The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Opinions are like hard drives: Everybody has one, but how many do YOU use to record?
Old 1st April 2016
  #31
I think that these are due to logical reasons and not necessarily performance reasons unless you have disc drives. The throughput of data in today's systems is not the bottleneck for digital audio recording via SSD. It's the CPU by far. But disc drives below 7200 are an issue. If you've 10,000rpm you can do all 3 on one, BUT then comes the "logic" part.

It makes sense to separate as stated in the above posts for backups and handling. You can swap clients data in/out and not bother the static system's OS drives. And keeping the plugins separate from the system makes it MEGA easier to locate and backup's quicker because you are going to backup your client drive more often than your OS drive, and your OS drive much more often than your plugin drive, so that eliminates backup times. It's also why you wouldn't use a RAID I should think.

If that's wrong, I'd love to hear how a RAID fits in to this configuration. Not trying to have all the answers by far.
Old 1st April 2016
  #32
Lives for gear
 
jp22's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by db9091 View Post
Yes, and the culprit was Seagate hard drives. They used to be good in the mid 2000's but by 2010 were the worst in the industry.

Backblaze, a passive iCloud backup service, puts out an annual report on hard drive failures that they use and Seagate tops the list by a landslide.

So I've switched to other more reliable drives.
Yep, been there. Seagate drives are basically the same as Maxtor, which all eventually fail like a transmission in a Ford car. I think that's why those two corporations merged and then Seagate eventually acquired Maxtor.
Old 1st April 2016
  #33
They should be called "FailGate"

I got a 2011 iMac used recently and read it had a 1TB Seagate drive. Yeah, they are INFAMOUS for failing. Like 30% rate. And the refurbished ones you PAY to get (if you want it in less than a few weeks) fails at a much much higher rate. Been through this almost a dozen times.

Well, I had the iMac less than 6 months when it began to fail. I kept backups knowing it was Seagate so I didn't lose anything.

I've had there 3TB drives and 2 failed. I didn't even use the warranty. Just got a WD 3TB to replace one of them. (I only have about 1.5TB but I wanted expansion space so I didn't have to buy drives every year or two) So for me, Seagate has like a 60% failure rate.
Old 1st April 2016
  #34
Lives for gear
 
jp22's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by db9091 View Post
They should be called "FailGate"

I got a 2011 iMac used recently and read it had a 1TB Seagate drive. Yeah, they are INFAMOUS for failing. Like 30% rate. And the refurbished ones you PAY to get (if you want it in less than a few weeks) fails at a much much higher rate. Been through this almost a dozen times.

Well, I had the iMac less than 6 months when it began to fail. I kept backups knowing it was Seagate so I didn't lose anything.

I've had there 3TB drives and 2 failed. I didn't even use the warranty. Just got a WD 3TB to replace one of them. (I only have about 1.5TB but I wanted expansion space so I didn't have to buy drives every year or two) So for me, Seagate has like a 60% failure rate.
Sounds about right.

On a somewhat different note, it reminds me of how Monsanto wants to now acquire Bayer because they're both a couple of eugenics-based companies who everyone hates for their constant failure to deliver without offending the consumer. Point being, it seems this type of fail/merge thing is becoming almost like a trend in the modern day.

But is it really their fault.. Probably not. It's basically just a flawed design to being with. Either that or there's prior knowledge of future failure. Can you say "10 year warranty". How about "life time warranty". Lack of customer support is usually the first dead give away. When they start to ignore their customers, you know something is up.
Old 1st April 2016
  #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jp22 View Post
Sounds about right.

On a somewhat different note, it reminds me of how Monsanto wants to now acquire Bayer because they're both a couple of eugenics-based companies who everyone hates for their constant failure to deliver without offending the consumer. Point being, it seems this type of fail/merge thing is becoming almost like a trend in the modern day.

But is it really their fault.. Probably not. It's basically just a flawed design to being with. Either that or there's prior knowledge of future failure. Can you say "10 year warranty". How about "life time warranty". Lack of customer support is usually the first dead give away. When they start to ignore their customers, you know something is up.
Or in the case of Monsanto: Kill your Customers. Seriously. On record as having chosen to go to litigation over wrongful deaths than to prevents them by stopping known illegal leaks of cancer causing chemicals in drinking water. This is OT, but I've often wondered why an individual gets their life destroyed by planning murder, but a corporation can keep it's corporate license? Especially since a corporation serves at the behest of the public and for the public benefit, so trying to kill the public? Seems a no-brainer. Even Ben Franklin talked about the concern, and it came true. At least with Seagate, the "market" can decide their fate since no one is dying (unless Seagate drives are running ICU, lol)
Old 1st April 2016
  #36
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevefreak View Post
mechanical drives are obsolete for recording these days
So are Telefunken V72/76

Started using SCSI drives (in redundant Raid configuration) in 1995. More than 500 less than a 1000 drives latter have had critical failure on 2 that was while in use and with Raid redundancy was far from catastrophic

This past year bought one 10 lot of 146 gb 10k rpm SAS HDDs for $8/hdd, roughly $.04/gb (currently sata 7200rpm HDDs are cheaper per gb but having multiple individual drives that can contain a complete project, whether that project requires 30gb or 150 gb is massively beneficial, for me)

Now when the SAS drives get obsolete enough to start failing will hope I will have migrated to new recording media and storage strategy . . . which is always a dynamic moving target.

that said my primary goal is recording audio not being an expert on marketing claims by gear.

