Login / Register
 
RAID vs SATA, SAS for DAW
New Reply
Subscribe
liqueo
Thread Starter
#1
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #1
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Babylon
Posts: 36

Thread Starter
liqueo is offline
Question RAID vs SATA, SAS for DAW

I've read some conflicting reviews on this and wanted to know other's experience with digital audio/music production with RAID, SATA and SAS.

I've been wanting an external RAID setup for a while for the CG work I do but I've been reading on some other forums that for digital audio it can run slower, particularly with sample-based virtual instruments. I'm specc'ing out a setup with an external 8 bay chassis loaded with 1.5TB drives in hardware RAID 5 using a high-end controller card with dual mini-SAS cable hookup.

Since VI seems to preload the samples into RAM, aren't they still streaming from the RAM chips and not the drive or are parts still using the drive once loaded?

Are there any benefits of a RAID in music production? I would think that a speed increase would be apparent and beneficial. Perhaps if the project files and recorded audio were on a RAID partition but the sample libraries were on normal, internal SATA drives or SAS?

This would be for running things in DP btw, not protools.

Thanks
#2
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #2
Lives for gear
 
mmcfarlane's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Middle East
Posts: 521

mmcfarlane is offline
Years ago striped raid was helpful for audio. Today the standard consumer drives are so fast that you can stream many tracks without I/O issues.

Parity raid, or mirrored raid may be helpful from a fault-tolerance perspective (i.e. backups) for audio but I doubt you would need striped raid unless you are running 100 tracks.

I used to run a striped raid system for video when disks were slow. It was a PITA. Every disk you add increases the chance of failure for the array. Parity or mirroring helps but if you are just going for performance, for my audio projects it would be like buying a Ferrari to drive to work in a traffic jam, what's the point, the car can go 300kph but you never take it over 50?

If you are using the raid system for a large studio where multiple workstatons share the array that's a different animal.
__________________
Mark McFarlane
ARKOSERECORDS
liqueo
Thread Starter
#3
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #3
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Babylon
Posts: 36

Thread Starter
liqueo is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmcfarlane View Post
I doubt you would need striped raid unless you are running 100 tracks.
.
I do notice that when I try and use 24-bit 96Khz audio the tracks start to "pop" or breakup after only 4 tracks of audio are being used. I'm using 1TB samsung spinpoint drives internally on my Mac Pro. Stock Apple drive is boot disk + 2 samsungs, 1 for project files, one for sample libraries.

Wouldn't this breakup in audio be from the drives not being able to seek and stream the audio fast enough or a buffer problem? Or do you think this would be more attributed to a crap interface or the way DP is buffering and loading in the audio and not be a hardware issue?
#4
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #4
Lives for gear
 
mmcfarlane's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Middle East
Posts: 521

mmcfarlane is offline
4 tracks at 96K requires the same throughput as 8 tracks at 48K, it should be no problem for any disk made in the last decade or so.

Something else is wrong.

FWIW, Cubase doesn't handle muli-core CPUs very well and lots of time my 96K projects breakup due to CPU load. Get a few verbs going, the Sonnox limiter in lookahead - auto gain brickwall mode, and a few other things on busses and the CPU is maxed out regardless of how many tracks you are using. It is for this reason I went back to 48K.

Cubase 4 and 5 suffer from this same threading problem, it really stinks.
liqueo
Thread Starter
#5
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #5
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Babylon
Posts: 36

Thread Starter
liqueo is offline
This happens even when I have no plug-ins running. Just straight 4 tracks of 24/96. I highly doubt that DP6 is multi-threaded, or multi-threaded where it actually has a profound effect on performance, because it only uses the power of up to 1.4 cores on my machine from what I've seen so far.

it may just be the firewire interface I'm using. maybe the data can not be sent fast enough to it through firewire and that's where the breakup is having problems. My Mac Pro is only a few months old and the drives are new and the RAM is maxed out so maybe it isn't the hardware.

I am still curious if others have tested out striped RAID volumes on modern machines and noticed performance differences.
#6
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #6
Gear nut
 
annikk.exe's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 115

annikk.exe is offline
I have a RAID 1 Array in my DAW, which is the mirror configuration, rather than stripes.
I find it fine...

If you're looking to just play back lots of files at once for mixing purposes or whatever, you could also consider a Solid State Drive, which currently have the fastest read speeds available. They are slower to write to, but unless you are recording multiple tracks at once at 96k+ it's not going to be an issue.


