Hi,
I'm in some real need of advice on how to set up my PC for maximizing
performance using Pro Tools(w/ MBox) and Vegas for audio/video
recording and editing.
I've got a Dell(WindowsXP, Dual Core, 320GB Performance RAID 0 (2 x
160GB SATA HDDs).

I also use apps like Office/Photoshop/Flash/Visual Studio, etc for
miscellaneous stuff, but will mostly use it for audio recording/editing
with Pro Tools, and some video.

I just need advice on how to partition/configure my hard drive(s)
space. Where do I put the apps, audio/video files, etc. Any 'best
practices' out there that people can share with me??

Thanks in advance!

"dwfresh" wrote in message
ups.com
Hi,
I'm in some real need of advice on how to set up my PC
for maximizing performance using Pro Tools(w/ MBox) and
Vegas for audio/video recording and editing.

I've got a Dell(WindowsXP, Dual Core, 320GB Performance
RAID 0 (2 x 160GB SATA HDDs).

I also use apps like Office/Photoshop/Flash/Visual
Studio, etc for miscellaneous stuff, but will mostly use
it for audio recording/editing with Pro Tools, and some
video.

I just need advice on how to partition/configure my hard
drive(s) space. Where do I put the apps, audio/video
files, etc. Any 'best practices' out there that people
can share with me??

Partitioning is kinda passe.

Arny Krueger wrote:
I just need advice on how to partition/configure my hard
drive(s) space. Where do I put the apps, audio/video
files, etc. Any 'best practices' out there that people
can share with me??

Partitioning is kinda passe.

I would partition the first drive into three or four sections,

All applications on C Drive.
Store different types of non av data on d, e, f etc in logical
arrangements. [If you store most of your data not on c:, then if
or more likely when you have to rebuild c:, the data is still stored
without having to back it up. ]

If you use an av file in many projects ( like a show
opening or audio logo etc then you could store it on this first drive
and then copy it onto the av drive as needed).

You don't want the computer to have to look up software instructions
on c: while trying to read continious av data on the same drive.

Second drive for audio / video only.

If you only work on one or two projects at a time and then archive
and blow them off, I would consider partitioning the second drive into
two or three sections, depending on how much storage you typically
need per project. Doing this allows you to archive the project when
complete and then delete all the files without having a need to defrag.

If you use the av drive as one large drive, and work on several
projects, then when you blow off a signle project you should defrag
the av drive.

The downside of partitioning is if your project exceeds the space in a
single partition, then you end up spreading the project over more than
one partition.

Pay your money and take your chance G
a project you should

Partitioning is kinda passe.

I couldn't disagree more.

My drive is partitioned as C:, D:, E:, and F:.

C: is the boot drive with all OS and system files.

D: is for application software (unless the installation program insists on
putting it on C:.)

E: is user data -- text, images, PP, etc. Anything I create.

F: is what was left over. I use it for the system swap file.

The advantages of this should be "plain to the veriest dunce". _Almost_
everything you need to back up is on E:. Most of the rest of the stuff is on
C:, in your user section.

Arny,

Partitioning is kinda passe.

I'm with the others here. Besides all the reasons given so far, here are my
main reasons to partition:

1. Drive C: contains only Windows and programs, so I can back up the entire
state of my computer using Norton Ghost. If I ever have to recover (happened
twice this past year) I can get everything back exactly with no data loss
because all data is on other partitions. This also keeps the backup small
because it contains only Windows and programs.

2. I use partitions to segregate files that never fragment (SoundFonts,
completed projects, programs and driver updates I downloaded) from files
that fragment often like Temp Internet. I have Temp Internet in its own
smallish partition which also lets me defrag it quickly. (In truth I'm just
as likely to delete it all.) Likewise other partitions can be kept small
enough to defrag MUCH more quickly than an entire 200 GB drive.

--Ethan

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 06:51:10 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Partitioning is kinda passe.

I couldn't disagree more.

My drive is partitioned as C:, D:, E:, and F:.

C: is the boot drive with all OS and system files.

D: is for application software (unless the installation program insists on
putting it on C:.)

E: is user data -- text, images, PP, etc. Anything I create.

F: is what was left over. I use it for the system swap file.

The advantages of this should be "plain to the veriest dunce". _Almost_
everything you need to back up is on E:. Most of the rest of the stuff is on
C:, in your user section.

So how is that any better than a logically organized directory system
on a single partition?