Us SSDs, particularly for anything that requires a lot of near simultaneous 'loop-back', samples in music production, some types of mixing on some projects.

As far as tracking goes once you are 'fast enough' a functional 10% increase in some not-real time on a specific project benchmark is hardly a convincing statistic for more than 10% increase in cost, with unproved decade plus stability.

Not arguing against anyone using SSD HDDs but each commercial enterprise should do rather detailed cost/benefit analysis of what works. What has worked for me is to configure separate systems for 'primarily' tracking from 'primarily' editing/mixing. But my deals with clients have always been that they own the raw audio. Almost from the beginning of digital audio I was willing to provide any client that could effectively use one an HDD with their tracking data. From the late 90s those were provided as part of the cost of the project. (which let me control reliable of HDDs). So in addition to 500+ SCSI HDDs I've used over 20 years I've distributed to clients in excess of 1000 40-320 ATA HDDs. Even while cost of flash mem cards, SSDs have fallen it remains far more cost effective to provide client data via mechanical HDDs. For archiving dual HDDs only became more cost effective than optical single sided DVDs in the last two years.

Over that same two year period the previous decade's reduction in cost in computer gear has slowed, nearly level off.

Which is simply a function of saying that legacy gear with well documented (not marketing driven) mean failure rates remains, very generally speaking, a better investment than being an unpaid beta tester.

but, again, the main reason for entering this dialog is to try to suggest again that the critical factor, once a minimum functionality has been achieved, is never found in marketing claims but in an individual's enterprise work flow and cost/benefit analysis for that work flow. Vintage, cutting edge, established industry standard(s) all entail compromise. Sorting those compromises is individual.
Old 2nd April 2016
  #37
Lives for gear
 
nevefreak's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oretez View Post
So are Telefunken V72/76

Started using SCSI drives (in redundant Raid configuration) in 1995. More than 500 less than a 1000 drives latter have had critical failure on 2 that was while in use and with Raid redundancy was far from catastrophic
I had SCSI in my Amiga back in 87/88, they were better than the RLL and MFM drives that's for sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oretez View Post
This past year bought one 10 lot of 146 gb 10k rpm SAS HDDs for $8/hdd, roughly $.04/gb (currently sata 7200rpm HDDs are cheaper per gb but having multiple individual drives that can contain a complete project, whether that project requires 30gb or 150 gb is massively beneficial, for me)

Now when the SAS drives get obsolete enough to start failing will hope I will have migrated to new recording media and storage strategy . . . which is always a dynamic moving target.

that said my primary goal is recording audio not being an expert on marketing claims by gear.
I have a couple 15k SAS drives. They are 10x slower than newer SSDs though. And they are noisy and they run really hot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oretez View Post
Us SSDs, particularly for anything that requires a lot of near simultaneous 'loop-back', samples in music production, some types of mixing on some projects.

As far as tracking goes once you are 'fast enough' a functional 10% increase in some not-real time on a specific project benchmark is hardly a convincing statistic for more than 10% increase in cost, with unproved decade plus stability.

Not arguing against anyone using SSD HDDs but each commercial enterprise should do rather detailed cost/benefit analysis of what works. What has worked for me is to configure separate systems for 'primarily' tracking from 'primarily' editing/mixing. But my deals with clients have always been that they own the raw audio. Almost from the beginning of digital audio I was willing to provide any client that could effectively use one an HDD with their tracking data. From the late 90s those were provided as part of the cost of the project. (which let me control reliable of HDDs). So in addition to 500+ SCSI HDDs I've used over 20 years I've distributed to clients in excess of 1000 40-320 ATA HDDs. Even while cost of flash mem cards, SSDs have fallen it remains far more cost effective to provide client data via mechanical HDDs. For archiving dual HDDs only became more cost effective than optical single sided DVDs in the last two years.

Over that same two year period the previous decade's reduction in cost in computer gear has slowed, nearly level off.

Which is simply a function of saying that legacy gear with well documented (not marketing driven) mean failure rates remains, very generally speaking, a better investment than being an unpaid beta tester.

but, again, the main reason for entering this dialog is to try to suggest again that the critical factor, once a minimum functionality has been achieved, is never found in marketing claims but in an individual's enterprise work flow and cost/benefit analysis for that work flow. Vintage, cutting edge, established industry standard(s) all entail compromise. Sorting those compromises is individual.
I can't really even debate you since there really is no argument. SSD is so much faster and is much cheaper than SAS when you consider the overhead serial SCSI requires. The controllers are expensive, they eat up way more wattage and they are noisy. And they require a bigger chassis. DAWs are getting away from all that bulky old hardware. It's all about lean and mean now. Sure you don't need SSD, but then again you don't even need to record to a hard drive either.

I have some large projects recorded at 192 that won't even run on my old scsi drives. They can't handle it. SDD has no issue even at very low buffer sizes on my sound card
Top Mentioned Products
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump