Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hard disk drives for audio use?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 11:58:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm thinking of buying a new hard drive for audio use only (Western Digital
Raptor 10000rpm to be precise), and was wondering, should I install my audio
software to the old hard disk where all the other programs are also, or
should I install them to the aforementioned audio-only disk, where I would
store every audio file recorded?

IOW, is it a common practice to install all audio programs to an exclusive
audio-use-only hard disk, where all the audio files will also be recorded,
or should I leave the audio drive only to the recorded wav-audio files and
install the applications(sequencer, wave editor etc.) to the same drive
where my other, non-audio related programs are installed?

Thanks for helping me out.

More about : hard disk drives audio

Anonymous
August 25, 2004 11:58:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Keep your applications OFF of the audio drive. The audio drive should
only contain audio files, samples, etc, no programs.

Al

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 07:58:18 +0300, "Tommi M."
<tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote:

>I'm thinking of buying a new hard drive for audio use only (Western Digital
>Raptor 10000rpm to be precise), and was wondering, should I install my audio
>software to the old hard disk where all the other programs are also, or
>should I install them to the aforementioned audio-only disk, where I would
>store every audio file recorded?
>
>IOW, is it a common practice to install all audio programs to an exclusive
>audio-use-only hard disk, where all the audio files will also be recorded,
>or should I leave the audio drive only to the recorded wav-audio files and
>install the applications(sequencer, wave editor etc.) to the same drive
>where my other, non-audio related programs are installed?
>
>Thanks for helping me out.
>
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 11:58:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Tommi M." wrote:

> I'm thinking of buying a new hard drive for audio use only (Western Digital
> Raptor 10000rpm to be precise), and was wondering, should I install my audio
> software to the old hard disk where all the other programs are also, or
> should I install them to the aforementioned audio-only disk, where I would
> store every audio file recorded?
>
> IOW, is it a common practice to install all audio programs to an exclusive
> audio-use-only hard disk, where all the audio files will also be recorded,
> or should I leave the audio drive only to the recorded wav-audio files and
> install the applications(sequencer, wave editor etc.) to the same drive
> where my other, non-audio related programs are installed?

The 'media files' should be on the dedicated drive - those and no other.

Yes, the audio application should be on your 'system' drive or a partition of
same.


Graham
Related resources
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 11:58:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Tommi M." <tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:cgh5eg$jfs$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi

> I'm thinking of buying a new hard drive for audio use only (Western
> Digital Raptor 10000rpm to be precise), and was wondering, should I
> install my audio software to the old hard disk where all the other
> programs are also,

I can only comment on windows systems. For windows systems, the heavy I/O
load due to an audio application is not due to loading the audio application
from disk. The heavy I/O load is either on the disk holding folders
designated by the application as work folders, and/or the windows TEMP
folder, and/or the folder where you save files to. Note, this can be up to 5
different folders or more.

>or should I install them to the aforementioned
> audio-only disk, where I would store every audio file recorded?

The most critical I/O load for audio programs relates to recording, with
playback being only slightly less important. If the majority of
record/playback I/O goes to a different disk than the one you save to, then
the disk where the majority of the record/playback I/O goes to should be
your new disk.


> IOW, is it a common practice to install all audio programs to an
> exclusive audio-use-only hard disk,

No.

>where all the audio files will also be recorded,

Not a given.

>or should I leave the audio drive only to the recorded wav-audio files

You use the audio drive as the place where files are directly recorded to.
This place may be designated by default, or there may be application
settings where you formally specify this.

> and install the applications(sequencer, wave
> editor etc.) to the same drive where my other, non-audio related
> programs are installed?

Generally yes.
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 11:59:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Data goes on data drives, and applications go on application drives.