-Annikk
liqueo
Thread Starter
#7
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #7
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Babylon
Posts: 36

Thread Starter
liqueo is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by annikk.exe View Post
I have a RAID 1 Array in my DAW, which is the mirror configuration, rather than stripes.
I find it fine...

If you're looking to just play back lots of files at once for mixing purposes or whatever, you could also consider a Solid State Drive, which currently have the fastest read speeds available. They are slower to write to, but unless you are recording multiple tracks at once at 96k+ it's not going to be an issue.


-Annikk
Hi Annikk

I considered solid state except it has much lower capacity than that of regular drives and I would fill them up too fast. Solid state RAID is also very expensive.

I could record one track at a time, but recording my virtual instruments at least in chunks of 8 would be nice.

I'm leaning towards a RAID 0 or RAID 5 with a mirror for redundancy or possibly just manual backups to a drive or file server.
#8
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 570

dannycurtean@yah is offline
hear ye, hear ye!

Quote:
Originally Posted by liqueo View Post
I've read some conflicting reviews on this and wanted to know other's experience with digital audio/music production with RAID, SATA and SAS.

I've been wanting an external RAID setup for a while for the CG work I do but I've been reading on some other forums that for digital audio it can run slower, particularly with sample-based virtual instruments. I'm specc'ing out a setup with an external 8 bay chassis loaded with 1.5TB drives in hardware RAID 5 using a high-end controller card with dual mini-SAS cable hookup.

Since VI seems to preload the samples into RAM, aren't they still streaming from the RAM chips and not the drive or are parts still using the drive once loaded?

Are there any benefits of a RAID in music production? I would think that a speed increase would be apparent and beneficial. Perhaps if the project files and recorded audio were on a RAID partition but the sample libraries were on normal, internal SATA drives or SAS?

This would be for running things in DP btw, not protools.

Thanks
Hey, I think I could be of some help here. I am a certified IT professional and I am going to attempt to explain the pros and cons of each setup for DAW applications.

Simple question: Do I need RAID?
Simple answer: No!

Now that we got that out of the way allow me to elaborate. First, I hope we all have the basic understanding of what RAID is in the first place and that there is no "simple answer" to every single setup. RAID or Redundant Array of Independent Disks is a setup allowing for either performance increases with RAID 0 (in the case of using two identical HDDs paired in RAID 0 for performance and more storage capacity) and RAID 1 which basically are two harddrive mirrored so if one goes down, your data does not get lost and all you have to do is swap the bad HDD out for a new working one.

Now to get into the deeper stuff.

*Advanced question: Do I need RAID for my DAW? And which one should I choose?

*Advanced answer: Yes! RAID is highly recommended for advanced DAW professionals. The one that stands out for this specific application is clearly RAID 1 or two harddrives mirrored for data redundancy. I do believe that is pretty self-explanitory.

Now why would I not choose RAID 0 for a DAW application? Because there are almost no benefits to it and the cons against it are too great. You MUST understand that a RAID 0 setup strippes data to two drives, so both harddrives are recognized as ONE volume, or partition. So if One goes down, your entire array goes down and your data is virtually unrecoverable on the good harddrive. I do encourage you to try to understand that this is comeing from a computer enthousiast that spends thousands of dollars for that 5% increase so im not a minimalist by any standard, but for most people the RAID 0 setup is not the best thing and it really doesn't offer much of an increase. Get a fast harddrive to boot and youl be fine.

Now to get onto answering your question. First off, the WORST thing you can do for performance is go to an external harddrive. What you must understand is that for an external harddrive to communicate to the southbridge chipset on your motherboard, it has to go through a severely limited interface (USB or Firewire). Im not going to go into the detail of the interface, but lets just say the letency factor would be exponentially increased externally. Which directly means that your harddrive will be much slower and will respond slower which again defeats the whole purpace of RAID 0 setups anyways. The way you could overcome that is by using the Fibrechannel interface which would get rid of the latency problems, but it is very costly.

RAID 5 for performance isnt that great. If you are looking for data striping AND mirroring, the best solution would be RAID 0+1 (sometimes refered to as RAID 10). Because of the way RAID 5 distributes data to the array, the system takes a toll as far as performance, and the CPU usage also goes much higher because of the unique distribution of RAID 5.

