DP8 and best IMac Drives to buy....

[Dee1]

Currently configuring an IMac, budget is not a limit, so I'd like to get something that just works, and the only hurdles would be creativity within DP8...so here's the questions:
Which drives are best??
Serial ATA Drives, or Fusion Drives or Flash Storage, keep in mind that I plan to get external RAID drives so anything helps.

Also, any thoughts on Promise Pegasus R4 4TB (4x1TB) RAID Drives ??


Thanks
Daniel

[cuttime]

If price was no object I'd go Thunderbolt all the way.

[Dee1]

Thanks...definitely Thunderbolt. Any thoughts on the internal hard drives mentioned? ATA, Fusion or Flash?
D

[tonomud]

i'd probably just go with a 256 GB SSD internally to use as your boot/OS/apps drive. Then, if you're going thunderbolt for external storage, get something like the Promise J4 and setup a nice fast RAID array or two for your project files, etc. You can fill the J4 with SSDs for a really smoking setup, or just get a handful of 2.5" SATA hard drives, and they'll still be pretty quick.

Even though you've stated budget isn't really an issue, I'm still opposed to paying Apple's premium prices on upgrades that you can do yourself for far more cheaply.

[bolla]

Also, any thoughts on Promise Pegasus R4 4TB (4x1TB) RAID Drives ??

I purchased one and ended up returning it as it kept un-mounting for no reason or cause that I could work out. They may have fixed the problem by now.
At the time I wasn't the only one with this issue...
Cheers, Bolla

[Dee1]

I didn't know I could make the RAIDs faster - thanks ! Here are the Apple (from the website - computer configuration set-up) options for the internals drives:
3TB Serial ATA Drives
3TB Fusion Drives
768 Flash Storage

Thanks,
D

[tonomud]

which iMac are you looking at that only has those options? I'm seeing several other options on both 21.5 and 27" models. at any rate, I probably would just go with a Solid State (SSD) option for the internal drive. 256 GB should be fine for most people as an internal drive, but you can go for the larger sizes if you have the cash and think you'll need it. The one bad thing about these new imacs is that the only upgradeable is the RAM...there's no easy/reasonable way for an end user to get inside and swap in a new drive. So, if you're waffling between the 256 and 512 GB SSD and you have the cash, go for the bigger one.

[mikehalloran]

Get the 27" i7. This will get you the best performance under the hood. lthough rated 30% faster than the i5, on certain DP tasks it is much faster. Where disk access is involved, there is no difference between the two processors but SSD (flash drive) will shine here.

Flash storage will be the fastest by quite a bit. Do you really need more than 256G? No but you probably want larger. I would.

RAID is slower than JBOD (just a bunch of drives). The ideal multiple drive array can be setup either way. You want one drive dedicated to Time Machine.

[tonomud]

RAID is slower than JBOD (just a bunch of drives). The ideal multiple drive array can be setup either way. You want one drive dedicated to Time Machine.

A mirrored RAID (RAID 1) will be almost as fast as a single drive. In nearly all cases, the performance hit will not be noticeable. A striped RAID (RAID 0) will be about twice as fast as a RAID 1 or single drive setup. Inherent with any RAID setup is some overhead associated with either the hardware RAID controller or software driver necessary for driving the RAID. But this performance penalty is VERY low and really doesn't come into play in 99.9% of situations.

There are other levels of RAID that have different benefits. You could do a RAID 5 or RAID 6 which give you a little more protection/redundancy and allow for some hardware failure without the loss of data. a RAID 10 is a mirrored and striped array (RAID 1+RAID 0), which gives you the speed of a RAID 0 with the redundancy of a RAID 1.

In many cases, I'd recommend a RAID 0 setup, with a dedicated backup drive that's the same size as the RAID array. That gives you the performance benefit of a striped RAID while also giving you some protection against data loss if the RAID were to fail, all for a reasonable amount of money. There are plenty of other tangents that could be discussed as well, but hopefully you find something that works well in your setup.

helpful reference on RAID levels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

[mikehalloran]

A mirrored RAID (RAID 1) will be almost as fast as a single drive

The OP is not setting up a server bank unless I am misreading him.

There are no benefits to RAID for DP. Zip, zero, none (ok, not since the slow bus speeds of the G4 anyway). There are benefits to having VI banks on separate drives - probably negligible when you have a 10G pipe but, still, JBOD is better with one of the drives dedicated to running Time Machine - and that one can be large and slow.

For fastest performance in a multi-drive TB array, load them up with SSDs - OWC has many choices.

For the ultra-cautious/paranoid when it comes to data, also get a 3G Time Capsule and put it somewhere no one is likely to find it. Since OS 10.8, you can set Time Machine to alternate between your local and a remote drive every hour (or rotate among many drives if you are worse than I am). Someone broke into a school where I maintain the computers last year and they missed the one I hid.

[tonomud]

A mirrored RAID (RAID 1) will be almost as fast as a single drive

The OP is not setting up a server bank unless I am misreading him.

There are no benefits to RAID for DP. Zip, zero, none (ok, not since the slow bus speeds of the G4 anyway). There are benefits to having VI banks on separate drives - probably negligible when you have a 10G pipe but, still, JBOD is better with one of the drives dedicated to running Time Machine - and that one can be large and slow.

For fastest performance in a multi-drive TB array, load them up with SSDs - OWC has many choices.

For the ultra-cautious/paranoid when it comes to data, also get a 3G Time Capsule and put it somewhere no one is likely to find it. Since OS 10.8, you can set Time Machine to alternate between your local and a remote drive every hour (or rotate among many drives if you are worse than I am). Someone broke into a school where I maintain the computers last year and they missed the one I hid.

"There are no benefits to RAID for DP."

I have to politely disagree. First, you need to distinguish which RAID level you're referring to with this statement. Are you just referring to RAID 1? Or all levels of RAID?

If you understand the limitations of RAID arrays, then a RAID 0 can be a good choice, even for DP users, and will give you 2x the disk speed for all disk-based operations. I understand that audio is not inherently bandwidth-heavy (when compared to video, for instance), but I also know that a fast RAID (or even just a single SSD) speeds up DP in many ways....and I've personally seen it and used it in those types of settings. Opening/saving/closing DP projects, playing and recording audio, bouncing to disk, background processing, etc. With fast disk access, there's simply no lag (or not enough to notice) in the areas that I mentioned above. Read and write times are faster, seek times are faster, etc. RAIDs may have first been used in the server world, but they've been with us in the desktop world for many years now. RAID software is even built into Mac OS X, and has been for at least the last 3 major versions (that's all I can remember, but it could have been there for more).

"For fastest performance in a multi-drive TB array, load them up with SSDs - OWC has many choices."

That's a good start...OWC SSD's tend to be very good choices in this space. But you can get 2x the disk performance by putting two of them in a RAID 0. YOU may not find that you need more performance than what a single SSD can offer, but that shouldn't result in a blanket statement that better disk performance is never needed for the DP user.

By your logic, we should all stick to single-disk, 4200 RPM, platter-based hard drive setups, because extra drive speed doesn't do the DP user any good. Is that what you meant? I doubt it. It's fine to offer an opinion, but I don't know how much good it does to state opinions that are offered as fact. Our role on this board should be to offer our opinions alongside the proveable data, then allow people to make up their own minds as to what route to take.

[mikehalloran]

I am so curious. Really. Exactly how do your suggestions improve the performance of Digital Performer?

What about RAID is faster, smoother, produces less heat, is less taxing on the system? What in the world justifies the overhead and the cost over individual drives or JBOD?

I still think I have answered correctly: Nothing.

There was a time but 64bit, SATA, Thunderbolt and SSD have moved the bar on practical applications. There's still a place for SCSI, too, if you are DOD but if anyone here is using it, their classified level doesn't let them tell us.

Feel free to write a few more inches of theory that ignore the fact that the OP plans to run DP and not an internet server maintaining... oh... a very large number of simultaneous connections.

[tonomud]

I am so curious. Really. Exactly how do your suggestions improve the performance of Digital Performer?

Opening/saving/closing DP projects, playing and recording audio, bouncing to disk, background processing, etc.

What about RAID is faster, smoother, produces less heat, is less taxing on the system? What in the world justifies the overhead and the cost over individual drives or JBOD?

I still think I have answered correctly: Nothing.

2 drives in a RAID 0 offers faster disk performance than a single drive (assuming all drives in the equation are the same). Can we agree on that? Have you ever used a system with a RAID 0?

I'm not trying to suggest that OP or anyone else NEEDS to justify the expense of a RAID for DP. I'm merely saying that there is a significant improvement in all disk-intensive operations in DP when using a RAID 0. I never said anything about a RAID being "smoother" or "producing less heat" or "less taxing on the system".

Feel free to write a few more inches of theory that ignore the fact that the OP plans to run DP and not an internet server maintaining... oh... a very large number of simultaneous connections.

I'm not quite sure where the whole internet server topic came from...I certainly didn't bring that up. If you're implying that the only place a RAID is appropriate is in a web server, again, I think that is an opinion that you're entitled to have, but I do not agree with it. I have used RAIDs on several systems (not web servers) in the past 10 years, and have enjoyed the significantly increased disk performance. I'm pretty sure I wasn't just imagining how the speed of my workflows improved as a result.

I'm done.

[James Steele]

It's fine to offer an opinion, but I don't know how much good it does to state opinions that are offered as fact. Our role on this board should be to offer our opinions alongside the proveable data, then allow people to make up their own minds as to what route to take.

Actually, a lot of people offer opinions as fact and it's up to the person viewing the board to reach their own conclusions. Please let's try to just stick to the discussion and not get into commentary on the board or what the users' roles here should or shouldn't be. Thanks.

[tonomud]

It's fine to offer an opinion, but I don't know how much good it does to state opinions that are offered as fact. Our role on this board should be to offer our opinions alongside the proveable data, then allow people to make up their own minds as to what route to take.

Actually, a lot of people offer opinions as fact and it's up to the person viewing the board to reach their own conclusions. Please let's try to just stick to the discussion and not get into commentary on the board or what the users' roles here should or shouldn't be. Thanks.

Will do, James, thanks.