Hard Drive Speed

[insyncmusic]

I'm aware that the recommended drive speed be at least 7200 RPM. My question is whether that rule is still applicable given the advent of the latest drives boasting multi-terabyte space and 32MB cache (on many if not most), whereas the earlier drives had caches at around 8MB max when the rule was implemented.

Given the above, will a 5900RPM drive (1.5TB) with a 32MB cache likely be sufficient to accommodate DP 7.x?

I'm running a Quad Core Mac Pro (2x2.66Ghz) and DP7. Any help or response is appreciated.

[bongo_x]

It all depends on the number of tracks your playing, the complexity of your sessions. Personally, I don't worry about hard drive speeds like I used to. It never seems to be a problem.

bb

[FMiguelez]

.

With HD prices continually going down, I would just get a 32 MB cache disk at 7200 RPM. I don't think the difference in price would be that much. Serial ATA II.

IDEALLY, you'd have a HD for the system, one for the DP projects, and another one for samples, VIs, etc.
And the above must grow when you use many VIs or sample libraries.

I've just ordered 4 extra HDs... one for each section of the orchestra to accommodate for my new on-going studio overhaul.

[HCMarkus]

For streaming applications, like DAWs, the drive speed is significant. It is also nice when projects open quickly and systems boot rapidly. I would definitely recommend 7200 or 10k drives, or SSDs. The cost difference is nominal (unless you go SSD).

As FM notes, multiple drives are nice, too. Fill that Mac Pro up!

And back up with Time Machine.

[insyncmusic]

Thanks, gents. Appreciate the help. I was waffling on the 7200 because Fry's had a sale on the 5900's that made the difference between the two significant. Also, I don't slam the HD that hard with tons of simultaneous tracks, so thought it might be ok for my typical process. I have been hearing that the 32MB cache does factor in in closing the gap between the two.

Thanks again.

[newrigel]

If I was you I wouldn't cripple that SATA controller with a 5900 RPM drive... I'd go 10k @ least and use what throughput your paying for because in the end... you will need it! Hell, I'd even go SSD! The prices are so cheap now why not... I think you and your music are worth it!

[bongo_x]

There are 5900 rpm drives that use sophisticated power management. If you read the tech blogs the speed test don't show much difference between them and 7200 drives.

For work I use an external firewire drive, usually FW400. I never need more than one to handle the tracks, even if there's dozens of them. That's all audio, very few if any plugins. For my personal stuff I work on the internal system drive, WD Green drive (probably 5900). There's nothing that stressful going on drive-wise in those sessions, a dozen or two audio tracks and some very basic samplers.

It all depends on what you're doing.

The MOST important thing is that you can afford 2 of them, whatever you get. Seriously. I never buy a drive without having another that's big enough to back it up.

bb

[newrigel]

I just think it's a waste of power because if you have a pro machine you should use what it has to offer... why cripple it? The SATA controller on the newest (3,1-4,1) MP's can crank... just depends on what you feed it and there will be times your kicking yourself and asking "why didn't I get a better drive"! You get what you pay for and your audio is your work... and it's the drive that reads, writes, and stores it... don't skimp here!

[insyncmusic]

Yeah.. max'd out is probably the way to go. I didn't buy the Mac Pro to see how slow I could make it run..

Good points from all. Thanks again.