You are mostly right about samples being loaded into ram, but when you are browsing the massive libraries, then its all harddrive. So in the samples respect, RAID 0 would not be beneficial, if your looking for performance there, get an SSD.

Obviously if you are doing production work, its highly recommended that you use the SATA interface because of many many benefits. But SAS drives, although fast, do not offer the kind of performance you would expect. That and the fact that operating noise is not a concern for SAS manufacturers and the fact that you are using this in a studio should also be a concern. SAS or Serial attached SCSI are meant for RAID arrays for servers and large data centers and do not provide a very good performace:price ratio. Are they fast, HELL YEAH, but theyre loud, expensive and you need a good PCI-e controller just to use them which will drain your bank of a couple grand. In other words, unless you are an enthousiast like me and are getting the really expensive setup because you can, then go for it, otherwise dont bother.

So the final word is?

I always recommend RAID 1, internally. RAID 0 is for high performnace which is great, but the best thing for professionals that need piece of mind and great performance would definately be RAID 10. Thats 4 harddrives (2 stripped, 2 mirrored). That way you get the best of both worlds, redundancy and performance without increase in latency so your data comes super fast and the responce is great. Hope this helps.

Ohh, before I forget. The best RAID setups are usually internal (in your computer case).
#9
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 570

dannycurtean@yah is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmcfarlane View Post
Years ago striped raid was helpful for audio. Today the standard consumer drives are so fast that you can stream many tracks without I/O issues.

Parity raid, or mirrored raid may be helpful from a fault-tolerance perspective (i.e. backups) for audio but I doubt you would need striped raid unless you are running 100 tracks.

I used to run a striped raid system for video when disks were slow. It was a PITA. Every disk you add increases the chance of failure for the array. Parity or mirroring helps but if you are just going for performance, for my audio projects it would be like buying a Ferrari to drive to work in a traffic jam, what's the point, the car can go 300kph but you never take it over 50?

If you are using the raid system for a large studio where multiple workstatons share the array that's a different animal.
Thats correct, I should have just left it alone now that I read this lol.
#10
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #10
Gear nut
 
Joined: May 2008
Location: Venice, California
Posts: 135

Azure is offline
I would agree with the previous post regarding going all internal...

I have no experience with DP, but with Pro Tools HD, when using an external RAID FW800 drive (1TB), I found that with large sessions with lots of tracks and edits (i.e. while manually pocketing drums) I was getting constant buffer errors because the drive / bus couldn't keep up. This got even worse when upgrading to PT8.

At the suggestion of my Pro Tools guy, I moved all my data drives (session data and VI libraries) from external to internal using the internal SATA bus. My Mac Pro has 4 bays, so one drive was a new system drive, one was audio /session files, one for virtual instruments, and one was my old system drive with the start function disabled in case I needed to access old info. This resolved the buffer problems completely. Currently, I only use the external drives for backups.

Regarding the OP's problem with pops and clicks, have you tried resetting your buffer settings to a higher value? In PT if it's set too low (i.e 256 as opposed to 1024 or higher) when playing back it sometimes pops and clicks in the manner you speak of. I used to have this problem with PTLE, but have not experienced it in PTHD.
liqueo
Thread Starter
#11
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #11
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Babylon
Posts: 36

Thread Starter
liqueo is offline
Hi Danny

Thanks for the post.

I would like to reiterate that my primary use for my RAID is for video/VFX work I do. I have massive amounts of files and work up to 2k res sometimes.

Because of this I really need faster file I/O and because my projects are so large, doing an internal RAID is limiting to what can be done when using an external chassis when it comes to the number of drives and the capacity (Mac only accepts 4GB internal max).

I understand the RAID levels you have explained and truthfully I'm getting a different opinion from every user and salesman I speak to, salesman who I am hesitant to trust.

I want to configure my array so that it uses a high quality PCIe controller card for optimum efficiency. I am willing to spend over $2,000 for this because it is imperative to my business. I also need a setup that will allow me to switch over to my windows xp pro x64 install for rendering because Maya is still 32-bit on Mac. My last TV commercial project, my scene files had over 200,000,000 polygons and used 30GB of RAM to render a single frame

Since I'm getting back into audio/music as well because my clients prefer to have one place do the project from start to finish, I would like to know if I can get something that will benefit both sides of the equation. I would not be opposed to getting a solid state internal drive for sample libraries, or even consider a solid state array even though they are pricey, as long as I'm going to get the best performance I can.

