Intel's New Core 2 Duo

Harm Millaard · January 10th, 2007, 04:19 PM

Renat,

For optimal speed (mind you, speed costs $$$) and who can decide for you what is optimal, but answering from the perspective that money is no object and you want to have the best performance for HDV editing, I would look at a setup like this:

C: WD Raptor 150 GB for OS
D: 3 disk Aid0 array (3x320GB) for page file, scratch disk and previews on internal SATA connectors
E: 8 disk Raid6 array for media and audio on Areca ARC 1231-ML and
if necessary, an additional 4 disks dynamically added on the same controller.

An HBA like the Areca allows for multiple raid arrays on the same controller, has the advantage of staggered spin-up so not to put too much of a load on your PSU, supports SMART and NCQ and allows for up to 2GB cache memory, in addition to BBM (Battery Backup Module).

The consequence is that you either need a very roomy chassis or an external storage chassis to house, in the example above, the 16 disks, plus a triple redundant PSU to avoid problems.

Take this message as a dream. You probably won't need anything like this, but again if money is no object, this would be ideal. Can you imagine having a raid0 with 960 GB and main storage in R6 of (8x750 - 2 disks for R6) 4.5 TB, possibly enlarged to a 12 disk array to give you 7.5 TB?

Renat Zarbailov · January 10th, 2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harm Millaard

Renat,

For optimal speed (mind you, speed costs $$$) and who can decide for you what is optimal, but answering from the perspective that money is no object and you want to have the best performance for HDV editing, I would look at a setup like this:

C: WD Raptor 150 GB for OS
D: 3 disk Aid0 array (3x320GB) for page file, scratch disk and previews on internal SATA connectors
E: 8 disk Raid6 array for media and audio on Areca ARC 1231-ML and
if necessary, an additional 4 disks dynamically added on the same controller.

An HBA like the Areca allows for multiple raid arrays on the same controller, has the advantage of staggered spin-up so not to put too much of a load on your PSU, supports SMART and NCQ and allows for up to 2GB cache memory, in addition to BBM (Battery Backup Module).

The consequence is that you either need a very roomy chassis or an external storage chassis to house, in the example above, the 16 disks, plus a triple redundant PSU to avoid problems.

Take this message as a dream. You probably won't need anything like this, but again if money is no object, this would be ideal. Can you imagine having a raid0 with 960 GB and main storage in R6 of (8x750 - 2 disks for R6) 4.5 TB, possibly enlarged to a 12 disk array to give you 7.5 TB?

Wow this setup is money-hungry :)

Can't I bypass the need to have the e: drive? What brand/model hard drives should I use for the d: drive RAID configuration. I do not edit longer than 2hour videos at a time, so that's why I just want to have the c: and the d: when it comes to OS and apps, and d: for purely editing. Will I loose system performace if do not set the c: drive to RAID?

Thanks alot Harm!

Pete Bauer · January 10th, 2007, 05:19 PM

Harm, if you are able to do read and write benchmarks of your RAID setup(s), would be quite interested to see them. The numbers in the graphic you linked are just the manufacturer's advertising, so really aren't meanful for real world use. No doubt RAID cards are getting better with time, but RAID5 and RAID6 have an inherent overhead on the write side because of all that parity data, so a setup that has write rates nearly as fast as read rates would be most welcome. The particular models you listed are apparently fairly new and don't seem to be listed by several common online mega-vendors yet, so presumably won't be cheap when they are available. FWIW, a quick look on the internet gives the impression that ICH8R doesn't do too much more than support eSATA, and has fairly run-of-the-mill RAID5 capabilities, plus is limited to 4 drives in the array.

Renat, I'd caution against deciding on a particular solution and plunking hundreds of dollars without seeing some reasonably objective read and write tests on systems at least similar to what you want to build. There are quite a few reviews of various RAID setups online; sometimes you have to judge what's "wheat" and what's "chaff" but at least it isn't advertising data from the vendor.

I think Harm and I have different philosophies about how we like our editing boxes. I prefer to keep it as lean as possible; I only put the hardware and software on it that I need to edit a project, and the extras (like my RAID5 array) are on a different computer connected by gigabit LAN). Fewer things to break, overheat, make noise, require updates, etc, etc. But that's personal preference, nothing scientific.

