PDA

View Full Version : Playing from an External Drive


chazperx
05-02-2008, 08:20 AM
I just got Symphonic Choir, Voices of Passion, Colosuss, Sysmphony Gold Bundle and was wondering if I could run these files from an external USB drive. Am I going to see a performance loss?

Thanks in advance!


Chaz
P4 - 3ghz - 2GB RAM

chest
05-02-2008, 08:38 AM
There's been a lot of discussion about internal v external drives on this forum - you'd probably find out a lot by searcning for relevant threads.

Briefly, the experts on this forum say (roughly) that internal is best, and for external the best is eSATA followed by Firewire, with USB some way behind.

Much will depend on how much you're trying to run at once: if the bottleneck is at the drive rather than the RAM/CPU, there's a benefit in having more than one drive, in order that the samples playing at the same time don't have to come from the same drive.

Jim Curits
05-02-2008, 08:39 AM
According to all the other threads on here yes it's unwise, and better to run on internal drives / sata etc, just type in drives or external in the search link above and you will have hours of reading material giving advice.


Don't forget no 2 systems are the same, and nothing is written in stone, sometimes you just have to try if for yourself :)

OneThrow
05-02-2008, 09:14 AM
Firewire and eSATA should be fine for external drives. USB is not the best.

Regards

BillyD1953
05-02-2008, 10:01 AM
The responses above are certainly true in principle, however, I am able to run EW QL Pianos, which has an enormous sample library for each piano, from an external drive over USB about as well as it runs from my internal SATA drive. Both are very nice Western Digital hard drives. It wouldn't surprise me if you could run your EW libraries quite well from an external drive, even though it is not the perfect solution. It is generally best to keep your samples on a separate drive from the system and the programs, themselves.

Jay Coffman
05-02-2008, 10:47 AM
Hey Guys,

These are standard (approximate) transfer rates for different ports.

USB2 = USB 2.0 port rated at 48MB/s
1394a FW400 = FireWire 400 port rated at up to 40MB/s
1394b FW800 = FireWire 800 port rated at up to 80MB/s
SATA = SATA port rated at up to 150MB/s
SATA2 = SATA II port rated at up to 300MB/s

As Jim points out, no two systems are the same, but this will give you a general idea.

cmcken1
05-02-2008, 11:09 AM
According to all the other threads on here yes it's unwise, and better to run on internal drives / sata etc, just type in drives or external in the search link above and you will have hours of reading material giving advice.


Don't forget no 2 systems are the same, and nothing is written in stone, sometimes you just have to try if for yourself :)

Actually, it depends on what you mean by better. Price? Performance?

External is much better than internal for performance hands down. SO, if your looking for faster more throughput etc, external is the way to go. The Mac internal controller doesn't even work with some hard drives. That is another issues that goes unnoted.

THe main reason why most go with internal is simply to cost and ease of use. There are lots of advantages running externally and they are:

1. Less strain on the Mac Power Supply

2. Less heat

3. Less noise

4. Faster read speeds

5. Up to a 100 drives can be run externally.


This outweights running internal by far as there are way more options and it's less taxing on the Towers. You will get much better performance running externally when running sampler librariies and all plug ins etc off the external drives. However, the setup is critical. It must be run off of PCI and not Firewire and most certainly not USB.

The way to get this performance gain is to use a great controller card with a great enclosure along with a fast hard drive Raptor drives or another hi transfer rate drive setup.

A low end drive like Lacies' all in one box and Western Digital iHome are not going to work better than internal. So, with that; that will not fare better.


The downside is in the buy in cost. A controller card such as FAST 4e PCI-X / e is going to cost 299 - 400. THen the enclosure can either be a small one, two, or up to 12 bays depending on your needs and the cost can be 200-2200 depending on sizes and power supplies. Burly and Cal Digit and Seriik make some great boxes that are reliable as well as solid working.

A.Leung
05-02-2008, 11:16 AM
According to all the other threads on here yes it's unwise, and better to run on internal drives / sata etc, just type in drives or external in the search link above and you will have hours of reading material giving advice.

Quite the opposite actually. And do whatever you can to keep it OFF your SYSTEM drive. System drives are internal. And as the chart shows above that Jay posted the best way to go is SATA II for transfer speeds.

Jim Curits
05-02-2008, 12:02 PM
Through my experience, internal is much better than External USB which is what the original question was, I can use both and find the USB drive is slower, but each to their own...;)

chlady
05-08-2008, 05:29 PM
I'm getting two 500 seagate 7200 drives and am looking at dual enclosures either FW 800 or SATA for my sample libraries EWQLSO, Choirs , RA Fab Four , Gypsy etc. Will i see much of an increase in performance in streaming and bottlenecks using SATA which would also require me to get PCI card for my G5 as opposed to using FW800.?

thanks, Craig

A.Leung
05-08-2008, 05:33 PM
I'm getting two 500 seagate 7200 drives and am looking at dual enclosures either FW 800 or SATA for my sample libraries EWQLSO, Choirs , RA Fab Four , Gypsy etc. Will i see much of an increase in performance in streaming and bottlenecks using SATA which would also require me to get PCI card for my G5 as opposed to using FW800.?

thanks, Craig

Which SATA? I ? II? The chart should help you make that desicion. If it were ME - I'd go for SATA.

USB2 = USB 2.0 port rated at 48MB/s
1394a FW400 = FireWire 400 port rated at up to 40MB/s
1394b FW800 = FireWire 800 port rated at up to 80MB/s
SATA = SATA port rated at up to 150MB/s
SATA2 = SATA II port rated at up to 300MB/s

chlady
05-08-2008, 08:05 PM
SATA I are the seagate drives I was looking at as they are only $75. So what is a good pci 2 port SATA card that is reasonably priced ? And is there big difference in performance between different brand SATA controller cards as they seem to vary quite a bit in price?