Sorry for the chapter, and thanks for yours
#12
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,757

jcschild is offline
oh boy....

1) Cubendo does NOT have mutithread issues any more. long done with.

2) Raid 1 is a very bad idea
raid 5 is the only right way to do it and on an expensive controller.
a mac does not have enough room for a proper internal raid 5. need a sonett array.

raid 1 on an internal controller is a foolish poor mans idea of back up.
better to back up to an ext drive. (also protects from power surges/brownouts that can fry everything internally...)

3) there is something seriously wrong with your system or set up.
a single sata drive wil do at least 40 tracks 96k record playback.


Scott
ADK
liqueo
Thread Starter
#13
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #13
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Babylon
Posts: 36

Thread Starter
liqueo is offline
I think I should mention because there seems to be confusion.

I'm not talking about firewire 800 drives like g-tech that use RAID, I'm talking about things like Sonnet and Proavio drive chassis with 8-16bays that provide hardware RAID through a high-end PCIe controller card.

Thanks

D
liqueo
Thread Starter
#14
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #14
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Babylon
Posts: 36

Thread Starter
liqueo is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcschild View Post
raid 1 on an internal controller is a foolish poor mans idea of back up.
better to back up to an ext drive. (also protects from power surges/brownouts that can fry everything internally...)

3) there is something seriously wrong with your system or set up.
a single sata drive wil do at least 40 tracks 96k record playback.


Scott
ADK
I have heard this over and over again about avoiding internal and/or software raid.

Any idea what could cause this? (the 96k issue I have) The only weak link I can think of would be my firewire interface. Maybe that or a bad RAM chip?
#15
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,757

jcschild is offline
what is your interface? even the worst interface should be able to do low latency with 12 96k tracks...

bad ram would rear its ugly head with other things as well.

FYI the Sonnet arrays are wicked fast 570Meg/s sustained... killer for video pointless for most audio applications.


and yeah the firewire raids are a joke... your internal drive is faster

Scott
ADK
#16
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 570

dannycurtean@yah is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by liqueo View Post
Hi Danny

Thanks for the post.

I would like to reiterate that my primary use for my RAID is for video/VFX work I do. I have massive amounts of files and work up to 2k res sometimes.

Because of this I really need faster file I/O and because my projects are so large, doing an internal RAID is limiting to what can be done when using an external chassis when it comes to the number of drives and the capacity (Mac only accepts 4GB internal max).

I understand the RAID levels you have explained and truthfully I'm getting a different opinion from every user and salesman I speak to, salesman who I am hesitant to trust.

I want to configure my array so that it uses a high quality PCIe controller card for optimum efficiency. I am willing to spend over $2,000 for this because it is imperative to my business. I also need a setup that will allow me to switch over to my windows xp pro x64 install for rendering because Maya is still 32-bit on Mac. My last TV commercial project, my scene files had over 200,000,000 polygons and used 30GB of RAM to render a single frame

Since I'm getting back into audio/music as well because my clients prefer to have one place do the project from start to finish, I would like to know if I can get something that will benefit both sides of the equation. I would not be opposed to getting a solid state internal drive for sample libraries, or even consider a solid state array even though they are pricey, as long as I'm going to get the best performance I can.

Sorry for the chapter, and thanks for yours
Im sorry, I didnt pick up on the video part I guess. For video its absolutely imperative that you get fast harddrives and in this case, an external multi SAS drive setup connected through fibrechannel is imperative. I never said that RAID 0 does not help audio work, im just saying the cost is high and the benefits are low. Again, for your video work, and considering the specs you gave me (30 gb??????!?!? of ram!!!) then the limiting factor is definately the HDD streaming. So like I said, get several SAS drives in an external chassis and get yourself a very low latency controller for them (Areca are great) and you will be fine. I wouldnt go all out unless you have a compute cluster with multiple processors and insane RAM sizes for processing the data as fast as it comes in, but for video you cannot afford to have skipped frames and slow rendering so a little over the top is not too bad. Considering your price point, you might want to increase that a bit.......
liqueo
Thread Starter
#17
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #17
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Babylon
Posts: 36

Thread Starter
liqueo is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcschild View Post
what is your interface? even the worst interface should be able to do low latency with 12 96k tracks...

bad ram would rear its ugly head with other things as well.