Harm Millaard · January 10th, 2007, 05:23 PM

Dreams have stopped, let's get back to earth:

C: WD Raptor for OS
D: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB ($95) for scratch, pagefile and previews
E: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB x2 ($95 ea.) for media in Aid0

This is assuming you have 4 SATA connectors available. HD investment would be around $ 285 plus the WD Raptor. If media are on a (r)aid0 and one drive fails you lose all data, but that can be recaptured from the original tapes. The major advantage is that you spread your disk accesses across multiple disks, thereby reducing the load overall and you will get better response from your system.

If you need more in the future, you can always have a look at this dream machine from my previous post.

Renat Zarbailov · January 10th, 2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harm Millaard

Dreams have stopped, let's get back to earth:

C: WD Raptor for OS
D: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB ($95) for scratch, pagefile and previews
E: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB x2 ($95 ea.) for media in Aid0

This is assuming you have 4 SATA connectors available. HD investment would be around $ 285 plus the WD Raptor. If media are on a (r)aid0 and one drive fails you lose all data, but that can be recaptured from the original tapes. The major advantage is that you spread your disk accesses across multiple disks, thereby reducing the load overall and you will get better response from your system.

If you need more in the future, you can always have a look at this dream machine from my previous post.

Thanks Pete for the caution.

C: WD Raptor for OS (no RAID?)
D: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB ($95) for scratch, pagefile and previews
E: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB x2 ($95 ea.) for media in Aid0 (connected directly to motherboard?)

Thanks again!

Harm Millaard · January 11th, 2007, 04:31 AM

Pete,

I don't have benchmark data on the new Areca ARC-12x1 ML cards.

An extensive comparison of SATA raid controllers was done which included the previous generation of Areca controllers, both the 1160 and the 1280. However it is only in Dutch, so unless your language skills allow you to understand this, it will not be much benefit to you. Here is the link to the test:
http://tweakers.net/reviews/639/1

The most interesting results are the sequential read/write speeds in Raid6 with it's double parity calculations. The Areca ARC-1280 ES with 512 MB cache scored for read speeds in MB/s: 330.1 (6xR6), 506.9 (8xR6), 641,6 (10xR6).
The write speeds in MB/s were: 328.8 (6xR6), 486.4 (8xR6), 623.4 (10xR6).

Also interesting are the results on page 11 of the review. Here they tested the AV Workstation StorageMark 2006 Index in Raid 5. This index consists of audio and video tests using Audition and Premiere Pro, and multi tasked DVD transcoding using Encore, supplemented with file copies.

You can find the results here:
http://www.millcon.nl/Harm/Storagemark.jpg

As you can see the parity calculations both in Raid 5 and Raid 6 do not significantly slow the write performance. I would assume that the newer chip on the ARC-12x1-ML range (IOP 341 instead of IOP333) plus the faster DDR2-533 cache, instead of DDR2-400, would give the multilane cards even better performance. Even based on the 1280 model, the AV StorageMark index shows a performance gain in an 8xR5 configuration of 245% over a single disk. Impressive I think.

Hope this gives you some background.

Harm Millaard · January 11th, 2007, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renat Zarbailov

Thanks Pete for the caution.

C: WD Raptor for OS (no RAID?)
D: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB ($95) for scratch, pagefile and previews
E: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB x2 ($95 ea.) for media in Aid0 (connected directly to motherboard?)

Thanks again!

No raid on the OS drive is needed. It is the fastest SATA drive available and once your NLE is loaded, hardly used. No discernible speed increases can be found by raiding the OS drive, just a lot of wasted space. Probably your OS drive could be as small as 40 GB, so it is a waste of storage space to use 300GB for your boot disk.

For the E drive (2 Seagates) you could connect these directly to the mobo. That will save you the cost of a HBA controller.

Bart Walczak · January 11th, 2007, 05:50 AM

You an get 74 GB WD Raptors quite cheaply nowadays too, and the chances are you won't need much more for your OS. I've been running similar setup as Harm writes only with WD drives for a couple of months and it's very efficient.

January 10th, 2007, 05:19 PM	#33
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Harm, if you are able to do read and write benchmarks of your RAID setup(s), would be quite interested to see them. The numbers in the graphic you linked are just the manufacturer's advertising, so really aren't meanful for real world use. No doubt RAID cards are getting better with time, but RAID5 and RAID6 have an inherent overhead on the write side because of all that parity data, so a setup that has write rates nearly as fast as read rates would be most welcome. The particular models you listed are apparently fairly new and don't seem to be listed by several common online mega-vendors yet, so presumably won't be cheap when they are available. FWIW, a quick look on the internet gives the impression that ICH8R doesn't do too much more than support eSATA, and has fairly run-of-the-mill RAID5 capabilities, plus is limited to 4 drives in the array. Renat, I'd caution against deciding on a particular solution and plunking hundreds of dollars without seeing some reasonably objective read and write tests on systems at least similar to what you want to build. There are quite a few reviews of various RAID setups online; sometimes you have to judge what's "wheat" and what's "chaff" but at least it isn't advertising data from the vendor. I think Harm and I have different philosophies about how we like our editing boxes. I prefer to keep it as lean as possible; I only put the hardware and software on it that I need to edit a project, and the extras (like my RAID5 array) are on a different computer connected by gigabit LAN). Fewer things to break, overheat, make noise, require updates, etc, etc. But that's personal preference, nothing scientific. __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

