Advice needd on hard drive setup for a video editing PC

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by kirkzeusNOSPAM@hotmail.com, May 21, 2004.

  1. Guest

    Hi all

    I am in the process of building a high spec PC for use with editing
    video.

    I believe that the fastest setup for hard drives is using 2 same spec
    hard drives in a RAID 0 format. Now, should I have:

    a) both system files (i.e. C drive operating system and programme
    files) and video files on this RAID, or

    b) should I have a separate hard drive purely for system files, and
    use the RAID purely for the video files?

    I would have thought option (a) as this would have the fastest
    performance for the system and of course the video files.

    Any thoughts would be much appreciated

    Thanks
    --
    To reply, take NOSPAM out of my email address.
    , May 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Andrew Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi all
    >
    > I am in the process of building a high spec PC for use with editing
    > video.
    >
    > I believe that the fastest setup for hard drives is using 2 same spec
    > hard drives in a RAID 0 format. Now, should I have:
    >
    > a) both system files (i.e. C drive operating system and programme
    > files) and video files on this RAID, or
    >
    > b) should I have a separate hard drive purely for system files, and
    > use the RAID purely for the video files?
    >
    > I would have thought option (a) as this would have the fastest
    > performance for the system and of course the video files.
    >
    > Any thoughts would be much appreciated
    >
    > Thanks
    > --
    > To reply, take NOSPAM out of my email address.
    >


    Depends on your budget, I would probably put a WD raptor drive in as your
    main os drive, either a 36gig or 74gig (only flavours) - these drives are
    10,000 rpm serial ATA Drives and are very very fast

    Then i would put in two much bigger drives in as raid for your video files
    Andrew, May 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. colinco Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > b) should I have a separate hard drive purely for system files, and
    > use the RAID purely for the video files?
    >
    >

    You have source and destination files that shouldn't be going to the
    same disk. You probably don't need raid. Good suggestions here
    http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=14262
    colinco, May 21, 2004
    #3
  4. gimp Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > I am in the process of building a high spec PC for use with editing
    > video.


    as others have said, B if possible while rendering files to a different
    drive. to get a fast OS u just need a Raptor - i have one for my
    animation rig - they are cool :) i didn't bother with raid though as i
    don't think its worth it unless u get a decent hardware controller...
    and kamikazi raid makes me nervous... ;)
    gimp, May 22, 2004
    #4
  5. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi all
    >
    > I am in the process of building a high spec PC for use with editing
    > video.
    >
    > I believe that the fastest setup for hard drives is using 2 same spec
    > hard drives in a RAID 0 format. Now, should I have:
    >
    > a) both system files (i.e. C drive operating system and programme
    > files) and video files on this RAID, or
    >
    > b) should I have a separate hard drive purely for system files, and
    > use the RAID purely for the video files?
    >
    > I would have thought option (a) as this would have the fastest
    > performance for the system and of course the video files.
    >
    > Any thoughts would be much appreciated
    >
    > Thanks
    > --
    > To reply, take NOSPAM out of my email address.
    >


    Operating systems tend to be quicker on a single 10,000rpm SATA drive rather
    than two 7200rpm drives in RAID 0.

    I'd get a 36gb raptor for your OS and some large hard drives for your video.
    RAID, while suited for large files, is probably not necessary.

    Steve
    Stephen Williams, May 22, 2004
    #5
  6. Craig Shore Guest

    On Sat, 22 May 2004 09:33:19 +1200, wrote:

    >Hi all
    >
    >I am in the process of building a high spec PC for use with editing
    >video.
    >
    >I believe that the fastest setup for hard drives is using 2 same spec
    >hard drives in a RAID 0 format. Now, should I have:
    >
    >a) both system files (i.e. C drive operating system and programme
    >files) and video files on this RAID, or
    >
    >b) should I have a separate hard drive purely for system files, and
    >use the RAID purely for the video files?
    >
    >I would have thought option (a) as this would have the fastest
    >performance for the system and of course the video files.


