Any Core I7 users yet?

[Randall Leong]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Randall, if you read my previous posts it was pointed out repeatedly that the Blacks are not suitable for RAID. Otherwise the Samsungs are a better choice. They are fast and reliable. The Hitachi's are famously unreliable AND slow. I have never understood Videoguys recommendations for hard drives. They also recommend larger drives for OSs which I never understood. The only drive I've ever had actually die on me was a Hitachi.

Fair enough for the first three sentences. However, I never understood the recommendation for small-capacity mechanical hard drives, for that matter: First off, these small mechanical hard drives are almost always of older designs to begin with, with relatively slow physical transfer speeds by current standards. Second, for any given amount of programs and files installed, the smaller hard drive will be at a much higher percentage of full. And any mechanical hard drive will start dropping severely in transfer speed at about 60 percent full. And that's not to mention that the fuller a mechanical hard drive is loaded with programs and data, the access speed will start slowing down as well.

Of course, if that smaller drive is an SSD, the above paragraph is not applicable.

In light of the first paragraph, a 40GB mechanical hard drive is too small nowadays for a video editing rig - and even a 74 to 80 GB hard drive is marginal. Hence, if you must use a mechanical hard drive as an OS drive, the higher percentage of free (available) space remaining after the OS and programs are installed, the better. (This means that if you do use a relatively smallish capacity mechanical hard drive for the OS and programs, don't load that drive with games and other miscellaneous junk.)

[Gary Bettan]

We've just updated our NLE systems recommendations page. I think those on this thread will find it useful.

Videoguys Blog - Videoguys' System Recommendations for Video Editing (Oct 2010 Update)

Gary

[Bryan Daugherty]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

...The Hitachi's are famously unreliable AND slow. I have never understood Videoguys recommendations for hard drives. They also recommend larger drives for OSs which I never understood. The only drive I've ever had actually die on me was a Hitachi...

Jeff, I have had quite the opposite experience. The only drives I have never had fail are the Hitachi Deckstars. I have had many WD and Seagate drives terminate on me. For 7200rpm drives I buy the Hitachi Deckstars with 32 MB buffer or nothing at all in the 1TB or 2 TB variety.

As to the O/S drive issue, I recently built a system with a 320GB system drive and ended up at +90% full on this drive. Of course I have a lot of Apps on my system drive because I use my workstation as a workstation and not just for editing. Fortunately, I had to replace the motherboard not too long ago and I took advantage of that moment to re-purpose an older Deskstar 750GB drive as the O/S drive. (Currently it has 478GB free.) Between applications, plug-ins, O/S files and the few things that end up in my libraries, I fully agree with VG recommendations for a larger system drive.

[Jeff Harper]

Well, our experiences are different, for sure. However, I am now totally against the WD Caviar Blacks which I have touted for so long. I based my recommendation for those drives on my early models which were very nice. Unfortunately a system I built with 5 new ones has some very mysterious freezing issues which are drive related, as best as I can determine.

On the other hand, I ran SCSI Raid back in the 90s, and used Seagate Cheetahs exclusively, those were some awesome drives. As far as space, I install After Effects, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Photoshop, Premier, Vegas, the MS Office suite with virtually everything they have, and never gone over maybe 60 GB. My 150 GB drives are certainly large enough for me! You are certainly running some huge programs!

[Bryan Daugherty]

Sorry to hear about your issues with the WD Cavier Blacks. I have had several bad experiences with WD drives both on internal and external drives and avoid them because of it. I run Vegas Pro 8, and 9, Premiere, Photoshop Extended, Dream Weaver, Acrobat Pro, In Design, Flash, Illustrator, Fireworks, (and all the shared components for CS4), many New Blue Plug-ins, Plural Eyes, Norton Suite, Cisco VPN, DVDA, Cinescore, Cyberlink Blu-ray suite, MS Office 2007 Full edition, and several apps from Epson for 2 different printers along with several other misc items. After looking a little closer, it appears that my User folder is the largest space hog (accounting for about 150 GB) which includes things like "my documents," "my music", and "my photos." So there is probably a good bit of that load I could lighten with more careful attention to where I store those items.