January 11th, 2007, 04:31 AM	#36
Harm Millaard Trustee Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands Posts: 1,832	Pete, I don't have benchmark data on the new Areca ARC-12x1 ML cards. An extensive comparison of SATA raid controllers was done which included the previous generation of Areca controllers, both the 1160 and the 1280. However it is only in Dutch, so unless your language skills allow you to understand this, it will not be much benefit to you. Here is the link to the test: http://tweakers.net/reviews/639/1 The most interesting results are the sequential read/write speeds in Raid6 with it's double parity calculations. The Areca ARC-1280 ES with 512 MB cache scored for read speeds in MB/s: 330.1 (6xR6), 506.9 (8xR6), 641,6 (10xR6). The write speeds in MB/s were: 328.8 (6xR6), 486.4 (8xR6), 623.4 (10xR6). Also interesting are the results on page 11 of the review. Here they tested the AV Workstation StorageMark 2006 Index in Raid 5. This index consists of audio and video tests using Audition and Premiere Pro, and multi tasked DVD transcoding using Encore, supplemented with file copies. You can find the results here: http://www.millcon.nl/Harm/Storagemark.jpg As you can see the parity calculations both in Raid 5 and Raid 6 do not significantly slow the write performance. I would assume that the newer chip on the ARC-12x1-ML range (IOP 341 instead of IOP333) plus the faster DDR2-533 cache, instead of DDR2-400, would give the multilane cards even better performance. Even based on the 1280 model, the AV StorageMark index shows a performance gain in an 8xR5 configuration of 245% over a single disk. Impressive I think. Hope this gives you some background. Last edited by Harm Millaard; January 11th, 2007 at 05:04 AM.

January 10th, 2007, 04:19 PM	#31
Harm Millaard Trustee Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands Posts: 1,832	Renat, For optimal speed (mind you, speed costs $$$) and who can decide for you what is optimal, but answering from the perspective that money is no object and you want to have the best performance for HDV editing, I would look at a setup like this: C: WD Raptor 150 GB for OS D: 3 disk Aid0 array (3x320GB) for page file, scratch disk and previews on internal SATA connectors E: 8 disk Raid6 array for media and audio on Areca ARC 1231-ML and if necessary, an additional 4 disks dynamically added on the same controller. An HBA like the Areca allows for multiple raid arrays on the same controller, has the advantage of staggered spin-up so not to put too much of a load on your PSU, supports SMART and NCQ and allows for up to 2GB cache memory, in addition to BBM (Battery Backup Module). The consequence is that you either need a very roomy chassis or an external storage chassis to house, in the example above, the 16 disks, plus a triple redundant PSU to avoid problems. Take this message as a dream. You probably won't need anything like this, but again if money is no object, this would be ideal. Can you imagine having a raid0 with 960 GB and main storage in R6 of (8x750 - 2 disks for R6) 4.5 TB, possibly enlarged to a 12 disk array to give you 7.5 TB?

January 10th, 2007, 05:23 PM	#34
Harm Millaard Trustee Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands Posts: 1,832	Dreams have stopped, let's get back to earth: C: WD Raptor for OS D: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB ($95) for scratch, pagefile and previews E: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB x2 ($95 ea.) for media in Aid0 This is assuming you have 4 SATA connectors available. HD investment would be around $ 285 plus the WD Raptor. If media are on a (r)aid0 and one drive fails you lose all data, but that can be recaptured from the original tapes. The major advantage is that you spread your disk accesses across multiple disks, thereby reducing the load overall and you will get better response from your system. If you need more in the future, you can always have a look at this dream machine from my previous post.

January 11th, 2007, 05:50 AM	#38
Bart Walczak Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Warsaw/Poland Posts: 716	You an get 74 GB WD Raptors quite cheaply nowadays too, and the chances are you won't need much more for your OS. I've been running similar setup as Harm writes only with WD drives for a couple of months and it's very efficient.