    It probably depends on what you are doing. If you are processing the video
    data, then going from one normal HD to another (on a secondary IDE etc) will be
    just as quick as the limiting factor will be the processor.

    Reading to and writing to the same RAID 0 array is *slower* than writing it to
    somewhere else as the drive heads have to keep seeking.

    I've got 2 Seagate 7200rpm drives in a RAID 0 array on a Highpoint controller.
    I've also got another 2 of those drives on the mainboards IDE controller

    To move a 1.14Gb file it took
    RAID > RAID 2 min 33 secs
    RAID > IDE 1 min 39 secs

    The file was a video segement of a 2gb video file I saved without processing
    from VirtualDub. Accessing the saved file and moving the trackbar through the
    1.14gb seems just as fast on the single drive as it does on the raid for a file
    that size. I would try something a bigger but I don't have that much space left
    on the non-raid drive.

    I would guess the fastest setup would be two sets of RAID 0 drives on different
    controllers. The reason I say that is that you can't access both Master and
    Slave at the same time, so you would want a single master drive on each of the
    Primary and Secondary channels.
    Craig Shore, May 23, 2004
    #6
  7. Craig Shore Guest

    On Sun, 23 May 2004 14:20:08 +1200, Craig Shore <>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 22 May 2004 09:33:19 +1200, wrote:
    >
    >>Hi all
    >>
    >>I am in the process of building a high spec PC for use with editing
    >>video.
    >>
    >>I believe that the fastest setup for hard drives is using 2 same spec
    >>hard drives in a RAID 0 format. Now, should I have:
    >>
    >>a) both system files (i.e. C drive operating system and programme
    >>files) and video files on this RAID, or
    >>
    >>b) should I have a separate hard drive purely for system files, and
    >>use the RAID purely for the video files?
    >>
    >>I would have thought option (a) as this would have the fastest
    >>performance for the system and of course the video files.

    >
    >It probably depends on what you are doing. If you are processing the video
    >data, then going from one normal HD to another (on a secondary IDE etc) will be
    >just as quick as the limiting factor will be the processor.
    >
    >Reading to and writing to the same RAID 0 array is *slower* than writing it to
    >somewhere else as the drive heads have to keep seeking.
    >
    >I've got 2 Seagate 7200rpm drives in a RAID 0 array on a Highpoint controller.
    >I've also got another 2 of those drives on the mainboards IDE controller
    >
    >To move a 1.14Gb file it took
    >RAID > RAID 2 min 33 secs
    >RAID > IDE 1 min 39 secs


    Thought i'd try the saved file from the normal drive on the mainboard primary
    controller to another drive on the secondary controller on the mainboard.
    That took 1 min 32 seconds.
    I'm not sure if it was faster because of fragmentation on the RAID drives,
    because something is being downloaded to the raid drives (not that much writing
    though), or because Virtual dub was just saving the whole file rather than a
    chunk from the middle of a file.

    One thing the RAID is good for is if you need to capture in real time a high
    resolution video file fast.
    Craig Shore, May 23, 2004
    #7
  8. On Sun, 23 May 2004 14:20:08 +1200, Craig Shore <>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 22 May 2004 09:33:19 +1200, wrote:
    >
    >>Hi all
    >>
    >>I am in the process of building a high spec PC for use with editing
    >>video.
    >>
    >>I believe that the fastest setup for hard drives is using 2 same spec
    >>hard drives in a RAID 0 format. Now, should I have:
    >>
    >>a) both system files (i.e. C drive operating system and programme
    >>files) and video files on this RAID, or
    >>
    >>b) should I have a separate hard drive purely for system files, and
    >>use the RAID purely for the video files?
    >>
    >>I would have thought option (a) as this would have the fastest
    >>performance for the system and of course the video files.

