing" (MIDI data is recorded, but not sound) on the same PC, but to record on another. No joke, Tascam says you should actually have the GS application files (and I'm assuming Windoze) on one drive, and all your streaming content on another. My question arose because, some place on their website, the tippy top super ultra hardcore system recommendation is 2GB memory and a RAID, so that created some confusion. It's also possible they are confused themselves.

Incidentally, what the program does is load the initial attack of all accessed instruments into RAM, then that gives enough time for the HD to seek and stream the rest of the sample. This allows huge files with no looping (natural sustain and decay), as well as a lot of velocity and key switches loaded and ready to go on the fly.

I think I'll go with what seems to make more sense and get two 7200 rpm drives, no RAID. One factor that was forcing this decision was that, in building a system, I could afford two 36 Raptors but not really two 72 Raptors, so combining the two little ones into a RAID would have been more convenient since the content files are going to quickly go over 36 gigs (the initial Tascam package alone is over 17 gigs). I could just skip the Raptors, though and go for a couple solid 7200 RPM drives.

So, if I don't have the drives linked in any way, I should avoid SATA drives?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Windows setup is a tiny bit easier if at least your boot drive is PATA, but as long as you install a floppy drive (or make a custom "slipstreamed" XP CD) you can always load the SATA drivers during the setup like you need to for SCSI.

SATA drives themselves aren't any faster than PATA, it's just the Raptors that are faster (because they're 10,000 RPM). With 2 drives a Raptor isn't really needed -- if the samples are on the second drive, the seek heads only move once to jump to the next note in the sequence, there are no extra seeks for operating system writes.

 

[Dave Perry]

Dave, I think the only read issues would be when using really complex polyphony, where the streaming drive is going to have to pull many streams off simultaneously. There are no software polyphony limits, only hardware based (IOW, you get to guess what your system might be able to deliver), so they are probably having to cover their butts to some extent with the high power system requirements. I most likely won't touch that level of performance, though. Then there is some rudimentary writing on the other drive in a separate sequencing app (I think sequencing is pretty primitive as far as writing tasks go), and there is also some signal processing going on in RAM (reverb, eq, stereo imaging). It can add up, but I think my system will be solid without having to go to extremes.

 

[everman]

I would not reccomend a raid 0 setup for an important system that you do important work on. A raid 5 array would be much better because it combines speed with reliability. (if one drive dies out, you can replace it with a new one without suffering any data loss).

What I would do is research how much performance you really need, just look up some articles. Then if you need raid, check out the hot deals forums.

160gb drive for $80 just in case: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...2657&enterthread=y

 

[Dave Perry]

Good advice, except that this is a ground-up rewrite of what was already a proprietary application technology and it just came out. I've only found one sparse review of it so far. I actually have it now but my Dell blew a power supply over the weekend so until I get that replaced I can't even limp along with that.

 

[thirdlegstump]

SCSI rocks with Giga. There's just no comparison. It's a difference between VERY slightly delayed sample playback with IDE and perfectly timed playback with SCSI. Haven't really had enough time with SATA though but SCSI has been solid with Giga and also NI Kontakt and the Spectra stuff. The results get even more interesting with bigger sample libraries but make sure you get a good SCSI controller. Maybe it has something to do with NCQ but whatever it is...

 

[Dave Perry]

Interesting. Though G3 has "kernel level MIDI", once M-Audio (among others) releases a GSIF 2 driver. Tascam claims it's amost zero latency.

 

[Dave Perry]

Another thing to keep in mind is that G3 is a total rewrite, so all bets may be off for hardware (and software) affinites from the past.