Raptor Drives at DVinfo.net

Alastair Brown · September 22nd, 2007, 01:41 PM

I currently have 2 SATA 500Gb 7200 drives setup in a Raid config.

I now realise that having these purely for storage and a seperate drive for sys was the way I SHOULD have gone.

My question is would 2 10,000rpm Raptor drives in a Raid config give me much of an oncrease or......would one on it's own be fine or......are Raptors of much benefit at all in the Vegas realm and would normal 7200's be fine?

Thanks in advance

Bill Watson · September 22nd, 2007, 02:40 PM

I've got two Raptor 10,000 rpm in Raid array for my operating system and she runs smooth as you please.

They're only 70gig each but I was advised not to aim to high in capacity.

The smaller hard drives, I believe, are quicker and as you're only using them for operating system, more than adequate.

I had the system built specifically for video editing about a year or so ago and it's been as smooth as silk from day one. I have two 250gig (forget what they were) in Raid for my storage.

Can't say that I could have got away with less but I can say that I seem to have avoided all those crashing, freezing and/or extended rendering problems that were reported by forum members.

I've since loaded up a few more programs on the system to do some publishing work and it's still going strong.

What I have avoided with this system, however, is connecting to the internet.

I have a laptop for that and feel that by isolating my editing system from the net I've avoided loading it up with two ton of crap plug ins.

Chris Soucy · September 22nd, 2007, 03:17 PM

To answer your specific question - yes, 7200 rpm drives for system services is fine. I run two 250 Gig WD 7200 rpm Sata 300 in Raid 1 (mirrored) for the OS and it runs sweets as a nut.

Compared to the cost of two Raptors, unless you really have money to burn and/ or absolutely need the scorching speed at start up, 10k drives really aren't warranted (IMHO).

The reason for the Raid 1? The thought of having to re - build this beast from scratch in the event of a system drive failure is just too horrible to contemplate. This thing is used for video editing, still picture ditto, the company accounts, WP, Mail, Web Services and heaps more. Hence the 250 Gig drives.

The data drives are two Hitachi 500 Gig, 16 mb cache, 7200 rpm Sata 300 drives in Raid 0 (striped).

It's a nice setup and runs real quick.

CS

Jim Andrada · September 22nd, 2007, 09:36 PM

I was running a RAID configuration and thought I was in pretty good shape until I had a failure that took out the RAID controller and it was all downhill from there.

Morale - You are never safe!

RAID is not foolproof. It reduces your exposure to various kinds of disk failures, but doesn't eliminate them.

High end ystems use multiple controllers that can be hot swapped out when one fails, but normal PC's don't have this feature.

High-end systems are also using more RAID 6 these days because the time required to rebuild large drives after a failure is so long that there is significant exposure to a second failure before the RAID array is fully back in operation.

Chris Soucy · September 23rd, 2007, 12:36 AM

I wasn't putting the Raid 1 system forward as a total panacea for all PC ills, merely as a "better" solution than no backup at all, given that at current prices a 250 gig (or less) drive is not exactly going to break the bank. Making odds as to which is going to fail first on my system, I'll go for anything mechanical, leagues ahead of anything silicon. Doesn't mean I couldn't lose my MOBO tomorrow at startup, but hey, am I going to have two MOBO's in the box just in case? Nope.

When I get to the point of using a "high end system" (costing many hundreds of thousands of smacko's) I'll seriously consider hireing someone else to worry about what system security is in place, and who's ass is on the line if it isn't good enough.

Alastairs specific question was for a stand alone editing system of modest specifications and cost, and the virtues or otherwise of 7200 rpm drives as opposed to 10k drives for OS storage.

My comment concerning Raid was specific to my appreciation of the relative risks in running a system of the size and nature of mine, where losing the build info would be, to put it mildly, a pain in the proverbial.

If Alastair is going to go to the trouble of upgradeing his system to instal new system drive(s), would you not agree that putting in a Raid 1 system is better than a single drive (assuming he has the budget)?

