|
"raid zero" for a faster music computer. (amateur)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| vinceGOLD |
Hello
i was wondering if anybody ever tried to improve hard disk speeds
of their computer by using "raid zero" setting?.
I believe you can add many extra hard drives into your machine
and run them all together at the same time in "raid zero". Thus maybe quadrupling the hard drive read/write speeds.
I believe the only risk is if one drive fails...you loose everything.
It seemed a low cost speed improvement.
Also did anybody ever try running a windows computer completely in RAM for an ultra fast desktop computer.....thus not needing any hard drive. Using "Diskless Angel" tool for an ultra fast desktop computer.
Again, everything is "lost" on power-off so you need to back up your work to external USB hard drive or DVD before powering off.
http://www.disklessangel.com/en
If you have maybe 8 gigs of ram it could be a neat idea for a really fast music computer. (i believe.)
V. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
Not sure if this is spam for diskless angel, but raid0 is not really a good idea for any data crucial applications, unless you have meticulous backup habits.
The problem with Raid0 is that it has no data redundancy unlike all the other original versions of Raid (1,2,etc) meaning when a disk fails, because the data is equally striped over the two disks, you lose half the data making the other half completely useless.
Also, it effectively doubles your chances of disk failure; for instance, say a given hard drive has a 1 in 100 chance of failing in the first year. Now you've got two drives in Raid0, meaning you now have a 2 in 100 chance of the system failing, because if wither one goes, then whole system is down. So basically, you've now got a 1 in 50 chance of it going wrong. And then keep multiplying that for every extra drive you add.
It is faster than standard drive arrays, but it's also dependent on the slowest data bottleneck in your computer, so there's no point having blisteringly fast drives if your mobo or ram isn't up to it.
Tbh, with the advent of SSD's and readily available sata speeds breaking the 10gb/s barrier by next year, I think raid0 is kind of becoming obsolete and not worth it.
As for running a PC all in RAM, it's a nice idea but I remember this being around as far back as the first edition of XP. The problem comes with losing all system modifications when you switch off the PC. They've never properly integrated CMOS backup or even a an automatic flash based restore for each bootup so it never really made any ground.
Again, now you have SSD's there's not much point - you're pretty close to running the OS in a form of RAM anyway. |
|
|
| vinceGOLD |
Hello
Yes...i clearly see your points...
how would you remember all synth settings in a "ram" only windows computer?
there is ofctourse "some" way of doing it...i guess using config files
of a particular folder of windows and sticking it on a "usb" drive. Upon start up the computer then drags those config files back in.
Yes...SSD and stuff... of course, but those drives are still 32 times more expensive than older style hard drives. It's only really recently that laptops now come with 128 gigs of SSD...and the laptops are not cheap. (if you don't count apple who have been doing it for some years)
i just was looking at almost free ways of getting much improvement on a ultra amateur home music computer....(ofcourse my ramblings would never apply to proper studios...but then again...)
V. |
|
|
| vinceGOLD |
Hello
uh i was just checking and it appears that SSD drives are now
only 8 times greater price than old style hard drives. SSD give a lot
better performance and therefore that gap may be further reduced
to say (5 times) more.......(aggregated with it's better performance)
What does that all mean?
it just depends how you see it. (100 dollars spent on Old Style hard drives would be about 500 dollars spent for similar sized SSD drives
but also i saw this article
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers...ash-memory/6981
so this further narrows the gap.
Thanks
(this is all with regard to an ultra "low price point" music computer.)
V. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by vinceGOLD
Hello
Yes...i clearly see your points...
how would you remember all synth settings in a "ram" only windows computer?
there is ofctourse "some" way of doing it...i guess using config files
of a particular folder of windows and sticking it on a "usb" drive. Upon start up the computer then drags those config files back in.
Yes...SSD and stuff... of course, but those drives are still 32 times more expensive than older style hard drives. It's only really recently that laptops now come with 128 gigs of SSD...and the laptops are not cheap. (if you don't count apple who have been doing it for some years)
i just was looking at almost free ways of getting much improvement on a ultra amateur home music computer....(ofcourse my ramblings would never apply to proper studios...but then again...)
V. |
Well of course, you wouldn't "remember" all those settings - as I said above, there's never been a good implementation of flash drive based system or CMOS to keep the same state. It's basically unworkable as you'd have to have some kind of external drive mechanism in place to retain settings. Not worth it.....
....and I think you're a little bit behind on your SSD's and analysis of pricing on computer parts - you can now pick up a an 120gb intel 3 series for under $200. That's enough to run your OS and 99% of audio programs. You'll spend more than that on 32gb of ram so if anything, the SSD route is cheaper than the alternative you're suggesting.
You can build a desktop PC with an SSD for system and then large storage drive for easily under $1000 now. If you really skimped, you could probably do it for under $800.
Actually I just bought an ASUS laptop with an Intel i5 for $429. I could slap an SSD in there and easily produce on it with it only having cost $729. |
|
|
| vinceGOLD |
Hello
yes....had to "revise" my comment about SSD prices...but you had already replied.
Still, laptop SSD's are little bit more cost than
standard desktop sized SSD's
I have heard that a music trend has been to buy older apple macbooks off the auctions and put an SSD drive into them for a nice music laptop
V. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by vinceGOLD
Hello
yes....had to "revise" my comment about SSD prices...but you had already replied.
Still, laptop SSD's are little bit more cost than
standard desktop sized SSD's
I have heard that a music trend has been to buy older apple macbooks off the auctions and put an SSD drive into them for a nice music laptop
V. |
Who is giving you this information? I'd stop listening if I were you.
The vast majority of SSD's available are 2.5" form factor which is laptop size and this is what people are installing in desktops (with adapters to fit the normal 3.5 HDD casing).
I actually made a thread about "how to get a seriously powerful and cheap imac" based exactly on that premise; you can breathe some new life in to any laptop or computer just by slapping a nice fast SSD in there. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| Besides the risk of data loss, raid0 only shows performance increase for consecutive chunks ie large video, not audio |
|
|
| vinceGOLD |
Hello
yes...sorry it was my misstake. I had seen an online store selling ssd drives in a list. THe first item in the list was a 2.5 ssd drive with naked chips.Every drive that followed was cased-up...this visual cue made me think the cased drives were infact larger 3.5 ssd drives. They were not any larger and were just the same 2.5 ssd drives in cases.
Uh it was a buddy of mine that got the older macbook off the auction and put in a fast ssd with good garbage collection speed. He swears the machine is great now
uh i am not sure about raid zero...because you can choose the stripping size according to the size of files you deal with...so you would choose lower strip size for audio files than video files...it seems (a music computer)
will have to look further
Vince. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
the key word being consecutive.
The gains just are not worth it for audio. You are not going to get anything back. |
|
|
|
|