Julian

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:59:39 -0400, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

2. I use partitions to segregate files that never fragment snip Likewise other partitions can be kept small
enough to defrag MUCH more quickly than an entire 200 GB drive.

Yes. That's the only reason I know of to partition - to have the
ability to defrag select potions. But even that is less an issue than
it used to be.

Julian

Here are a few sites with quite a few optimizing tips:
http://www.kellyindustries.com/compu..._optimize.html
http://www.musicxp.net/tuning_tips.php
http://www.tascamgiga.com/pdf/pc-optimization-guide.pdf
http://www.pcmus.com/TweakXP.htm
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=590758

Hope it helps.

dave


"dwfresh" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi,
I'm in some real need of advice on how to set up my PC for maximizing
performance using Pro Tools(w/ MBox) and Vegas for audio/video
recording and editing.
I've got a Dell(WindowsXP, Dual Core, 320GB Performance RAID 0 (2 x
160GB SATA HDDs).

I also use apps like Office/Photoshop/Flash/Visual Studio, etc for
miscellaneous stuff, but will mostly use it for audio recording/editing
with Pro Tools, and some video.

I just need advice on how to partition/configure my hard drive(s)
space. Where do I put the apps, audio/video files, etc. Any 'best
practices' out there that people can share with me??

Thanks in advance!

If C: becomes corrupt or needs to be rebuilt, you do not have to
move your data to do a format on the c:drive.

If the entire drive is going south, you know where to find all your
must salvage data without having to wade through all the junk that
c: tends to collect.

It's just convience. Has made my life much easier a number of times
over the years.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
My drive is partitioned as C:, D:, E:, and F:.
C: is the boot drive with all OS and system files.
D: is for application software (unless the installation program
insists on putting it on C:.)
E: is user data -- text, images, PP, etc. Anything I create.
F: is what was left over. I use it for the system swap file.

The advantages of this should be "plain to the veriest dunce".
_Almost_ everything you need to back up is on E:. Most of
the rest of the stuff is on C:, in your user section.

Maybe. But forcing the swap file out on your "F:" drive is
causing more head thrashing than if you had left it on "C:"
But maybe you'll be lucky and your drive will fail from some
other reason.

"dwfresh" wrote ...
I'm in some real need of advice on how to set up my PC for
maximizing performance using Pro Tools(w/ MBox) and
Vegas for audio/video recording and editing.
I've got a Dell(WindowsXP, Dual Core, 320GB Performance
RAID 0 (2 x 160GB SATA HDDs).

I also use apps like Office/Photoshop/Flash/Visual Studio,
etc for miscellaneous stuff, but will mostly use it for audio
recording/editing with Pro Tools, and some video.

I just need advice on how to partition/configure my hard drive(s)
space. Where do I put the apps, audio/video files, etc. Any 'best
practices' out there that people can share with me??

It is a bad idea to keep the operating system (with swap file,
program files, etc.) on the same "drive" as audio/video data.
Even if the "drive" is a RAID array. Whether it is a "partition"
or just a "subdirectory" makes no difference to what is happening
on the physical disc(s).

The two main reasons this is a bad idea are...
1) It forces the drive to seek back and forth between the data
files, the swap file, and the program files.
2) The "time-sharing" described in (1) above causes
interruptions to the data stream of the audio/video file.
This is particularly problematic when recording from
a live external source (live audio, videotape capture, etc.)

I'd get a cheap 60-80GB drive to use for C: and use the 320GB
RAID array *EXCLUSIVELY* for audio/video files.

wow, thanks for all the good advice!
I will do a little more research with some of the links you provided.
Thank you for heading me in the right direction..

I was a big fan of partitioning in windows 98 days. Hardly seems
necessary any more.

On 15 Oct 2005 19:59:41 -0700, "audiotheater"
wrote:

If C: becomes corrupt or needs to be rebuilt, you do not have to
move your data to do a format on the c:drive.

If the entire drive is going south, you know where to find all your
must salvage data without having to wade through all the junk that
c: tends to collect.

It's just convience. Has made my life much easier a number of times
over the years.

Maybe. But forcing the swap file out on your "F:" drive is
causing more head thrashing than if you had left it on "C:"
But maybe you'll be lucky and your drive will fail from some
other reason.

I've used this system on two computers for over 10 years, and have had no
hard drive failures for any reason.

Actually, putting the swap file on another drive causes no more (or less)
thrashing than it does on the C: drive. Rather, the head has to move
farther. Whether this wears the drive out faster is debatable.

Julian,

That's the only reason I know of to partition - to have the ability to
defrag select potions. But even that is less an issue than it used to be.

