SSD Drives Update: ioSAN New HD Technology

[valis]

I fixed all problems with the piano rompler by raising the amount of RAM it uses to the maximum of 1 gigabyte for the two microphone positions I am using in the largest preset. I am still going to try it with a RAID though since the 3rd drive I ordered is arriving tomorrow. The single drive for the OS and programs and the RAID for all samples. I was considering the Hackintosh until I read that they strongly recommend IDE drives over SATA which is what I have. Valis uses a Mac. I see a potential difference between the Mac versus a PC. Apple just started using the Intel chip. Who knows what problems they might be having. Astro is right Apple isn't what it used to be.

You can use SATA just fine in a 'hackintosh', using legacy IDE mode for your SATA controller was recommended because ICH7 then ICH9 didn't have proper support initially. They are both fully supported now by the 'scene' in AHCI as well as "Legacy IDE" mode, and work JUST fine. But this bit of info gets passed along as a troubleshooting remedy much in the same way that people here are still prone to say "Use standard PC instead of ACPI PC". It's simpler than explaining how to get the right kext in place during install or post-install (first requires VMware etc, the second requires changing a kext before changing your SATA controller mode in bios).

Also just fyi, the last Macintosh I purchased was a G4 (aside from an iMac that was not a production machine and which I no longer even own). The G5 was a stodgy machine for the price in my eyes, since I am not fully invested in Apple software & hardware (but just fine for audio work nonetheless) and very long in the tooth by the time the Xeon-based Mac Pros came out. I would have bought a Mac Pro instead of building this Xeon box, but it would have cost 3x as much as I spent, come with far more limited hardware support and I'd still be stuck on a 2 year old graphics card for lack of other Apple-blessed options. SO...this has a hackintosh boot volume that runs a legitimately licensed copy of OSX (upgraded from my G4's OSX which no longer runs). I only use OSX for Logic so this works fin, I also have Xp32, Vista64, Win7-64 beta AND debian or slackware on here (depending on what I'm doing). All the Windows OS's have 1 drive, OSX has another (it's happiest with GUID partition scheme) etc. I *could* fix my G4 so it was serviceable again, but that's lunacy compared to the speed I have on hand here.

I had initially meant to use this only until I could buy a Macbook Pro, but the generation I wanted last year was getting bad press for overheating nvidia chips made on a suspect process (their SIO--silicon on insulator--process fails eventually it seems) and now with the way the economy is I don't see myself having a new $3700 laptop anytime soon.

Anyway I don't think you'd be happy with a Hackintosh, given your stated preferences for using the latest technology. A hackintosh takes oodles of work to maintain unless you forgo ever using newer updates/software/hardware and is prone to blowing up completely requiring extensive rebuilding or even a ground up reinstall. Mind you I haven't had to do that since I got the basic hardware support for my installation stable, but I'd say this is entirely dependant on the fact that I use it only for Logic and am competent enough to know what I'm allowing onto that system (I usually WAIT before even doing OS updates to OSX for instance).

[braincell]

I tried Windows 7 again today since I flashed my BIOS. It is no faster than Vista for sure; maybe when they tweak it up more. I am going to start a RAID 0 tomorrow and see how many apps I can use with it. I really only need about 4.

[braincell]

Valis,

I checked the web again. The more drives in a RAID 0 array, the faster it goes. That is what people say and nobody besides you thinks otherwise. You said I am getting bad information about this. I am now going to be more skeptical about what you say.

[valis]

lol.

I never said Raid0 "isn't faster", either you didn't read very well or I shouldn't have bothered.

Also, in case you didn't notice, Win7 *IS* Vista. Any changes present to subsystems in Win7 beta are also in Vista sp2, at least the ones that aren't cosmetic.

[braincell]

My apologies Valis.

I have not been able to test the RAID yet because I first need to move hundreds of gigabytes to other computers before stripping the hard drives. As you know, this takes hours.

[valis]

It's ok, I don't expect my input to be taken as gospel (I'm not that infallible).

It's just that RAID isn't a panacea, using striped data (spreading data across more than 1 drive) does increase overall throughput by increasing the 'width' of the data bus read/written to, but as with everything it's a tradeoff. Random reads (loading small samples) are still going to be limited to the speed of the mechanical parts, double your cost and so on. Chances are you'll see more performance yes...

But consider that using non-enterprise drives you drastically increase your chances of losing everything on the array, as their error rates are low enough in consumer terabyte+ drives you start encountering errors more frequently. This is an issue because many consumer drives have firmware that has TLER issues with large drives, causing volumes to drop off the array. It's not as much an issue with 'software' Raid as the controllers aren't quite as fussy (as an Areca/LSI/Adaptec controller) but it can still bite you.

Anyway I mentioned all of this above I believe. If you're interested in playing around with RAID go for it.

[braincell]

RAID 0 is not redundant therefor errors can be disastrous. Perhaps I will invest in Spinrite. It works with cheap RAID 0 like I have but not on the very expensive ones. I shutter to think how long this will take on a terabyte.

Normally a drive will last 5 years of heavy use. I don't think using it in a RAID will reduce the life span in fact, a RAID 0 array should be less wear on the drives since it spreads the load. I will have a backup drive within a year. Until then, I will risk it. Probably a bad idea. Finished music data will be on DVD.

[valis]

I didn't suggest the drive would be lost, the data on the array is lost when a drive is dropped from the array.

Drives don't just 'fail' by dying completely. Even a perfectly functioning drive is subject to other issues, for instance when a block of data is lost. Consumer SATA drives have an unrecoverable read error rate (URE) of 10^14, ie, before a sector is 'lost'. Ok so it would take 12 TB of data to achieve that, but that just means by the time you've read back 12TB of data your chances of hitting a bad block are 100% statistically. In real-world usage it means that RAID5/6/10 & 1+0 (mirroring a striped array) are the choices for enterprise users who use RAID for uptime (servers stay up even if a drive is lost). Enterprise drives are also smaller and have 10^15 error rates for this reason. Smaller arrays & more robust drive firmware/hardware (in theory) = reduced chances of a RAID array running in degraded mode while rebuilding (assuming that the person is not using RAID 0 of course).

There are other issues aside from just bad blocks to consider too, as a user getting RAID drivers to function in your OS is a learning process, just as getting the controller even into AHCI mode before Vista sp1 isn't an automatic procedure. User error is probably the largest cause of arrays failing, but once you've got a setup working you just don't fiddle with it and you avoid most of those pitfalls.

TLER issues can cause drives to drop off an Array:
Wikipedia: TLER: Standalone vs. RAID considerations

I think we've covered this already, and I've never said OMG DONT USE RAID IT SUX OMG or anything to that effect. It's been pointed out in this thread that RAID isn't a necessity, it's complicated and most of the major pitfalls have been listed. This is information for your use, should you choose to use it. Whether or not you use RAID is *your* choice, not ours. I just don't think it's worth the effort personally, but I learned my RAID & harddrive configuration lessons back when you actually needed RAID to even burn a CDR at 1x speed. Back then you also had to be very careful about how you separated your audio/video (AVR) drives/arrays and your OS/Apps/"Data" storage. Writing data uphill both ways and all that...

Another interesting read re: large harddrives used in RAID arrays can be found here:
ZDnet: Why RAID 5 stops working in 2009

[braincell]

your chances of hitting a bad block are 100% statistically.

I just read an account of someone using a RAID 0 constantly for 5 years without a single failure so this statistic you quote is 100% wrong. Group think has hijacked this debate with any real world tests.

You never told me who made this test, on what systems and when? The results could not be exactly the same on every system. There are so many variables such as the hard drive make and model, mobo RAID chipset, OS, BIOS, and PSU. You can not say what my failure rate will be. It most likely will be fully functional after a year of heavy use and I will back it up by then. There seems to be a whole lot of lies about RAID 0 on the internet. Here is another account I just found:


Kursun 02-14-2008 at 07:37:35 PM

"Nonsense! I have used RAID 0 as my boot disk for ten years. I have never lost a disk. Even if I do, I have my ghost backup. On the other hand for ten years now I enjoy the double data rate RAID 0 offers. But your documents and other data should be on RAID 1."

[valis]

Which is why I said 'statistically'...

What I said isn't 'nonsense' it's just the facts as they pertain to RAID. You're wasting my time here, I'm sure others are wondering why I'm bothering to beat against this brick wall I'm not giving you any pat answer or "Yes"/"No" about anything. And I stated my opinion way back on page1.

[dawman]

After I spent hundreds on a 3Ware RAID Cage, and a Supermicro P4SCT+II motherboard w/ a Low Profile RAID card made for the motherboard by Adaptec ( Zero Channel RAID Technology ) I was somewhat upset that there was no difference what so ever for streaming giant Rompler libraries....
But it turned out to be a great cooling solution, and also silenced the drives.
Spanning libraries across multiple drives and using wise folder placements however proved to be quite noticable.
I have had the same drives in the same 4U ATX running Romplers since July 2005.
So when you realize there's no difference using RAID for audio other than reduncancy, you'll have a nice quiet, properly cooled useless RAID array...........

On another note. I also used nothing but 10k Raptors, which also yeild no difference these days as long as 16MB cache on a spindle speed of 7200rpm's can be attained.

And count me in for buying any of the 300GB Raptors you bought that don't show a difference in a RAID 0, 5, 0+1, 10, 3 or 6 levels.
That way you can recuperate some of your losses.
I could move one of my 1500X's over to the O.S. + Apps. slot and finally get rid of the 360G that just won't die.

The WD360G Raptor reminds me of the Knight in the Monty Python movie that gets his limbs cut off and still wants to fight.......They are damn fine hard drives for sure.

[garyb]

well, braincell....
for a guy who's always complaining that musicians don't have enough money for their gear, you sure like spending lots of money on toys and accessories for the toys...

[Gordon Gekko]

valis, I don't think you are wasting your time, there are other members that really appreciate reading your inputs, thanks for all the knowledge

[astroman]

sure they do
I've leeched a ton of info and inspiration, as I have to plan a new image storage/retrieval system
already observed that disks seemed to get worse by the year, but Seagate's recent desaster made me re-consider all the plans

cheers and tnx, Tom

[braincell]

So when you realize there's no difference using RAID for audio other than reduncancy, you'll have a nice quiet, properly cooled useless RAID array...........

There is no redundancy in RAID 0. You were not using RAID level 0. That is obviously why you could not tell the difference in speed. Only RAID 0 improves speed and as many people have noted, it is a rather obvious improvement.

[valis]

Sorry I got frustrated, I know I can brain-dump an overwhelming amount of data in a discussion about something...and that sometimes people wind up saying "JUST TELL ME YES OR NO?!"

But designing a storage system for streaming samples isn't a Sisyphean or impossible task, it's just a question of knowing the parameters so to speak, and finding a setup to match that (or perhaps even figuring out what the parameters are as a part of the process, etc). Computers are a pretty specific science after all (very logical). The opposite approach of course is to say "I want to do X" and just head that way because, well that's what you want. When putting money on the table I can see where that comes into play but...

Over on a few other forums I frequent discussions like this usually begin more like "Hey guys, I want to design a storage system to do (X) and I have (Y) to spend, and expect (Z) as the result. What are my options, and what pitfalls should I look out for and/or avoid?" That's the vein in which I had thought I was responding.

In fact in most cases the topics here on PlanetZ follow along very similar lines, just more tightly focused on issues revolving around maintaining our dsp card systems in the role of music production. Seems to me that sharing this information benefits us all because we can draw on this well of knowledge instead of having to learn it all "in toto".

[valis]

So when you realize there's no difference using RAID for audio other than reduncancy, you'll have a nice quiet, properly cooled useless RAID array...........

There is no redundancy in RAID 0. You were not using RAID level 0. That is obviously why you could not tell the difference in speed. Only RAID 0 improves speed and as many people have noted, it is a rather obvious improvement.

I think he was referring to RAID in the general sense. Any RAID 5,6,10 or 1+0 will also give performance benefits, though with tradeoffs. RAID 0 is the only one specifically targeted at throughput. We've covered this already....

Also "speed" is a subjective term and the "speed" of a storage system would be a function of bandwidth/throughput, latency and bus-negotiation with the hosting interface.

[braincell]

I am sorry if I have frustrated you. I hope this doesn't discourage you from posting further comments. I for one don't like threads to follow a specific theme and this is an off topic section of the forum anyway so your point about most discussions being about the Scope is rather perplexing to me. As far as the cost of it goes, I only had to buy one more drive which was $35 for my system drive in order to set up a RAID with the other two drives. This is very cost effective.

Astro:

I spend money on that which is a good value. A new computer right now is the best price/performance ever in history and VSTi are more plentiful to pick from. Anyone can make a VSTi. You don't have to beg for the code.

[valis]

sure they do
I've leeched a ton of info and inspiration, as I have to plan a new image storage/retrieval system
already observed that disks seemed to get worse by the year, but Seagate's recent desaster made me re-consider all the plans

cheers and tnx, Tom

Tom, one of the best forums I know of for discussing storage systems, is the Storage forums at 2cpu.com. I've been a member there for years and find it to be about on par with the noise ratio you find here (which is to say high on the ratio of good community members & on topic discussion to background nonsense). If you are really wanting to figure out an image storage/retrieval system and have the energy for another forum, I would in fact recommend their input to anyone considering RAID over any of my words here, especially when it comes to SATA RAID.

There's a good admixture of users from the enthusiast end of the spectrum all the way up to one or two fellows who design insanely expensive SSD arrays for enterprise level database work (we're not talking about OCZ or Intel consumer SSD's here). One of those high end storage fellows even sold me the majority of the hardware in my current Xeon rig btw. There's some ARECA guys there too, which is a bit like the pyramid scheme of the SATA RAID crowd (because those guys hold stock---ARECA cards are actually rebadged LSI/Intel hardware with custom firmware targeted at enthusiast users actually, not a horrible product but there are lots of 'gotchas' to learn versus the major brands).

I don't actually think there's anyone speaking up about audio storage needs, though there's a few video users and 3d animation guys floating about. Not sure if you have time to tackle another community but at the very least I'd recommend breezing their storage forum if nothing else. And if you do have time to post and are interested in running a few benchmarks by them, you'd learn a lot I'm sure.

[valis]

I am sorry if I have frustrated you. I hope this doesn't discourage you from posting further comments. I for one don't like threads to follow a specific theme and this is an off topic section of the forum anyway so your point about most discussions being about the Scope is rather perplexing to me. As far as the cost of it goes, I only had to buy one more drive which was $35 for my system drive in order to set up a RAID with the other two drives. This is very cost effective.

Discouraging me from posting further comments in general, or specifically in response to your posts?

I was making the point that we're here to share information, that's all. I'm not suggesting that we're on or off topic, merely that my posts are meant to be 'informational' rather than 'argumentative' or 'do it this way not that way!' etc. When I state my opinions I try to preface them with "It seems to me..." or "I think..." or "in my opinion", very easy to spot. Beyond that, facts are only as useful as they can be fitting for particular situations or circumstances (at least imo ).