    >
    >It probably depends on what you are doing. If you are processing the video
    >data, then going from one normal HD to another (on a secondary IDE etc) will be
    >just as quick as the limiting factor will be the processor.
    >
    >Reading to and writing to the same RAID 0 array is *slower* than writing it to
    >somewhere else as the drive heads have to keep seeking.
    >
    >I've got 2 Seagate 7200rpm drives in a RAID 0 array on a Highpoint controller.
    >I've also got another 2 of those drives on the mainboards IDE controller
    >
    >To move a 1.14Gb file it took
    >RAID > RAID 2 min 33 secs
    >RAID > IDE 1 min 39 secs
    >
    >The file was a video segement of a 2gb video file I saved without processing
    >from VirtualDub. Accessing the saved file and moving the trackbar through the
    >1.14gb seems just as fast on the single drive as it does on the raid for a file
    >that size. I would try something a bigger but I don't have that much space left
    >on the non-raid drive.
    >
    >I would guess the fastest setup would be two sets of RAID 0 drives on different
    >controllers. The reason I say that is that you can't access both Master and
    >Slave at the same time, so you would want a single master drive on each of the
    >Primary and Secondary channels.
    >




    Na 4gigs of Ram is far better..
    The GHOST of WOGER., May 23, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    says...
    > On Sat, 22 May 2004 09:33:19 +1200, wrote:
    >
    > >Hi all
    > >
    > >I am in the process of building a high spec PC for use with editing
    > >video.
    > >
    > >I believe that the fastest setup for hard drives is using 2 same spec
    > >hard drives in a RAID 0 format. Now, should I have:
    > >
    > >a) both system files (i.e. C drive operating system and programme
    > >files) and video files on this RAID, or
    > >
    > >b) should I have a separate hard drive purely for system files, and
    > >use the RAID purely for the video files?
    > >
    > >I would have thought option (a) as this would have the fastest
    > >performance for the system and of course the video files.

    >
    > It probably depends on what you are doing. If you are processing the video
    > data, then going from one normal HD to another (on a secondary IDE etc) will be
    > just as quick as the limiting factor will be the processor.
    >
    > Reading to and writing to the same RAID 0 array is *slower* than writing it to
    > somewhere else as the drive heads have to keep seeking.
    >
    > I've got 2 Seagate 7200rpm drives in a RAID 0 array on a Highpoint controller.
    > I've also got another 2 of those drives on the mainboards IDE controller
    >
    > To move a 1.14Gb file it took
    > RAID > RAID 2 min 33 secs
    > RAID > IDE 1 min 39 secs
    >
    > The file was a video segement of a 2gb video file I saved without processing
    > from VirtualDub. Accessing the saved file and moving the trackbar through the
    > 1.14gb seems just as fast on the single drive as it does on the raid for a file
    > that size. I would try something a bigger but I don't have that much space left
    > on the non-raid drive.
    >
    > I would guess the fastest setup would be two sets of RAID 0 drives on different
    > controllers. The reason I say that is that you can't access both Master and
    > Slave at the same time, so you would want a single master drive on each of the
    > Primary and Secondary channels.


    Your capture and perhaps rendering should be done on a different drive
    than you store the final result on - so that it doesn't have to be
    defragged.
    Patrick Dunford, May 24, 2004
    #9
  10. Craig Shore Guest

    On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:08:18 +1200, Patrick Dunford
    <> wrote:

    >Your capture and perhaps rendering should be done on a different drive
    >than you store the final result on - so that it doesn't have to be
    >defragged.


    That would only hold true if you were completly wiping all the captured video
    from it's drive, and especilly that you have nothing else on that drive.
    Craig Shore, May 24, 2004
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nate
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,117
    Ed Mullen
    Feb 21, 2004
  2. *** HAWK

    Video editing advice needed

    *** HAWK, Feb 4, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    396
    David A. Seiver
    Feb 5, 2004
  3. Paul - xxx

    Video / Photo editing advice ..

    Paul - xxx, Feb 5, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    626
    °Mike°
    Feb 6, 2004
  4. George S

    30GB Hard Drive Camcorder: Editing Implications?

    George S, Jun 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,220
    UrbanVoyeur
    Jun 21, 2005
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    869
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page