Those of us who use our computers for audio and video production disable all
background tasks. So when I defrag I want it to go as quickly as possible
because I'm waiting while it runs. Using partitions may also keep related
data closer together on the platters. If you have 200 GB as one partition,
over time audio could end up scattered at opposite ends of the drive
requiring longer seeks times.

--Ethan

"audiotheater" wrote in message
ups.com

If C: becomes corrupt or needs to be rebuilt, you do not
have to move your data to do a format on the c:drive.

I look at 100's of sick PCs every year. Do you know how long
its been since I've seen a NTFS partition that became
unrecoverably corrupt without the drive underneath it going
totally south? Like never.

If the entire drive is going south, you know where to
find all your must salvage data without having to wade
through all the junk that c: tends to collect.

If your C: drive collects junk, or your data gets lost -
look in the mirror and note the face of the individual to
blame.

If you are familiar with the history of PCs, hierarchical
directory structures and more sophisticated file systems
were invented so that people wouldn't have to partition
their drives.

It's just convience. Has made my life much easier a
number of times over the years.

As if trying to manage a bunch of partions makes most
people's lives easier. It's axiomatic that subdividing a
resource that can be managed as one entity, makes it harder
to manage.

Partitioning a hard drive is like keeping your milk money
and your bread money in separate bank accounts.

For most people, anything past the C: partition is like it
isn't there.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message


"William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
My drive is partitioned as C:, D:, E:, and F:.
C: is the boot drive with all OS and system files.
D: is for application software (unless the installation
program insists on putting it on C:.)
E: is user data -- text, images, PP, etc. Anything I
create. F: is what was left over. I use it for the
system swap file.

The advantages of this should be "plain to the veriest
dunce". _Almost_ everything you need to back up is on
E:.

You can do as well if not better by putting all user data in
subdirectories of My Documents.

Then - backup My Documents and all subdirectories.


Maybe. But forcing the swap file out on your "F:" drive is
causing more head thrashing than if you had left it on
"C:" But maybe you'll be lucky and your drive will fail
from some other reason.

Excellent point.

The inside tracks of a drive are way slower than the outside
tracks, not to mention the time it takes to seek them.

However - beware, as XP itself has an observable tendency
to sometimes initially put the swap folder near the inside
tracks of the drive. Usually some defragging and
reallocation of the swap file by resizing it can correct
this.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:01:16 -0400, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Those of us who use our computers for audio and video production disable all
background tasks. So when I defrag I want it to go as quickly as possible
because I'm waiting while it runs. Using partitions may also keep related
data closer together on the platters. If you have 200 GB as one partition,
over time audio could end up scattered at opposite ends of the drive
requiring longer seeks times.

Why don't defrag when you shut the studio down at night instead of
sitting there waiting for it?

You don't have to tell me what "those of us who use our computers for
audio and video" do. I may have been doing as long as you or longer,
Ethan. I remember when Sound Designer was the only game in town, a
1GB hard drive was huge and you absolutely had to defrag before every
session.

I'm just saying with XP, faster hard drives and all around better
computer performance these days partitioning is far far less of an
issue than it used to be. Maybe on Macs it is still an issue? I
defrag far less often now than I used to, an unpartitioned 200 GB disk
defrag's in an acceptably fast manner IMO, and overall performance is
far far better than ever.

I do agree with others here that advocated 2 physically separate
drives for your data files and program files for anyone who needs
optimal performance as apparently you do. I'm advocating 2 separate
drives, but not partitioning a single drive. IMO that's what you
should do instead of partitioning.

Julian

On 14 Oct 2005 22:05:22 -0700, "dwfresh" wrote:

Hi,
I'm in some real need of advice on how to set up my PC for maximizing
performance using Pro Tools(w/ MBox) and Vegas for audio/video
recording and editing.
I've got a Dell(WindowsXP, Dual Core, 320GB Performance RAID 0 (2 x
160GB SATA HDDs).

I also use apps like Office/Photoshop/Flash/Visual Studio, etc for
miscellaneous stuff, but will mostly use it for audio recording/editing
with Pro Tools, and some video.

I just need advice on how to partition/configure my hard drive(s)
space. Where do I put the apps, audio/video files, etc. Any 'best
practices' out there that people can share with me??