Next.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Tommi M." <tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:cgh5eg$jfs$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> I'm thinking of buying a new hard drive for audio use only (Western
Digital
> Raptor 10000rpm to be precise), and was wondering, should I install my
audio
> software to the old hard disk where all the other programs are also, or
> should I install them to the aforementioned audio-only disk, where I would
> store every audio file recorded?
>
> IOW, is it a common practice to install all audio programs to an exclusive
> audio-use-only hard disk, where all the audio files will also be recorded,
> or should I leave the audio drive only to the recorded wav-audio files and
> install the applications(sequencer, wave editor etc.) to the same drive
> where my other, non-audio related programs are installed?
>
> Thanks for helping me out.
>
>
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 12:30:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" wrote ...
> Data goes on data drives, and applications go on application drives.

Absolutely. (And the OS and swap files go on the application drive too.)

And furthermore, 10K RPM drives seem like remarkable overkill
unless you are recording 48 tracks x 192K concurently or something.
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 3:29:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I'm thinking of buying a new hard drive for audio use only (Western Digital
> Raptor 10000rpm to be precise), and was wondering, should I install my audio
> software to the old hard disk where all the other programs are also, or
> should I install them to the aforementioned audio-only disk, where I would
> store every audio file recorded?

I *know* that this is very foolish question, and I *know* that you
have thought this over already BUT have you thought about how to
backup your audio files? What happens when your new hard disk with all
the wonderful recordings in it will crash, break and all the data in
it will is lost?

While you're at it, get a second new hard disk: a cheap, slow drive,
and assign that as your backup disk.

That *and* a recordable DVD drive will get you covered when it comes
to backups.


Kalle
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 6:37:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Tommi M." <tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:cgh5eg$jfs$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi
>
> > I'm thinking of buying a new hard drive for audio use only (Western
> > Digital Raptor 10000rpm to be precise), and was wondering, should I
> > install my audio software to the old hard disk where all the other
> > programs are also,
>
> I can only comment on windows systems. For windows systems, the heavy I/O
> load due to an audio application is not due to loading the audio application
> from disk. The heavy I/O load is either on the disk holding folders
> designated by the application as work folders, and/or the windows TEMP
> folder, and/or the folder where you save files to. Note, this can be up to 5
> different folders or more.

Ahhhh - the temp folder.

Some systems can benefit from having the temp folder on a dedicated drive. I
have been known to do this. That way, temp files don't interfere with system
drive accesses.

Same is true for the swap file. XP hides this away in its darkest workings but
earlier version of windows can move the location of the swap file too. More ram
tends to render the need redundant.

Check out Cache Manager.


Graham
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 6:37:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pooh Bear wrote:
> Same is true for the swap file. XP hides this away in its darkest workings but
> earlier version of windows can move the location of the swap file too. More ram
> tends to render the need redundant.

There's a school of thought that says if it even occurs to you to think
about where your swap file is located, then you need more RAM...

- Logan
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 7:06:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Tommi:

I do a lot of audio and audio for video work for a CBS and the FOX
affilitate here as well as for independent productions. A number of
them had hard drive crashes and the one thing in common was a Western
Digital drive. All of them have recommended against it. Check
reliability with folks who have used them.

We've all had good results with Hitachi/IBM DeskStar and Seagate
Barracuda. BTW, the Barracuda is the quietest drive in it's class and
is nearly silent. The DeskStar is very quiet to from the sound of my
2. For a 10,000 rpm drive, the Cheetah is a proven performer.

For a recording drive, you want the best reliability you can get.

Audy O



"Tommi M." <tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:<cgh5eg$jfs$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>...
> I'm thinking of buying a new hard drive for audio use only (Western Digital
> Raptor 10000rpm to be precise), and was wondering, should I install my audio
> software to the old hard disk where all the other programs are also, or
> should I install them to the aforementioned audio-only disk, where I would
> store every audio file recorded?
>
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 10:07:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Logan Shaw wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
> > Same is true for the swap file. XP hides this away in its darkest workings but
> > earlier version of windows can move the location of the swap file too. More ram
> > tends to render the need redundant.
>
> There's a school of thought that says if it even occurs to you to think
> about where your swap file is located, then you need more RAM...

There's some truth in that but ( outside of XP ) the benefit is only fully realised
by tweaking various .ini files.

Cache Manager does the tweaking for you. For example, I discovered that ( using W98SE
) you could insert "swapfileusage = conservative" ( or something v. similar ) when
you have loads of physical memory in system.ini or windows.ini - sorry forget which -
whilst Cache Manager does the tweaks for you.

Cache Manager also has a useful 'recover memory' function which appears to address
those nasty 'memory leaks'.


Graahm
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 11:40:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Audy" <audy@audykimura.com> wrote in message
news:6e9dc628.0408260206.582834ea@posting.google.com
> Tommi:
>
> I do a lot of audio and audio for video work for a CBS and the FOX
> affilitate here as well as for independent productions. A number of
> them had hard drive crashes and the one thing in common was a Western
> Digital drive. All of them have recommended against it. Check
> reliability with folks who have used them.

A lot of WD drives have been sold, so a lot of them fail.

I generally use WD & Hitachi drives, but I have used Seagates in the past. I
remember when so many Seagate drives failed that they suspended the warranty
for them. They seem to be better now. IME all brands of drives fail. The
warranties and the repair costs are about the same for every manufacturer.
Any manufacturer that has excess failures is headed for serious economic
problems. Both Seagate and WD have almost put themselves out of buiness.
Hitachi and IBM are part of larger companies that can back them up,
financially. I'm sure it has happened.
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 2:53:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Kalle L." <email_kalle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:66ce1aff.0408252229.34889f93@posting.google.com...
> > I'm thinking of buying a new hard drive for audio use only (Western
Digital
> > Raptor 10000rpm to be precise), and was wondering, should I install my
audio
> > software to the old hard disk where all the other programs are also, or
> > should I install them to the aforementioned audio-only disk, where I
would
> > store every audio file recorded?
>
> I *know* that this is very foolish question, and I *know* that you
> have thought this over already BUT have you thought about how to
> backup your audio files? What happens when your new hard disk with all
> the wonderful recordings in it will crash, break and all the data in
> it will is lost?
>
> While you're at it, get a second new hard disk: a cheap, slow drive,
> and assign that as your backup disk.
>
> That *and* a recordable DVD drive will get you covered when it comes
> to backups.


Terve Kalle,

I've thought about it, and I think I could manage with a DVD-RW -drive. 10
DVD-RWs should be enough to do the back-up job, I can update the back-ups
weekly with the rewrite function if necessary. I must admit that over the
years my confidence in hard drive reliability has grown exponentially, since
my personal experience points to a 100% reliability. Sure, eventually they
all break up, but out of my 5 or 6 drives I've been using over the years,
none have lost any data.
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 2:56:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 02:37:12 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Same is true for the swap file. XP hides this away in its darkest workings but
>earlier version of windows can move the location of the swap file too. More ram
>tends to render the need redundant.

Eh? XP allows you to define which of your drives will hold a swapfile
in exactly the same way as did earlier Windows.


CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 2:56:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eocri0pv5f85jfu1rsdflbvdr9ufgspnli@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 02:37:12 +0100, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Same is true for the swap file. XP hides this away in its darkest
workings but
> >earlier version of windows can move the location of the swap file too.
More ram
> >tends to render the need redundant.
>
> Eh? XP allows you to define which of your drives will hold a swapfile
> in exactly the same way as did earlier Windows.

Yes. I recommend people trying XP right out of the box before they start
tweaking. It works pretty good as is.
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 2:56:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:eocri0pv5f85jfu1rsdflbvdr9ufgspnli@4ax.com
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 02:37:12 +0100, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Same is true for the swap file. XP hides this away in its darkest
>> workings but earlier version of windows can move the location of the
>> swap file too. More ram tends to render the need redundant.
>
> Eh? XP allows you to define which of your drives will hold a swapfile
> in exactly the same way as did earlier Windows.

I don't recall that Windows 3.1 allowed defining multiple swap files like XP
does...
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 3:37:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Laurence Payne wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 02:37:12 +0100, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Same is true for the swap file. XP hides this away in its darkest workings but
> >earlier version of windows can move the location of the swap file too. More ram
> >tends to render the need redundant.
>
> Eh? XP allows you to define which of your drives will hold a swapfile
> in exactly the same way as did earlier Windows.

