Advice please re: external drives for samples & DP projects

[dbender]

I'm getting a new external drive tomorrow to use w/ a late '09 iMac. When I get it, I'll have:

1. Existing external I already have, a 1.5 TB FW 800 HD (Seagate Barracuda, in a Classic miniStack case from OWC) w/ I think but am not sure a 32 MB cache.
2. New 3 TB FW 800 drive (new OWC miniStack) w/ 64 MB cache.

- Which drive should I use for the samples drive, and which drive should I use for DP projects, to get the best performance? (wondering whether the drive size and cache size makes a difference)

- What order in the chain should the be in (if it makes any difference)?

- Should I partition the new 3 TB drive to save space -- I recall something about larger drive sizes having larger minimum file sizes, so that very small files actually use more space than their actual size when used on larger drives that have larger minimum file sizes -- and if so, what size should the partitions be so as little space is wasted as possible?

Thanks everybody for your advice and input

[HCMarkus]

Should I partition the new 3 TB drive to save space -- I recall something about larger drive sizes having larger minimum file sizes, so that very small files actually use more space than their actual size when used on larger drives that have larger minimum file sizes -- and if so, what size should the partitions be so as little space is wasted as possible?

One interesting thing about partitioning:
Partitions set up in Disc Utility move from the faster (outer) areas of spining HDs toward the slower (inner) areas as you go down the partition list. So, use the top partition for samples, lower partitions for less speed-critical data, and the lowest partition for back up chores or storing downloads.

Assuming same RPMs, the newer and bigger the drive, the faster it is likely to be. Look into SSDs if you really want to get zippy performance.

[dbender]

Assuming same RPMs, the newer and bigger the drive, the faster it is likely to be. Look into SSDs if you really want to get zippy performance.

Thanks, man. Can't $wing SSD right now.

Both drives are 7200 rpm. So, should the newer/bigger drive be used for samples or for DP projects/files? My DP projects are singer/songwriter/rock/indie stuff, so don't have a zillion tracks. My guess is the faster drive should be for samples, but not sure so am interested in what ya'll think.

[apanacci]

I have a 2009 Mac. I have 4 drives in it. I put an SSD drive in the last bay. Bought the sled and then put in the drive. They are coming down in price. I put all my samples on it , and Ivory piano library . Works great !

[mikehalloran]

Speed isn't much of an issue here. FW 800 is your bottleneck. An SSD in a FW enclosure cannot go any faster. Unlike a 2010 or later iMac, you have no faster options for external drives. Where you put the files makes no difference. I certainly would not partion the drive.

In fact, you cannot reliably boot from an external FW drive except in Target mode. You can boot from a USB external, however.

If you want speed, you will install your drives internally. I don't recall if it's possible to install two mechanical drives in a 2009 iMac due to heat and space issues but I doubt it.

A pair of SSDs inside your iMac will give you the fastest response. Most techs where i live charge $99 labor to get out the suction cups and little pry bars. One drive replaces your HD while the other replaces your optical drive. You would get a USB external optical ( a lot faster than the internal SuperDrive).

[dbender]

Thanks guys. Right now, gotta go w/ 2 external FW 800 drives. I'm planning next year if I get a new iMac to use LaCie's Thunderbolt to eSATA hub.

So does anyone think it makes a difference re: which drive to use for samples and which one for DP projects in terms of the cache capacity -- my existing 1.5 TB FW 800 HD has a 32 MB cache, and the new 3 TB FW 800 drive I'm getting has a 64 MB cache.

Anyone has any helpful input re: this?

[jloeb]

Mike's correct that it's the connection (FW800) that makes all the difference here. The difference in cache sizes would matter were your drives asked to approach maximum throughput, but that's not going to happen with FW.

I'd give the larger/newer/bigger cache drive the samples, but I have to admit that's mostly just superstition given your current config. It might help once in a blue moon given high queue depth with lots of VIs going. But not much if at all on FW.

[bayswater]

I don't recall if it's possible to install two mechanical drives in a 2009 iMac due to heat and space issues but I doubt it.

You're correct. You're stuck with the DVD drive. That iMac went obsolete pretty quickly. No TB, no USB 3, few upgrade options.

[mikehalloran]

I'm planning next year if I get a new iMac to use LaCie's Thunderbolt to eSATA hub.

Only if you want to run those two drives in a RAID configuration - which you might. It will be less expensive to get a TB housing and install your drives - one that supports JBOD lets you see them as two separate drives.

Confront that problem when you upgrade next year.

The 2009 24" iMacs that I maintain in schools are surprisingly robust. They run 10.9 without problems although they don't support a couple of features (that no one needs apparently). If/when they die, I will recommend 2011 or later due to the built in TB.

I have an eSATA port on my 2010 and will likely add an SSD as my main drive later this year as an external, using my 1T internal for samples and VIs. If I spend the $99 service fee, I'll have two SSDs installed internally. I can do that and keep the eSATA port if I replace the optical drive. I already use an external DVD burner as it's about twice as fast as the SuperDrive. I'm just not convinced I want to spend that kind of money on a 2010 iMac.

[jloeb]

Hey Mike, off-topic: I see from your sig you're using latest MachFive 3 - how is it on a scale of Solid to Crashy?

[mikehalloran]

Solid now. It had a few growing pains.

[jloeb]

Thanks!