Thanks in advance!
I'd opt for three or four identical drives, no partitions or logical
drives whatsoever. The first for programs, the second for the swap
file, the third for temp files and temp work and the fourth one for
interim storage of the work done. In a such a configuration, all
drives are working linear and smooth as it goes -- there's no
interference of tasks which do slow down single disk activities a hell
of a lot. Partitions and logical disk won't be of any help here. And
copying between the disks fllies in comparison to copying between
partitions and/or logical disks. I'd format the media ie. work disks
with the biggest cluster size possible, wouldn't care for slack space
in that case.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

"Edi Zubovic" wrote ...
I'd opt for three or four identical drives, no partitions or logical
drives whatsoever.

Indeed. And no RAID either. Can't think of any reason you
would need to RAID a couple of 180GB drives together.
Certainly not for any audio application, and not even for
video (in my experience with 1TB of video files)

RAID (especially the more popular forms) just puts your
data *more* at risk. Instead of relying on the reliability
of the drive that data is on, you are relying on the reliability
of ALL the drives in the array, any one of which takes all
your data with it.

I find several individual drives quite convienent. Especially
for things like transcoding, etc, where you can put the output
file on a different drive so you don't thrash one drive going
back and forth between the source and destination file locations.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:57:52 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

RAID (especially the more popular forms) just puts your
data *more* at risk. Instead of relying on the reliability
of the drive that data is on, you are relying on the reliability
of ALL the drives in the array, any one of which takes all
your data with it.

Some RAID configurations have a redundant drive so that if one drive
fails the system keeps running and allows you time to change out the
one failed drive before the whole array comes down. At KEXP we have
this set up on a both primary and a back up audio server. Even if a
whole array and/or server fails we still have the back up array and
server. Quadruple redundancy. Having said that, I still agree with
you RAID's are usually not needed or even a good idea in most cases.

Julian

"Julian" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

RAID (especially the more popular forms) just puts your
data *more* at risk. Instead of relying on the reliability
of the drive that data is on, you are relying on the reliability
of ALL the drives in the array, any one of which takes all
your data with it.

Some RAID configurations have a redundant drive so that if one drive
fails the system keeps running and allows you time to change out the
one failed drive before the whole array comes down.

Right. But that does not describe the "popular forms of RAID"
including the one that started this thread.

RAID (especially the more popular forms) just puts your
data *more* at risk. Instead of relying on the reliability
of the drive that data is on, you are relying on the reliability
of ALL the drives in the array, any one of which takes all
your data with it.

You're kidding, aren't you?

If one drive fails, the other is available. If not immediately, at least
after a restart.) It's conceivable you might lose whatever you're currently
working on, but that's it.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:49:55 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

Right. But that does not describe the "popular forms of RAID"
including the one that started this thread.

Since when are these conversations limited what originally started
them?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote...
RAID (especially the more popular forms) just puts your
data *more* at risk. Instead of relying on the reliability
of the drive that data is on, you are relying on the reliability
of ALL the drives in the array, any one of which takes all
your data with it.

You're kidding, aren't you?

If one drive fails, the other is available. If not immediately,
at least after a restart.) It's conceivable you might lose
whatever you're currently working on, but that's it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redunda...ependent_disks
Only two of the different kinds of RAID offer data backup,
and neither of them are very popular with the kinds of users
we are talking to. It is much more "sexy" to have a humongous
virtual drive (for no apparent reason except bragging rights.)

I thought that RAID 0 hard drives were ideal for audio/video editing??.
at least according to several sites i have researched.

is this wrong ?

"dwfresh" wrote ...
I thought that RAID 0 hard drives were ideal for audio/
video editing??. at least according to several sites i
have researched.

is this wrong ?

Define "ideal"?
WHY do you need such a large, contiguous disk space?

I'd rather have several independent discs than a RAID
array. Except for RAID5 where you can use hot-swap
redundancy to survive a single drive failure. But that has
*nothing* particularly to do with audio/video editing.

"dwfresh" wrote in message
oups.com...
I thought that RAID 0 hard drives were ideal for audio/video editing??.
at least according to several sites i have researched.

is this wrong ?

I'm just jumping into the middle of this thread, so cut me some slack if I
am offering old stuff. Raid systems still have their place in larger
facilities, where the data transfer speed gains are meaningful, such as
upscale video and audio recording/editing facilities. However, the data
read/write speed gains offered by Raid 0 were much more important a few
years ago, when IDE drives were so very much slower. Now, 7200 and 10K
drives barely breath heavy under typical video and audio work. Having
experienced those slower drives, I am now amazed at the video editing that
can be accomplished on a laptop with a relatively slow 5400 rpm drive.
Drives just aren't the bottleneck they once were; however, arguments in
their support die hard.