CS

Joe Busch · September 23rd, 2007, 12:51 AM

I leave all my important files on seperate drives, and run the operating system and programs on 2 36.7 gig raptors in Raid0

Capturing footage to the Raid-0 then transfer to the 2 500 gigs or 2 250 gigs...

I plan to go Raid-1 with all my drives at some point once I have more money... ;) but as of right now... hah... I can barely afford dv tapes :(

Jim Andrada · September 23rd, 2007, 01:15 AM

I'd absolutely agree that RAID drives are the best way to go. Just trying to point out that there are still gremlins lurking about that can bite one in the backside, I really think a lot of people believe that RAID will save their tails and hence fail to back up their data adequately.

In the last year alone I've had the RAID controller in my PC fail, the RAID controller in the NAS box fail, and a couple of more PC failures of various flavors. The tech support folks for the NAS box told me that far less than 10% of their customers take adequate backups.

Chris Soucy · September 23rd, 2007, 01:31 AM

Either you're the unluckiest *** on the planet, you're running a Studio server farm OR there's sommat else seriously wrong with your setup to be getting so many failures.

Glad I'm not in your boots!

CS

Jim Andrada · September 23rd, 2007, 01:41 AM

I think it's #1!

Either that or I'm as stupid as my wife says I am!

Never had any of these kinds of electrical problems before moving to Tucson, but with the incredible amount of lightning we get here, and the dry air (lots of static electricity) anything seems to be possible. I'm almost afraid to plug in the camera:-)

Chris Soucy · September 23rd, 2007, 03:01 AM

#3 may well be worth a try..........., I hadn't noticed your local, hem, yep, reckon there's more to this than meets the eye. How about you start a seperate thread, think I can give you heaps of advice on dealing with errant electric supplies and dry conditions (just don't want to hijack Alastairs thread).

Alastair, anything else you want to know, just holler!

CS

September 23rd, 2007, 12:36 AM	#5
Chris Soucy Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Fairfield, Dunedin, New Zealand Posts: 3,688 Images: 18	Hi Jim....... I wasn't putting the Raid 1 system forward as a total panacea for all PC ills, merely as a "better" solution than no backup at all, given that at current prices a 250 gig (or less) drive is not exactly going to break the bank. Making odds as to which is going to fail first on my system, I'll go for anything mechanical, leagues ahead of anything silicon. Doesn't mean I couldn't lose my MOBO tomorrow at startup, but hey, am I going to have two MOBO's in the box just in case? Nope. When I get to the point of using a "high end system" (costing many hundreds of thousands of smacko's) I'll seriously consider hireing someone else to worry about what system security is in place, and who's ass is on the line if it isn't good enough. Alastairs specific question was for a stand alone editing system of modest specifications and cost, and the virtues or otherwise of 7200 rpm drives as opposed to 10k drives for OS storage. My comment concerning Raid was specific to my appreciation of the relative risks in running a system of the size and nature of mine, where losing the build info would be, to put it mildly, a pain in the proverbial. If Alastair is going to go to the trouble of upgradeing his system to instal new system drive(s), would you not agree that putting in a Raid 1 system is better than a single drive (assuming he has the budget)? CS

September 23rd, 2007, 01:31 AM	#8
Chris Soucy Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Fairfield, Dunedin, New Zealand Posts: 3,688 Images: 18	Geez Jim........... Either you're the unluckiest *** on the planet, you're running a Studio server farm OR there's sommat else seriously wrong with your setup to be getting so many failures. Glad I'm not in your boots! CS

September 23rd, 2007, 03:01 AM	#10
Chris Soucy Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Fairfield, Dunedin, New Zealand Posts: 3,688 Images: 18	Well, actually......... #3 may well be worth a try..........., I hadn't noticed your local, hem, yep, reckon there's more to this than meets the eye. How about you start a seperate thread, think I can give you heaps of advice on dealing with errant electric supplies and dry conditions (just don't want to hijack Alastairs thread). Alastair, anything else you want to know, just holler! CS

