DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   High Definition Video Editing Solutions (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/high-definition-video-editing-solutions/)
-   -   Separate Capture and Render HDD setup? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/high-definition-video-editing-solutions/137156-separate-capture-render-hdd-setup.html)

Mark Duckworth November 4th, 2008 12:39 AM

Separate Capture and Render HDD setup?
 
Which of these two workflows would yield increased NLE performance / render times:

1. Capture Only HDD----> NLE -----> Render Only HDD.
2. Capture and render from/to same HDD.

If all things are equal (HDD speeds, array,etc.)

Thank you in advance for your responses.

Adam Gold November 4th, 2008 02:23 PM

I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding has always been that unless you have a huge fast RAID array, you'll get better performance if you use separate drives for reading and writing (i.e. source and destination).

Jon Shohet November 4th, 2008 03:26 PM

Hope I'm not hijacking this topic...seems relevant enough.
I'm soon purchasing some new HD and would also like to know how to configure my system.

Let's say the ideal would be 1 disk/array for capture, 1 disk/array for scratch and 1 disk/array for render.

I assume there is no real need for raid-0 for render, that could be a single disk.
But theoretically both capture and scratch disks will benefit from raid-0, right?
Is it at all practical to have two sets of raid-0 running off what is essentially software raid (be it port-multiplied sata, built-in mobo raid controller or actual os software raid)?
Or will the system suffer an overall performance hit from running two sets of software raid-0 that negates any advantages?

Also, backing up projects becomes a bit more complex. Do you find that separating render disk, and using raid-0 for scratch disk actually makes a noticeable impact to performance in real life editing , or is it more hassle than it is worth for most projects?

Ron Evans November 4th, 2008 04:05 PM

I have boot drive, a drive for temps use for all programs, two 750G drives for video, also have two external eSata 500G drives for storage too. No RAID, individual drives are way fast enough for one or two streams of HDV. I try and make sure that when I use multiple cameras then the files are on different drives, rendering goes from one drive to another etc. I have no problems editing HDV, AVCHD and DV. I feel that the bottleneck most of the time is still the processor not the hard drives so have not seen the need for a RAID. Remember that most new hard drives can sustain 60 or 70GBps but HDV and DV only need 3.5GBps. That's close to twenty times the performance one needs for HDV or DV. Problems arise if one has just one drive, then Windows needs to access all the time, programs need to use temp storage as well as reading and writing the video file itself. File access times now become an issue especially for just one drive.
I have Quad core Q9450 with 8G RAM running Vista 64.

Ron Evans


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:39 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network