Partitioned hard drives...

  • Thread starter Thread starter twistedjc
  • Start date Start date
T

twistedjc

Guest
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Should you save your logic projects on your audio or system drive. I currently have my projects and samples on the audio drive and everything else on the system but I read something in Future Music which seemed to suggest (I was a bit too stoned to really understand) that you should save everything on the system and then move specific projects onto the audio as you work on them if you want to achieve optimum performance - even going as far as formatting your audio drive before each session...
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
While technically true, I doubt very much that it's a practical thing to do - it sounds to me like they're guarding against disk fragmentation, but I reckon that approach is a bit extreme unless you're doing 64-track recording with a zillion overdubs. I've got my drive(s) set up with 5 partitions under Windows, of which 2 are audio data partitions (F:, the new one and G:, the old one). They both get regularly defragged and they're both holding up well... *touches wood*.

Personally I don't have anything on the system drive other than Windows and a few stubborn applications that misbehave if you install them anywhere else. My D drive is for regular applications and random data and my E drive is for audio apps (and some random data).

If you *really, really* wanted to format your audio data drive every time, then I'd create a partition for storing your project data in the meantime - as I said, I really can't see the point unless you're doing *really* hardcore stuff.

J.
 
That's a little over the top, I think.

But your post is ambiguous. Are you talking about a single physical drive partitioned into two (as implied by the post title) or two separate hard drives (cf you post text)?

Here's what I'd do:
With one drive, I'd partition it in three. I'd make the outermost (C) partition just big enough for the operating system. I'd make the next innermost partition (D) just big enough for one project. The final partition (E) would be where I kept all my current projects. When I wanted to work on a project, I'd archive the current version of whatever I was working on before into E, wipe D (I don't think formatiing would be necessary) and copy the newly-active project onto D. When I then wanted to work on a different project I'd copy the current contents of D over the old version on E, wipe D and copy the newly-active project onto D. And so on. Got that? :)

BECAUSE: Access speed increases for sectors near the edge of the drive; copying onto an empty partition means files are automaticaly defragged; drive C: must be the boot drive for most O/S (correct me if I'm wrong).

If I had two or more drives (and let's face it, they're not exactly expensive at the moment) - which I do - I would use one as a system drive and one as an audio drive, partitioned if necessary for projects and sample libraries, with the projects partition on the outside. I'd also consider a third, smaller drive for finished tracks :)

I really wouldn't worry too much about optimum performance though. In all my time with Cubase SX I have never seen the disk performance meter move above, oh, zero in play mode. It flickers when I locate or press start, but that's it. Modern hard drives are fast enough, believe me.

Hope this helps.
 
The only thing i make sure of is that my audio is on a separate physical drive from any thing else i'm using (presets, other file access) so that i can have uninterrupted access to it but as Colin says you have to be doing some intense stuff to cause hiccups anyway.
 
drive C: must be the boot drive for most O/S (correct me if I'm wrong).
Click to expand...

Great advice Colin, but I do know that you can boot to any drive on PCs. We tend to configure web servers so that the boot drive isn't C, which is just one trick to fox the script-kiddies & crackers out there.

One trick I've learnt over the years is that when putting 2 devices (CD-ROM, Zip Drive, Hard Disk, etc) onto the same IDE chain, the transmission rate for that chain is governed by the slowest device on the chain. Therefore, if you put your HDD on the same IDE chain as a CD-ROM, you'll slow your HDD down.

You were spot on with suggesting one HDD for the OS & another for data. Another trick is use RAID controllers to effectively double up your read access time. These are sometimes built into the motherboards and can breathe new life into tired processors. Even putting the paging file onto a seperate spindle will give a slight boost.

At the end of the day, it's all down to keeping ahead on the next release of bigger and more space/memory hungry software anyway.

Hope this helps...
 
RezN8 said:
One trick I've learnt over the years is that when putting 2 devices (CD-ROM, Zip Drive, Hard Disk, etc) onto the same IDE chain, the transmission rate for that chain is governed by the slowest device on the chain. Therefore, if you put your HDD on the same IDE chain as a CD-ROM, you'll slow your HDD down.
Click to expand...

That's pretty useful info. Cheers
 
Since we are talking about HDDs, don't forget that you do not have something, unless you have at least 2 copies of it.
I got 4 HDDs, one system drive, one audio drive and a mirror image of each on the shelves.
Get a ghost disk and a caddy so you can slide them in and out nice and easy when you wanna update them.

Peace.
 
Get a ghost disk and a caddy so you can slide them in and out...
Click to expand...

Oooo, a caddy Sir, suits you! :hehe:

An excellent idea for anyone that has to share their PC with their kids = disaster waiting to happen... Have a spare drive for the kids and let 'em trash that, not your pride and joy! :no:
 
Another trick is use RAID controllers to effectively double up your read access time.
Click to expand...

Damned right! Most motherboards these days include a raid controller. Striping is just about the best thing you can do to improve performance. Mind multiple HDDs means HUGE power requirements. If your PSU isn't up to the job you'll get shit loads of random crashes that look nothing like a PSU failure... Just be warned :)
 
Goz said:
If your PSU isn't up to the job you'll get shit loads of random crashes that look nothing like a PSU failure... Just be warned :)
Click to expand...

I've had a few of those since switching to the new audio setup (though I'm suspecting some low-level PCI futzing is chiefly to blame - I'm really cheesed that Gigabyte don't provide you with a PCI IRQ table)*. Even so, I think it's time to get that 480W of mayhem I was thinking about recently, just to be on the safe side... :D

J.

* EDIT - In fact, just got an email back from them, saying they don't supply that information at all (in other words, they're refusing!) - Shan't be buying one of their mobos again then! :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top