FYI the Sonnet arrays are wicked fast 570Meg/s sustained... killer for video pointless for most audio applications.


and yeah the firewire raids are a joke... your internal drive is faster

Scott
ADK
I have a motu traveler piece of crap which I'm planning on replacing with a lavry blue and an RME PCIe card or a Lynx.

Yeah Sonnet has high rates, as does proavio, 550-650MB/sec of I/O.
#18
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,757

jcschild is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by liqueo View Post
I have a motu traveler piece of crap which I'm planning on replacing with a lavry blue and an RME PCIe card or a Lynx.

Yeah Sonnet has high rates, as does proavio, 550-650MB/sec of I/O.
nothing wrong with that Motu.
will the rme/Lynx/lavry be better yes but its not your problem... unless its bad...
are u in the US?

Scott
ADK
liqueo
Thread Starter
#19
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #19
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Babylon
Posts: 36

Thread Starter
liqueo is offline
Hi Danny

I was looking at SAS drives but considering they are like $1,000 each for a 15.6k cheetah, I was leaning toward a larger array of SATA, although with more disks there is a higher chance that one will go bad.

I checked out some benchmarks at barefeats.com and they show that samsungs were outperforming the SAS cheetah in some areas and that SAS was better for smaller reads and writes, still fast as hell, especially when 4 are chained together.

I will check out that controller you mentioned. Never heard of that brand before.

Thanks
liqueo
Thread Starter
#20
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #20
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Babylon
Posts: 36

Thread Starter
liqueo is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcschild View Post
nothing wrong with that Motu.
will the rme/Lynx/lavry be better yes but its not your problem... unless its bad...
are u in the US?

Scott
ADK
Yeah I live in NY, southern westchester about 5 minutes from Bronx, 25 minutes from Manhattan.
#21
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #21
Lives for gear
 
meymia's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,155

meymia is offline
In my opinion go for satat i heard that if something goes wrong with one of the hd's in raid both of the hd's take the fall...


i personally use raptor...it rocks.
__________________
My music:

https://soundcloud.com/rory-oz

#22
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #22
Gear maniac
 
docbop's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 182

docbop is offline
My past and still big part of my job is IT for A/V and RAID is a big topic. You have to consider whether its for mainly reading files or writing files, hardware vs software RAID, the type of drives, spindle speeds, interface, level of maintenance and so on. Where I work the video team uses RAID 1 SATA system as safety net in case of drive loss during live capture. Audio doesn't like RAID, but saves to tape and hard drive so they have their level of safety.

RAID can bite you in the ass if you think its plug and play you need to monitor it especially with RAID 5. RAID 0 is Zero protection. RAID 1 mirrors, no parity calculation for striping so no issues with with writing. RAID 5 mainly for read intensive data because parity overhead. Then issues with computer busses and number of devices on the bus to avoid bus contention. Lots a factors in designing a good storage solution. So if the money to do it a computer with a RAID 1 for the OS drive, RAID 1 for audio drive, RAID 5 for libraries that are mainly read. All on a good RAID card that has its own processor and cache so computer doesn't even know it storage is on a RAID system.

I would say if doing serious production work you need a safety net, because all hardware fails at some point. Hard drives are basically a motor and motors wear out. So need either RAID or to write to multiple devices if you have the I/O to support it.

Last thing to think about RAID and backup are not the same thing. RAID is short term protection and backup is long term protection. With RAID if you erase or damage a file it gone. Backup is for protection from erasing or damaged files.
__________________
Steve B.
The Dojo of Cool
----------------------------------------
All that we are is the result of
what we have thought. - Buddha
liqueo
Thread Starter
#23
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #23
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Babylon
Posts: 36

Thread Starter
liqueo is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by docbop View Post
My past and still big part of my job is IT for A/V and RAID is a big topic. You have to consider whether its for mainly reading file or writing files, hardware vs software RAID, the type of drives, spindle speeds, interface, level of maintenance and so on. Where I work no the video team uses RAID 1 on SATA system as safety net in case of drive loss during live capture. Audio doesn't use RAID, but saves to DAT and hard drive so they have their level of safety.

Also RAID can bite you in the ass if you think its plug and play you need to monitor it especially with RAID 5. RAID 0 is Zero protection. RAID 1 mirrors no parity calculation for striping so no issues with with writing. RAID 5 mainly for data that is read intensive because parity overhead. Then issues with computer busses and number of devices on the bus to avoid bus contention. Lots a factors in designing a good storage solution.

I would say if doing serious production work you need a safety net, because all hardware fails at some point. Hard drives are basically a motor and motors wear out. So need either RAID or to write to multiple devices if you have the I/O to support it.

Last thing to think about RAID and backup are not the same thing. RAID is short term protection and backup is long term protection. With RAID if you erase or damage a file it gone. Backup is for protection from erasing or damaged files.
Hi Doc

I would like to setup a backup but for now I backup to friewire 800 drives and shut them off in between to try and keep them in good health. So based on all this feedback, besides fast SATA/SAS drives, RAID isn't good for audio I take it?
#24
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #24
Lives for gear
 
mmcfarlane's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Middle East
Posts: 521

mmcfarlane is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcschild View Post
1) Cubendo does NOT have mutithread issues any more. long done with.

Well, there's my personal evidence: Cubase starts to pop and click long before my Intel Mac Tower's cores are maxed out.

Then there is Steinberg's Jan 15, 2009 admittance of the problem:
What is the status of Octocore support in Steinberg products?
The upcoming generation of Cubase 5 and Nuendo 5 will offer improved support for these processors. Cubase 5 will see an update later this year that will further improve support for 8 core CPUs, while Nuendo 5 will contain those improvements on its release. We will keep you informed of developments through our website and the Cubase and Nuendo forums.
Why do you think the problem was fixed?

Edit: Is the problem with plug-ins and not Cubase?
#25
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,757

jcschild is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by liqueo View Post
Yeah I live in NY, southern westchester about 5 minutes from Bronx, 25 minutes from Manhattan.
we have paid for support... (free had you bought from us) and free recommendations on what would be best...
might be a 10 minute fix
#26
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #26
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,757

jcschild is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmcfarlane View Post
Well, there's my personal evidence: Cubase starts to pop and click long before my Intel Mac Tower's cores are maxed out.

Then there is Steinberg's Jan 15, 2009 admittance of the problem:
What is the status of Octocore support in Steinberg products?
The upcoming generation of Cubase 5 and Nuendo 5 will offer improved support for these processors. Cubase 5 will see an update later this year that will further improve support for 8 core CPUs, while Nuendo 5 will contain those improvements on its release. We will keep you informed of developments through our website and the Cubase and Nuendo forums.
Why do you think the problem was fixed?

Edit: Is the problem with plug-ins and not Cubase?
Steiny is is even saying to turn of HT on the new core i7 which works flawlessly...
ok.....

the largest ever thread on Nuendo addressed this.
here it is in a nut shell
Cubendo Multiprocessor X-Scaling : Summary At The End Of Seq 4 : - Unofficial Cubase and Nuendo User Forums

lastly as a system builder who is very steinberg oriented i speak from fact.

Scott
ADK
#27
1st April 2009
Old 1st April 2009
  #27
Lives for gear
 
kafka's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,405

kafka is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
I would agree with the previous post regarding going all internal...

I have no experience with DP, but with Pro Tools HD, when using an external RAID FW800 drive (1TB), I found that with large sessions with lots of tracks and edits (i.e. while manually pocketing drums) I was getting constant buffer errors because the drive / bus couldn't keep up. This got even worse when upgrading to PT8.

At the suggestion of my Pro Tools guy, I moved all my data drives (session data and VI libraries) from external to internal using the internal SATA bus. My Mac Pro has 4 bays, so one drive was a new system drive, one was audio /session files, one for virtual instruments, and one was my old system drive with the start function disabled in case I needed to access old info. This resolved the buffer problems completely. Currently, I only use the external drives for backups.

Regarding the OP's problem with pops and clicks, have you tried resetting your buffer settings to a higher value? In PT if it's set too low (i.e 256 as opposed to 1024 or higher) when playing back it sometimes pops and clicks in the manner you speak of. I used to have this problem with PTLE, but have not experienced it in PTHD.
I've got a Dell 690, which has an internal SAS and an internal SATA controller. Kind of strange, but that's how it works. I've been fighting a handful of issues recently, and I believe at least some of the performance issues were solved when I moved my Projects and Samples drives off the SAS controller and onto the SATA controller. SAS is supposed to be backwards compatible with SATA. I haven't seen any error or log messages that indicate that it might not be. However, performance of the SATA drives seems to be sigificantly better on the SATA bus.