I was misinformed in that case. Maybe it's trickier to locate the settings ?


Graham
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 3:37:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:412DBD57.E61CE108@hotmail.com
> Laurence Payne wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 02:37:12 +0100, Pooh Bear
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Same is true for the swap file. XP hides this away in its darkest
>>> workings but earlier version of windows can move the location of
>>> the swap file too. More ram tends to render the need redundant.
>>
>> Eh? XP allows you to define which of your drives will hold a
>> swapfile in exactly the same way as did earlier Windows.

The error here is "a swapfile". Multiple swap devices are supported.

> I was misinformed in that case. Maybe it's trickier to locate the
> settings ?

It's a menu or two deeper than 3.1...
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 3:55:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:59:00 -0400, "Roger W. Norman"
<rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:

>Data goes on data drives, and applications go on application drives.
>
>Next.


Next, you give us your reasoned arguments why these have to be
different physical drives. With particular reference to the disk
activity demanded by program files (including Windows components) once
an application is running. If you're old enough to remember program
modules being paged from inadequate RAM to a disk file, you could
include a discussion of why this doesn't happen on today's machines.
Or why you install enough RAM in a DAW to make damn sure it won't ;-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 3:55:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:u3gri0504bi11468t63nkllfbosm2a3k3r@4ax.com
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:59:00 -0400, "Roger W. Norman"
> <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
>
>> Data goes on data drives, and applications go on application drives.
>>
>> Next.
>
>
> Next, you give us your reasoned arguments why these have to be
> different physical drives. With particular reference to the disk
> activity demanded by program files (including Windows components) once
> an application is running. If you're old enough to remember program
> modules being paged from inadequate RAM to a disk file, you could
> include a discussion of why this doesn't happen on today's machines.
> Or why you install enough RAM in a DAW to make damn sure it won't ;-)

In XP and Win9x, executables are memory mapped. That means that they are
not loaded into RAM until any given page of the file is referenced. That
means that they get swapped into RAM as they are executed. So, there can be
significant I/O to them after they are "opened".
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 3:58:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:27:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>> Eh? XP allows you to define which of your drives will hold a swapfile
>> in exactly the same way as did earlier Windows.
>
>I don't recall that Windows 3.1 allowed defining multiple swap files like XP
>does...

How remiss of it. And those were the days when a swap file might
actually have been used for what many people imagine it's used for now
:-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 4:00:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:37:11 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Eh? XP allows you to define which of your drives will hold a swapfile
>> in exactly the same way as did earlier Windows.
>
>I was misinformed in that case. Maybe it's trickier to locate the settings ?

I don't think so. Much the same place it always was, as I recall.

There's a lot of people with an agenda of Microsoft-bashing. They
can get silly and start trying to criticise EVERYTHING in XP :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 4:58:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:412DBD57.E61CE108@hotmail.com...
>
>
> I was misinformed in that case. Maybe it's trickier to locate the settings
?
>

Just right-click "My Computer" , Properties/Advanced/Performance
(Settings)/Advanced/Virtual Memory (Change).
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 5:34:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 07:07:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>>> Eh? XP allows you to define which of your drives will hold a
>>> swapfile in exactly the same way as did earlier Windows.
>
>The error here is "a swapfile". Multiple swap devices are supported.

Precisely. You can define whether one or more drives support a
swapfile.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 5:34:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 07:07:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Eh? XP allows you to define which of your drives will hold a
>>>>swapfile in exactly the same way as did earlier Windows.
>>
>>The error here is "a swapfile". Multiple swap devices are supported.
>
>
> Precisely. You can define whether one or more drives support a
> swapfile.
>


Partitions, actually.
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 5:41:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 07:36:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>In XP and Win9x, executables are memory mapped. That means that they are
>not loaded into RAM until any given page of the file is referenced. That
>means that they get swapped into RAM as they are executed. So, there can be
>significant I/O to them after they are "opened".