All told, I am running around 12.5 TB internal on this system with about 4.75 TB free all spread out over 10 drives. I probably archive too much and since I have 1 hot swap cage (3 drives) and 2 hot swap bays (1 drive each) I probably have a bit too much on-site redundancy and not enough off-site redundancy but that is probably a subject for a different thread...

[Jeff Harper]

I store nothing in my user folder. I personally don't use the "user folder", I have only programs on my drive. I like my OS drive to be lean and fast.

So yes, you "need" more space, but you also operate in a way that I wouldn't, using your OS drive as a storage drive. But the way we each use our equipment is an individual choice. I have habits to keep my drives fast that I've been doing since pre windows 98 (don't remember what was before then) and I'm just funny that way.

My storage folders are large also. I just would never consider keeping them on the OS drive. That's why I don't understand a video editor needing a TB drive for their OS, it doesn't make sense if 90% is going to be empty. Even my temp DVDA folders are on another drive. I assumed everyone else operates the way I do. I was wrong.

Now that you've explained the user folder and stuff, I realize many people probably use the Microsoft folder to store stuff. When I help friends with computers I always set them up to store things (photos, etc) on an external drive so that if they lose their OS their important files are safe. I personally store all things in two places, one internal and backed up on one external. Beyond that it's just wasted space. I still have things I've been carrying around since 1995.

I can lose my OS drive at anytime and I'll lose nothing except possibly bookmarks on my browser. and even those I backup from time to time.

[Bryan Daugherty]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

...I personally don't use the "user folder", I have only programs on my drive.

Yes now that windows 7 is here I really should revamp the way I handle these items. The ability to remap the libraries to multiple locations and drives is a very nice feature and keeps them just as accessible as though they were in the documents or pictures folders. Client files I do keep outside the user area these are mostly pictures of family and stuff like that.

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

...My storage folders are large also. I just would never consider keeping them on the OS drive...Even my temp DVDA folders are on another drive...Now that you've explained the user folder and stuff, I realize many people probably use the Microsoft folder to store stuff. When I help friends with computers I always set them up to store things (photos, etc) on an external drive so that if they lose their OS their important files are safe. I personally store all things in two places, one internal and backed up on one external....

I have had terrible experience with external drives (usually have WD or Seagate HDD in them) and so that is why I moved to using internal racks that allow me to swap out assets at whim and take drives off-site for safety very easily. I am considering a NAS for on-site back-up after reading a recent article in EventDV magazine.

[Jeff Harper]

I assemble my own externals...I buy cases like this: Newegg.com - Rosewill RX81-MP-SC- BLK 3.5" SATA to USB & 1394 a/b & eSATA External Enclosure (Black) or this Newegg.com - Rosewill RX81-MP-SC- SLV 3.5" SATA to USB & 1394 a/b & eSATA External Enclosure (Silver) and put what I want in them.

I have to save everything "by hand" so to speak by not using windows folders, but I've been doing it so long I'm used to it. I save everything twice (in two locations.)

I personally do not use automated backup, virus protection, or anything that can interfere with my workstation.

By the way those cases above are a bit "industrial", but they have so many connections and run so cool I don't care. Very functional.

My externals are as fast as my internals cause they are all esata. I also have the option if needed to run external raid with my particular card, so I lose nothing by using externals. I've looked into the storage things for multiple drives, etc., NAS etc but it is so complicated, and opens up a whole other host of potential issues. With 2tb drives that will run in those cases I can't see the need for an expensive NAS solution and the added software, but that is just me. My PC case has built in estata and I have an extra external esata card, so I can run like 8 external esata drives. I only run 4 externals now, but it is all I need.

I have to admit that I've always wanted to try a nice big NAS type case, it does sound cool. But every time I've looked into it I just gave up, seemed too much for me in several ways. If you do that Bryan, let us know how it works out, I'd be interested.

[Larry Reavis]

"With 2tb drives that will run in those cases . . ."

Really? Their description says "up to 1.5 TB"

[Jeff Harper]

OK, with 1.5 TB drives I still don't see the need for expensive and cumbersome network backup solutions. I do run a 2tb drive in a case that only supports 1tb and it works fine, but it is not the above case, it is an Accomodata. A rather cheap case that has proven to be pretty darn effective.