A far as ProTools goes, I haven't seen a recommendation from Digi either way on which bus to use. Other users haven't reported any significant difference. It may be one of those differences that are specific to a particular drive or combination of drives.

Also, I do believe that Digi is pretty clear that no version of RAID is supported at any time.
__________________
- It looks just like a Telefunken U47 - with leather. You'll love it ...
- Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny.
- It doesn't make much difference how the paint is put on as long as something has been said. Technique is just a means of arriving at a statement.
liqueo
Thread Starter
#28
2nd April 2009
Old 2nd April 2009
  #28
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Babylon
Posts: 36

Thread Starter
liqueo is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
I would agree with the previous post regarding going all internal...

I have no experience with DP, but with Pro Tools HD, when using an external RAID FW800 drive (1TB), I found that with large sessions with lots of tracks and edits (i.e. while manually pocketing drums) I was getting constant buffer errors because the drive / bus couldn't keep up. This got even worse when upgrading to PT8.

At the suggestion of my Pro Tools guy, I moved all my data drives (session data and VI libraries) from external to internal using the internal SATA bus. My Mac Pro has 4 bays, so one drive was a new system drive, one was audio /session files, one for virtual instruments, and one was my old system drive with the start function disabled in case I needed to access old info. This resolved the buffer problems completely. Currently, I only use the external drives for backups.

Regarding the OP's problem with pops and clicks, have you tried resetting your buffer settings to a higher value? In PT if it's set too low (i.e 256 as opposed to 1024 or higher) when playing back it sometimes pops and clicks in the manner you speak of. I used to have this problem with PTLE, but have not experienced it in PTHD.
Hi Azure

I overlooked this post yesterday.

This is the same way I have min configured now (short of a fourth drive which I will be ordering soon). SATA 1 is boot disk and for apps, SATA 2 is for project files, SATA 3 is for VI libraries, samples, video footage etc. I find this works good for most things, short of streaming huge video files or large res image sequences.

As for the buffer, yes. I have tried putting the buffer for the traveler to 1024 but it didn't help. It will not use 2048 or 4096. Also, the odd way DP has their audio settings now maybe it is one of those causing crap. Right now I have prime seconds at 2.5, Work Quanta at 100 and max work percent at 90, automatic plug-in latency compensation is ON and prefill buffers is OFF.

I have also since shut off all that pre-rendering crap that DP was doing. So far my VIs are performing better so I'm wondering if this was the cause all along, although I don't remember seeing pre-rendering features in DP5, maybe they were there and this is where the problem lies.

Edit -----

Well with pre-rendering off I just tested one of my tarcks where I have 5 mono and 6 stereo tracks at 24-bit 96Khz and there is no noise or popping

Hopefully the pre-rendering garbage they added in DP6 is the only thing that has caused this.
liqueo
Thread Starter
#29
2nd April 2009
Old 2nd April 2009
  #29
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Babylon
Posts: 36

Thread Starter
liqueo is offline
I just did a test playing back that above mentioned track.

In Mac's activity monitor, DP is only using 1/2 of one core (52-54%, 10 plug-ins in mixer), and only using 2.93-3.98MB/sec of File Read. Thought it would have been more.
#30
3rd April 2009
Old 3rd April 2009
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 517

ekwipt is offline
I gree with jschild, software raid is pointless, you can get some good results with 4 or more disks hardware raided with a good controller, Areca is one of the best in the field for sata if you want sas then Atoo is pretty mich idustry standard. I think it;s pointless with audio, but i don't have high track counts, maybe a film composer needs it or someone running everything as samples with sampled instruments etc.

Caldigit make some good solutions otb of also heard of mixed reports from video guys:

CalDigit - Fast, Reliable, and Secure Storage Solutions

Areca make some awesome sata sas raid cards

Areca Technology Corporation

Same with Atto and they make the great fibre channel cards

Host Adapters- SCSI, Fibre Channel, SATA, SAS | ATTO Technology

Promise is the final cut standard and run the xsan2 software

Promise VTrak E-Class RAID subsystem

Proavio make a box, oh i want so bad

PROAVIO™ | editBOX™ 8 MS - A New Breed of Storage for the HD Studio

Dulce looks the biz as well highly recommended for video thus for audio

PRO DQ
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
diapause / Music Computers
9
laughingbear / Music Computers
0

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.