Steve King

"Julian" wrote in message


I'm just saying with XP, faster hard drives and all
around better computer performance these days
partitioning is far far less of an issue than it used to
be. Maybe on Macs it is still an issue? I defrag far
less often now than I used to, an unpartitioned 200 GB
disk defrag's in an acceptably fast manner IMO, and
overall performance is far far better than ever.

XP and NTFS definately changed the rules of disk management
as compared to Win98 and FAT32.

You can defrag a drive while you are working, if your work
isn't disk-intensive. Unlike FAT32, a defrag of a NTFS
volume doesn't have to start over every time you change the
disk.

Windows NT doesn't do an automatic scan of the hard drive
every time it isn't shut down properly like Win98.

Folders with many files in them aren't the bottleneck under
NT that they were under Win98.


I do agree with others here that advocated 2 physically
separate drives for your data files and program files for
anyone who needs optimal performance as apparently you
do. I'm advocating 2 separate drives, but not
partitioning a single drive. IMO that's what you should
do instead of partitioning.

The only performance-related reason I can see for
partitioning, is if you want to keep performance-related
files from being allocated on inner cylinders, which are
typically slower.

As others have pointed out, partioning is a good way to
force your hard drive to do far more time-wasting seeking.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message


RAID (especially the more popular forms) just puts your
data *more* at risk. Instead of relying on the
reliability of the drive that data is on, you are relying
on the
reliability of ALL the drives in the array, any one of
which takes all your data with it.

Certainly true for striping.

I have a number of clients who use mirroring, and I'm frank
with them right up front - with mirroring the chances of a
single drive failure is about doubled. It's just that with
mirroring, a single drive failure is more of an
inconvenience and far less of a crisis.

Mirroring has non-trivial performance benfits, in typical
use. Most controllers route reads to the second drive when
the first drive is busy. Typically about 2/3 of I/O activity
is reading. Reading is more likely to be scattered, and
cause I/O bottlenecks.

I find several individual drives quite convienent.
Especially for things like transcoding, etc, where you
can put the output file on a different drive so you don't
thrash one drive going back and forth between the source
and destination file locations.

Exactly. There are few things slower than a file-to-file
copy on the same drive. There are few things faster than a
file-to-file copy on two drives, particularly if they are on
different controllers. However, with UDMA the bottlenecking
due to two drives on one controller has been vastly reduced.
Putting CDROMs on the same cable as hard drives used to be
deadly. Now, it can cause few problems.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
RAID (especially the more popular forms) just puts your
data *more* at risk. Instead of relying on the
reliability
of the drive that data is on, you are relying on the
reliability of ALL the drives in the array, any one of
which takes all
your data with it.

You're kidding, aren't you?

If one drive fails, the other is available. If not
immediately, at least after a restart.) It's conceivable
you might lose whatever you're currently working on, but
that's it.

True for mirroring, not true for striping. RAID can be
either.

Failure of either drive in a striped set is the end of the
road in almost every case. How about those offline backups?
;-)

Higher forms of RAID (e.g. RAID 5) can be pretty economical
if you want to have a really big array - IOW Terrabytes. I
see RAID 5 controllers on the shelf for like $200. That's
about the same price as the very largest drives.

"dwfresh" wrote in message
oups.com

I thought that RAID 0 hard drives were ideal for
audio/video editing??. at least according to several
sites i have researched.

is this wrong ?

As the other posters say, its outdated information.

For most A/V editing, you end up wqaiting on time-consuming
operations that net out to being a file-file of files-file
copy. Those run fastest when you're copying between at least
2 drives.

I typically work on multitrack sets that are about 4 GB of
data. No way is that going to fit into RAM, at least this
week.

The editing is non-destructive, and that flies. However, the
mixdowns net out to being files-file copies and that's
where multiple drives show the big advantage.

Video editing seems to follow a similar operational and data
flow.

If one drive fails, the other is available. If not
immediately, at least after a restart.) It's conceivable
you might lose whatever you're currently working on, but
that's it.

True for mirroring, not true for striping. RAID can be
either.

Right. I'd forgotten. Mainly because striping is hardly "redundant".


Failure of either drive in a striped set is the end of the
road in almost every case. How about those offline backups?
;-)

I have two drives. One is a backup drive that I periodically mirror the
primary drive to, using Ghost. If the main drive fails, I can be up and
running again in a few minutes. I'll have only lost what I worked on since
the last mirror and didn't back up. For which I have a Zip drive.