Best Audio Recording Configuration

[ahallada]

I've been working with FatBurger on another thread to figure out what is the ideal storage setup for doing professional audio recording. I'm using ProTools LE now but most of the programs run about the same when it comes to utilizing storage. On ProTools PCs we are limited right now to these chipsets Intel 810E, Intel 815E, KT133A, and AMD761. The most popular Athlon boards are the A7V133 and the KT7A. How good is the RAID 0 support on these boards and are they true RAID 0 hardware controllers like you would purchase from Promise.
ProTools designers were recommending Ultra Wide SCSI devices, but now with ATA100 performance and affordability they have removed that recommendation. Remember to include backup system also for portability and safety of the files ie. external drives, DVD writers etc. Thanks and look forward to what people come up with in here.
Allen

 

[FatBurger]

Hey, I might as well join you here too.

Anyhow, I would recommend SCSI (if you have the budget). Pro Tools isn't known for packing a lot into small files, so you're going to need all the speed you can get. Of course, size matters too.

Here's my ideal setup: 4 36GB 10k RPM hard drives (Seagate Cheetahs, for example), in RAID 0+1. Or 3 36GB hard drives in RAID 5. Either way would work well.

I don't know exactly what kind of backup you're planning on doing, but a SCSI 16x Plextor or something similar would be great. 24x or Yamaha 20x would be even better (both SCSI).
Tape drives are an even better option for regular backups (especially if you don't keep the data for very long), but I don't know much about them.
I'd advise against DVD writers (for the moment), simply because they're still slow. When they get decently fast, you'll probably want to look at them again.

As far as onboard IDE RAID...I have a KT7a-RAID, I love it, but it has limited features. I just might get a third hard drive and RAID controller and move to RAID 5 in the future, but who knows. For now it's great. I don't do any audio editing on my computer.

Hope that helps, let me know if you have any more questions.

-----------------------
Quarter pounder inside

 

[ahallada]

Youch, that is over 1200.00 for four drives compared to about 420.00 for a four drive ATA100 using 40GB drives. I haven't sold that Platinum record yet my friend. LOL.
So SCSI drives are the best? Even for CDRW etc.? That would require an extra controller card too. Hmmmm.
Think I'll stick with the ATA100 setup for now. Adding 40GB for 100.00 is a bargain. When I sell that record though I'll look into those SCSI drives. Thanks for your help.
Allen

 

[FatBurger]

No, if you had them in a RAID 0+1, then it'd only be 72GB. Mirrored drives disappear (in terms of available space).

If you're sticking with IDE (and I don't blame you), then get the 40GB 60GXP, which it looks like you're going to.

-----------------------
Quarter pounder inside

 

[Guest]

The only hardware raid solution for IDE by promise is their Supertrak controllers. There is no processor onboard the others even the FastTrak TX4 for handling RAID IO traffic. The lite versions you find on the Asus boards is simply RAID 0.. no redundancy but otherwise the same as the RAID 0 you'd get with a Promise card.

***check the jumpers 1st then check em again***

 

[ahallada]

Chord,
So you are saying that the FastTrack100 TX2 RAID cards are not hardware RAID 0. I'm not looking at the redundancy right now, just the RAID 0 for better track count performance. For 75.00 the FastTrack seemed like a great solution for a two drive RAID 0. Haven't seen the SuperTrack yet. I'll check them out. Thanks.
Allen

 

[Guest]

That's correct. There are chips onboard for handling DMA (obviously or you couldn't really have DMA) and there are chips to handle communication between each controller. But the RAID IO traffic is offloaded to the cpu. This is what makes it possible for past hacks for converting the UDMA cards into RAID controllers. I wouldn't look at this as a bad thing either. From what I've seen and read, a 2 disk RAID 0 software array outperforms the hardware solutions. True when comparing both IDE and SCSI software against their hardware counterparts. It makes sense too with today's faster processors. Not only is that minimal overhead being handled by much better processors compared to (i960 Promise and Adaptec and Risc based processors found on controllers from Mylex), but it scales too. Not much but it does. Meaning your RAID IO performance can increase with faster processors. You'd probably see a difference between a 500 and 1Ghz machine, because the overhead with only 2 disks is minimal like I said. The performance will never change on the hardware solutions as their performance is contigent on the processor onboard. So what's the point of them? Well one software solutions in the form of PCI controllers certainly haven't been available for anything till last few years. (you could do it with WinNT, but how popular was WinNT for most people). For IDE, RAID 5 with 4-6 disks might be a reason to go for a hardware controller . RAID 5 is much more IO intensive and requires a little more processor, which is something a server admin might not like in a software setup. For SCSI, all the above and you can find hardware controllers that will support more and more complex RAID arrays. Not only that, serious SCSI RAID solutions can use multiple controllers so that one doesn't get bogged down by all the IO traffic. But for affordable RAID 0 setup, don't let the fact your CPU is doing a little more work than it would if you were running each drive on it's disuade you. Because it's minimal and the FastTraks do increase disk performance.

***check the jumpers 1st then check em again***

 

[ahallada]

Chord,
I'll just take your word for it as I've heard the same from others too. For 75.00 that FastTrack100 TX2 is a bargain <A HREF="http://www.newegg.com" target="_new">http://www.newegg.com</A> and I'll slap another IBM 60GXP 60GB 7200 on that baby and let you know how it goes. Thanks for all your help. Cleared up alot of issues for me and even created some more. LOL Just kidding.
Allen