September 22nd, 2007, 01:41 PM	#1
Alastair Brown Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Glasgow/Scotland Posts: 626	Raptor Drives I currently have 2 SATA 500Gb 7200 drives setup in a Raid config. I now realise that having these purely for storage and a seperate drive for sys was the way I SHOULD have gone. My question is would 2 10,000rpm Raptor drives in a Raid config give me much of an oncrease or......would one on it's own be fine or......are Raptors of much benefit at all in the Vegas realm and would normal 7200's be fine? Thanks in advance

September 22nd, 2007, 02:40 PM	#2
Bill Watson Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Noosa Queensland Australia Posts: 248	I've got two Raptor 10,000 rpm in Raid array for my operating system and she runs smooth as you please. They're only 70gig each but I was advised not to aim to high in capacity. The smaller hard drives, I believe, are quicker and as you're only using them for operating system, more than adequate. I had the system built specifically for video editing about a year or so ago and it's been as smooth as silk from day one. I have two 250gig (forget what they were) in Raid for my storage. Can't say that I could have got away with less but I can say that I seem to have avoided all those crashing, freezing and/or extended rendering problems that were reported by forum members. I've since loaded up a few more programs on the system to do some publishing work and it's still going strong. What I have avoided with this system, however, is connecting to the internet. I have a laptop for that and feel that by isolating my editing system from the net I've avoided loading it up with two ton of crap plug ins.

September 22nd, 2007, 03:17 PM	#3
Chris Soucy Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Fairfield, Dunedin, New Zealand Posts: 3,688 Images: 18	Hi Alistair............ To answer your specific question - yes, 7200 rpm drives for system services is fine. I run two 250 Gig WD 7200 rpm Sata 300 in Raid 1 (mirrored) for the OS and it runs sweets as a nut. Compared to the cost of two Raptors, unless you really have money to burn and/ or absolutely need the scorching speed at start up, 10k drives really aren't warranted (IMHO). The reason for the Raid 1? The thought of having to re - build this beast from scratch in the event of a system drive failure is just too horrible to contemplate. This thing is used for video editing, still picture ditto, the company accounts, WP, Mail, Web Services and heaps more. Hence the 250 Gig drives. The data drives are two Hitachi 500 Gig, 16 mb cache, 7200 rpm Sata 300 drives in Raid 0 (striped). It's a nice setup and runs real quick. CS

September 22nd, 2007, 09:36 PM	#4
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	I was running a RAID configuration and thought I was in pretty good shape until I had a failure that took out the RAID controller and it was all downhill from there. Morale - You are never safe! RAID is not foolproof. It reduces your exposure to various kinds of disk failures, but doesn't eliminate them. High end ystems use multiple controllers that can be hot swapped out when one fails, but normal PC's don't have this feature. High-end systems are also using more RAID 6 these days because the time required to rebuild large drives after a failure is so long that there is significant exposure to a second failure before the RAID array is fully back in operation.

September 23rd, 2007, 12:51 AM	#6
Joe Busch Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sammamish, WA Posts: 398	I leave all my important files on seperate drives, and run the operating system and programs on 2 36.7 gig raptors in Raid0 Capturing footage to the Raid-0 then transfer to the 2 500 gigs or 2 250 gigs... I plan to go Raid-1 with all my drives at some point once I have more money... ;) but as of right now... hah... I can barely afford dv tapes :(

September 23rd, 2007, 01:15 AM	#7
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	I'd absolutely agree that RAID drives are the best way to go. Just trying to point out that there are still gremlins lurking about that can bite one in the backside, I really think a lot of people believe that RAID will save their tails and hence fail to back up their data adequately. In the last year alone I've had the RAID controller in my PC fail, the RAID controller in the NAS box fail, and a couple of more PC failures of various flavors. The tech support folks for the NAS box told me that far less than 10% of their customers take adequate backups.

September 23rd, 2007, 01:41 AM	#9
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	I think it's #1! Either that or I'm as stupid as my wife says I am! Never had any of these kinds of electrical problems before moving to Tucson, but with the incredible amount of lightning we get here, and the dry air (lots of static electricity) anything seems to be possible. I'm almost afraid to plug in the camera:-)