In XP and 9x EVERYTHING except kernel code is mapped. This doesn't
mean that, on a system with adequate RAM, the part of this map that
potentially could be on a disk swapfile will in fact be there.

Microsoft confuse the issue by calling all (except kernel) memory
"Paged Memory". Then they call the on-disk swapfile a "Paging File".

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 6:14:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Audy" <audy@audykimura.com> wrote in message
news:6e9dc628.0408260206.582834ea@posting.google.com...
> Tommi:
>
> I do a lot of audio and audio for video work for a CBS and the FOX
> affilitate here as well as for independent productions. A number of
> them had hard drive crashes and the one thing in common was a Western
> Digital drive. All of them have recommended against it. Check
> reliability with folks who have used them.
>
> We've all had good results with Hitachi/IBM DeskStar and Seagate
> Barracuda. BTW, the Barracuda is the quietest drive in it's class and
> is nearly silent. The DeskStar is very quiet to from the sound of my
> 2. For a 10,000 rpm drive, the Cheetah is a proven performer.
>
> For a recording drive, you want the best reliability you can get.

Audy, thanks for the info. Barracuda is one of my other options. Cheetah,
however, is a SCSI drive, and I think I can't afford it currently(upgrading
my whole system soon). I could just about afford a good S-ATA drive,
preferably a 10k rpm one, but WD Raptor is the only one I know of in that
class.

Funny, I remember just after I bought a Maxtor drive a couple of years ago,
suddenly a lot of people started reporting problems with them. My maxtor,
thankfully, has worked perfectly for about 3.5 yrs now..
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 6:15:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cgkfsp$s0p$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>,
tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi says...
> WD Raptor is the only one I know of in that
> class.

I have a WD Raptor for my non-audio PC, and it's nice and zippy, but the
first one was DOA. According to storagereview.com - an admittedly
unscientific survey, but the best we've got - the Raptors are something
like 26th percentile in reliability. Not something I'd use unless I was
making daily backups.

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 6:32:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <10iqm9pame8ckc3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

> "Roger W. Norman" wrote ...
> > Data goes on data drives, and applications go on application drives.
>
> Absolutely. (And the OS and swap files go on the application drive too.)
>
> And furthermore, 10K RPM drives seem like remarkable overkill
> unless you are recording 48 tracks x 192K concurently or something.

10KRPM drives give you more IOs per second than 7200 RPM drives. With a
system like ProTools that renders fades to separate audio files, there
can be many files to play in a densely edited passage. Even though the
average transfer rate is low, it takes time to reposition the heads and
wait for the platters to rotate to access each audio file, so in
reality, it's not all that much overkill.

I used to have problems with some densely edited sessions on older 7200
RPM drives, but this hasn't happened in a few years with 10K drives and
sometimes extremely high edit densities. These were sessions with fewer
than 24 tracks of 44.1/24 files.

The WD Raptors are very high performance drives, and quite inexpensive
too, so I see no great waste in using them for audio.


Regards,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 6:42:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <u3gri0504bi11468t63nkllfbosm2a3k3r@4ax.com>,
Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:59:00 -0400, "Roger W. Norman"
> <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> >Data goes on data drives, and applications go on application drives.
> >
> >Next.
>
> Next, you give us your reasoned arguments why these have to be
> different physical drives.

For me, it's a workflow thing. Audio in my world is stored on one of
several drives mounted in removable carriers so that it can be
transported between machines easily and removed from a machine quickly.
Projects here usually stay on a drive for 18 months or more, and it's
preferable not to allow too many projects to inhabit one drive at a
time. In the days of SCSI drives, it was mandatory to use a bunch of
audio drives since they were so small. Now, I still use several drives
even though they are much larger since it's simpler to manage.

I think it's also better not to mix system and audio files because of
fragmentation. A system drive will remain relatively unfragmented in
normal use since nothing's getting stored to it on a regular basis.
When I do update the software, it won't have to fit around whatever
transient audio files are also on the drive and will thus stay
unfragmented longer.

Partitioning will provide many of these benefits, but you'll take a
slight performance hit having the system and audio partitions on the
same drive.


Regards,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 6:54:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <6e9dc628.0408260206.582834ea@posting.google.com>,
audy@audykimura.com (Audy) wrote:
> I do a lot of audio and audio for video work for a CBS and the FOX
> affilitate here as well as for independent productions. A number of
> them had hard drive crashes and the one thing in common was a Western
> Digital drive. All of them have recommended against it. Check
> reliability with folks who have used them.
>
> We've all had good results with Hitachi/IBM DeskStar and Seagate
> Barracuda. BTW, the Barracuda is the quietest drive in it's class and
> is nearly silent. The DeskStar is very quiet to from the sound of my
> 2. For a 10,000 rpm drive, the Cheetah is a proven performer.

They all break, but nobody could tell you which would break until they
fail. Similarly, information about the drives you bought in the past
that should/shouldn't be avoided that did/didn't break isn't useful
because they don't sell those drives anymore.

I've had several IBMs croak (SCSI and IDE), but that's probably because
I bought a lot of IBM drives, so those were the most common drive I
owned. Since then, I've bought Seagate, WD and Maxtor drives, and I'm
sure that eventually, some of those will die too.

> For a recording drive, you want the best reliability you can get.

Yes, but nobody knows which ones those will be. if the manufacturer
could tell, don't you think they'd just pull those early failure drives
from the line and sell the others for a lot more $$??!!

Drive failure can sometimes be detected by using SMART monitoring, but
sometimes not. The only recourse is having good backups and a plan in
place to handle failures.


Regards,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 8:58:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:10iqm9pame8ckc3@corp.supernews.com...
> "Roger W. Norman" wrote ...
> > Data goes on data drives, and applications go on application drives.
>
> Absolutely. (And the OS and swap files go on the application drive too.)
>
> And furthermore, 10K RPM drives seem like remarkable overkill
> unless you are recording 48 tracks x 192K concurently or something.

Yep, but they do make loading large files a lot quicker :-).

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 8:58:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:412d8a33$0$9587$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
> news:10iqm9pame8ckc3@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Roger W. Norman" wrote ...
>>> Data goes on data drives, and applications go on application drives.
>>
>> Absolutely. (And the OS and swap files go on the application drive
>> too.)
>>
>> And furthermore, 10K RPM drives seem like remarkable overkill
>> unless you are recording 48 tracks x 192K concurently or something.
>
> Yep, but they do make loading large files a lot quicker :-).

Not necessarily.

Looking around, I find that the alternatives for 10K rpm IDE drives are
limited, and unless you want to pay over $400 for a drive, the choices for
SCSI aren't that broad.

Loading large files is largely a matter of DTR, and DTR is usually set by
the combination of track bit density and rpm. IOW, a denser drive spinning
slower has a chance of at least holding its own against a less dense drive
spinning faster.

The fastest 10K rpm ATA drive I could find was a lot smaller than the
fastest 7200 rpm ATA drive I could find. This leads to the possiblity that a
7200 rpm drive with appreciably higher capacity might hold its own or even
be faster in a DTR race.
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 9:13:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Monte:

Yes, they do all break but some more than others according to the 30
or so companies I work with here. It's not a huge sample size but I
can certainly sense a trend. FYI, this happened in the past 3 months,
some with drives which are just months old.

Also, the Hitachi/IBM DeskStar and Seagate drives I mentioned are
still very much in production, in fact I ordered some last week.

No one can tell you which drives will fail but when certain
brands/models fail more than others among your group of associates,
it's a concern and tells you something.

When 4 different companies tell me they are having Wester Digital
failures more than other drives, I listen. Also, I have had exemplary
service from Seagate whenever I have called.

Audy O


Monte McGuire <monte.mcguire@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<monte.mcguire-EED66C.10540126082004@news.verizon.net>...
> In article <6e9dc628.0408260206.582834ea@posting.google.com>,
> audy@audykimura.com (Audy) wrote:
> > I do a lot of audio and audio for video work for a CBS and the FOX
> > affilitate here as well as for independent productions. A number of
> > them had hard drive crashes and the one thing in common was a Western
> > Digital drive. All of them have recommended against it. Check
> > reliability with folks who have used them.
> >
> > We've all had good results with Hitachi/IBM DeskStar and Seagate
> > Barracuda. BTW, the Barracuda is the quietest drive in it's class and
> > is nearly silent. The DeskStar is very quiet to from the sound of my
> > 2. For a 10,000 rpm drive, the Cheetah is a proven performer.
>
> They all break, but nobody could tell you which would break until they
> fail. Similarly, information about the drives you bought in the past
> that should/shouldn't be avoided that did/didn't break isn't useful
> because they don't sell those drives anymore.
>
> I've had several IBMs croak (SCSI and IDE), but that's probably because
> I bought a lot of IBM drives, so those were the most common drive I
> owned. Since then, I've bought Seagate, WD and Maxtor drives, and I'm
> sure that eventually, some of those will die too.
>
> > For a recording drive, you want the best reliability you can get.
>
> Yes, but nobody knows which ones those will be. if the manufacturer
> could tell, don't you think they'd just pull those early failure drives
> from the line and sell the others for a lot more $$??!!
>
> Drive failure can sometimes be detected by using SMART monitoring, but
> sometimes not. The only recourse is having good backups and a plan in
> place to handle failures.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Monte McGuire
> monte.mcguire@verizon.net
August 27, 2004 2:25:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I've thought about it, and I think I could manage with a DVD-RW -drive. 10
> DVD-RWs should be enough to do the back-up job, I can update the back-ups
> weekly with the rewrite function if necessary. I must admit that over the
> years my confidence in hard drive reliability has grown exponentially,
since
> my personal experience points to a 100% reliability. Sure, eventually they
> all break up, but out of my 5 or 6 drives I've been using over the years,
> none have lost any data.

Well, I trust my drives too, and none of them have failed me through the
years. But it only takes one time.

DVD's are a good idea because of their capacity, but what if you'll scratch
one of them accidentally, and that particular DVD has the only copy of your
masterpiece from way back when?

Also, a decicated hard drive for backups is handy when you want to have a
quick access to project, for example for re-mixing.

Kalle
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 5:28:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <6e9dc628.0408261613.10d4b825@posting.google.com>,
audy@audykimura.com (Audy) wrote:

> Monte:
>
> Yes, they do all break but some more than others according to the 30
> or so companies I work with here. It's not a huge sample size but I
> can certainly sense a trend. FYI, this happened in the past 3 months,
> some with drives which are just months old.

That is the most annoying time for a drive to fail - you have all of the
hassles of the failure, you need to buy another drive to get the system
back up quickly and you end up sending the dead drive in for a
replacement... only to get another of the same. I had that go-round
with Micropolis 10 years ago with their fatally flawed 1991AV and it was
basically hell at $2-3K per drive.

It eventually killed the company, but what's a guy like me to do except
do the RMA dance for as long as it will work?

> Also, the Hitachi/IBM DeskStar and Seagate drives I mentioned are
> still very much in production, in fact I ordered some last week.

Yes, but they might be made at different times, so perhaps their failure
modes are different. Perhaps it's just one giant shipment from the same
plant, perhaps it's from one in Hungary and one in Singapore and only
the ones from Hungary fail... you get my point. There are many
variables beyond the model number of a drive.

> No one can tell you which drives will fail but when certain
> brands/models fail more than others among your group of associates,
> it's a concern and tells you something.

Yes, it probably good to avoid that same batch of drives, and probably
any others made in the same place using the same technologies for a
while. But, it is a random event, and the factors that cause the
problems are not known to an end user. My issue is that making
correlations based on limited information is not always useful.

> When 4 different companies tell me they are having Wester Digital
> failures more than other drives, I listen. Also, I have had exemplary
> service from Seagate whenever I have called.

8 years ago, they made drives that failed a little more than others.
What comes around goes around! Yes, now they're generally good, but who
knows if this will last.

At any rate, may your existing drives keep spinning and prove the merit
of your choices...


Regards,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 8:26:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Monte:

I do have one advantage, I'm also a dealer for several companies which
use these drives (Glyph, iZ Radar 24 and others) so I do have the
luxury of checking with their techs in service before buying. I've
seen just about all companies have a bad run of drives which is why I
recommend buying from a dealer who will do an exchange without
hesitation for another brand or quick swap. Certain ones give VERY
quick service and others well....you know.

Micropolis...there's a name from the past.

Let's all have a "crash free" season...

Best,
Audy O

Monte McGuire <monte.mcguire@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<monte.mcguire-0F93E8.21280626082004@news.verizon.net>...

>
> At any rate, may your existing drives keep spinning and prove the merit
> of your choices...
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Monte McGuire
> monte.mcguire@verizon.net
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 7:07:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ricky W. Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%UiXc.94281$TI1.88999@attbi_s52...
> Yes. I recommend people trying XP right out of the box before they start
> tweaking. It works pretty good as is.

But works a lot better when properly optimised, just as with previous
versions.

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 7:58:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:1tedneHiEaP6ZLDcRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
> > Yep, but they do make loading large files a lot quicker :-).
>
> Not necessarily.

That's partly why the smiley is there.

> Loading large files is largely a matter of DTR, and DTR is usually set by
> the combination of track bit density and rpm. IOW, a denser drive spinning
> slower has a chance of at least holding its own against a less dense drive
> spinning faster.
>
> The fastest 10K rpm ATA drive I could find was a lot smaller than the
> fastest 7200 rpm ATA drive I could find. This leads to the possiblity that
a
> 7200 rpm drive with appreciably higher capacity might hold its own or even
> be faster in a DTR race.

You have to be careful here Arny. Total capacity is not a good measure of
track density. Also many 160GB drives, (for example) are simply two 80GB
platters. Depending how the heads are used, among other things, it may have
up to twice the DTR. Or it might not.

A drive with 4 platters and 8 heads could easily have a lot higher DTR, even
if the track density was lower.
The answer is to look up the full specs.

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 8:05:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Kalle" <email_kalle@yahoo..com> wrote in message
news:xMqXc.3498$KA6.1438@reader1.news.jippii.net...
> DVD's are a good idea because of their capacity, but what if you'll
scratch
> one of them accidentally, and that particular DVD has the only copy of
your
> masterpiece from way back when?

That's why I keep two copies with different brand media. DVD's are so cheap
these days you could keep a hundred copies for the same price (and space) of
a 10 1/2" reel of tape! Of course you can then store them at different
locations, in case of fire as well. You could throw in a brand new DVD
reader with each project as well for less cost than a tape based session!

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 9:46:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:4132c245$0$18394$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:1tedneHiEaP6ZLDcRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
>>> Yep, but they do make loading large files a lot quicker :-).
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>
> That's partly why the smiley is there.
>
>> Loading large files is largely a matter of DTR, and DTR is usually
>> set by the combination of track bit density and rpm. IOW, a denser
>> drive spinning slower has a chance of at least holding its own
>> against a less dense drive spinning faster.

>> The fastest 10K rpm ATA drive I could find was a lot smaller than the
>> fastest 7200 rpm ATA drive I could find. This leads to the
>> possiblity that a 7200 rpm drive with appreciably higher capacity
>> might hold its own or even be faster in a DTR race.

> You have to be careful here Arny. Total capacity is not a good
> measure of track density. Also many 160GB drives, (for example) are
> simply two 80GB platters. Depending how the heads are used, among
> other things, it may have up to twice the DTR. Or it might not.

It still avoids a high proportion of seeks during long large serial I/O
(i.e., audio)

> A drive with 4 platters and 8 heads could easily have a lot higher
> DTR, even if the track density was lower.
> The answer is to look up the full specs.

When you do that, you find out about some common inherent technical limits
with track density at higher rotational speeds. The higher platter speed
creates more aerodynamic pressure which pushes the heads higher off the
disc, which can be only partially overcome with stiffer loading springs.
!