A.Leung
05-08-2008, 08:19 PM
Oh I've seen Belkin Serial ATA PCI Cards for like between $35.00 - $65.00. It offers a data throughput rate of up to 150 MBps. Not a bad solution for connecting up to two, large-capacity serial ATA hard drives.

http://www.techforless.com/cgi-bin/tech4less/F5U198V?mv_pc=nextag

V o n h ö g e n
05-08-2008, 08:19 PM
Which SATA? I ? II? The chart should help you make that desicion.
(...)
SATA = SATA port rated at up to 150MB/s
SATA2 = SATA II port rated at up to 300MB/s

Why SATA II? Sorry, but that 300MB/s number is just theoretical. The SATA II throughput rate exceeds the transfer rate of all HDDs available today, including the fastest Solid State Disks! The actual HDD data transfer rate is limited to the so-called 'sustainable' data rate of your HDD, which is around 115MB/s at best. This is well below the throughput limit of SATA I. Even more shockingly, perhaps: it is still within the boundaries of the old PATA/133 specs!

By the way, there is no such thing as SATA II-only drives, since all SATA HDD will work just fine with SATA I.

The only reason I can think of for using SATA II would be the burst rate of the new Western Digital Velociraptor which, at 247 MB/s, truely exceeds the SATA I/150 specification. However, such a burst rate would only help to reduce the access time of the drive. It won't improve the (non-burst) throughput, which is still less than 150 Mb/s. :o

- Jerome Vonhögen

A.Leung
05-08-2008, 08:25 PM
Why SATA II? Sorry, but that 300MB/s number is just theoretical. The SATA II throughput rate exceeds the transfer rate of all HDDs available today, including the fastest Solid State Disks! The actual HDD data transfer rate is limited to the so-called 'sustainable' data rate of your HDD, which is around 115MB/s at best. This is well below the throughput limit of SATA I. Even more shockingly, perhaps: it is still within the boundaries of the old PATA/133 specs!

By the way, there is no such thing as SATA II-only drives, since all SATA HDD will work just fine with SATA I.

The only reason I can think of for using SATA II would be the burst rate of the new Western Digital Velociraptor which, at 247 MB/s, truely exceeds the SATA I/150 specification. However, such a burst rate would only help to reduce the access time of the drive. It won't improve the (non-burst) throughput, which is still less than 150 Mb/s. :o

- Jerome Vonhögen

It's up to individual results. I was much happier with my samlpe libraries on SATA Velociraptor drives than anything I've had with f/w 4 or 800 and well - I wouldnt even consider USB. But then thats just me. To each his own. Your mileage may vary.

V o n h ö g e n
05-08-2008, 08:34 PM
I was much happier with my samlpe libraries on SATA Velociraptor drives than anything I've had


I'm impressed that you managed to get the new 300Gb Velociraptor so fast! I'm afraid I will have to wait a few more weeks before my order can be processed. I still haven't seen one in Europe, despite the official worldwide presentation of the drive. :(

- Jerome Vonhögen

charles
05-09-2008, 05:24 AM
Just wondering--Do the 4 internal SATA hard drive slots on the Mac Pro all share a bus, or are they independent?

Could make a difference in comparing performance w/internal drives
vs. PCI SATA card connected to external SATA drives in an enclosure.

Thanks,
Charles

chlady
05-09-2008, 07:27 AM
Thanks Allan for the info. I should have also stated I'm getting a dual external enclosure since I'll keep the 2 drives that I already have in my Dual G5 so will need a card with external ports.


Craig

Kostas
05-09-2008, 10:10 AM
Why SATA II? Sorry, but that 300MB/s number is just theoretical. The SATA II throughput rate exceeds the transfer rate of all HDDs available today, including the fastest Solid State Disks! The actual HDD data transfer rate is limited to the so-called 'sustainable' data rate of your HDD, which is around 115MB/s at best. This is well below the throughput limit of SATA I. Even more shockingly, perhaps: it is still within the boundaries of the old PATA/133 specs!

By the way, there is no such thing as SATA II-only drives, since all SATA HDD will work just fine with SATA I.

The only reason I can think of for using SATA II would be the burst rate of the new Western Digital Velociraptor which, at 247 MB/s, truely exceeds the SATA I/150 specification. However, such a burst rate would only help to reduce the access time of the drive. It won't improve the (non-burst) throughput, which is still less than 150 Mb/s. :o

- Jerome Vonhögen

This is quite helpful post you know, I was thinking to buy a glyph 50q with SATA I connection which sounds a bit old in comparison to SATA II but now I think it's not so bad (if you're right of course :)) i don't like to buy something that can cause hiccup and such to my system (aka hoketus!!)

-Kostas

V o n h ö g e n
05-10-2008, 06:36 PM
This is quite helpful post you know, I was thinking to buy a glyph 50q with SATA I connection which sounds a bit old in comparison to SATA II but now I think it's not so bad (if you're right of course :))

Trust me... :cool:

By the way, I believe the Glyph is not a regular SATA drive, but a quad interface drive consisting of several linked Seagate drives, isn't it? It looks nice, but I wonder if you have ever considered buying the new WD Velociraptor. The access time of that drive can only be beaten by SSD's. The access time of the glyph 50q is just avarage, I'm afraid.

(...) something that can cause hiccup and such to my system (aka hoketus!!)

:)

- Jerome Vonhögen