where to place audio on revamped system
in [Cakewalk]
|
Prev: HDD opinions needed
Next: Sound card suggestions
From: Phoenix on 10 Apr 2008 21:28 Thanks, Steve. That seems to be the prevailing opinion. I wish I could be sure what really went wrong with my old system. I only have the MSI D-bracket lights to guide me. One of these days maybe I'll shlep the mobo/CPU/case to the guys I bought them from and maybe they can tell me. It would be nice to have a working spare system. Only then I'd have to decide whether to get another license for XP or take the Vista plunge. An expense--and maybe a struggle--for another day. "Steve L." <email(a)myeamail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9A7CB5C36F062emailmemyemailcom(a)66.133.129.71... > "Phoenix" <gtr_phoenix(a)killerrabbit.verizon.net> thought it was ok to ask > >> So do you think the SATA or the PATA should hold the OS/programs? > > I'de put the OS on the PATA. Your OS response might not be as snappy but > your audio drive is the one you want max thruput on.
From: Sue Morton on 10 Apr 2008 21:30 I'd go along with that too, PATA for OS and 'trash' partition, SATA for audio. Didn't mention it before because you wrote you wanted to use the SATA for OS... I didn't look at your mobo specs so I assume you can boot with either device type. Some mobos will not boot PATAs. -- Sue Morton Phoenix wrote: > So do you think the SATA or the PATA should hold the OS/programs? > (the mobo is the Asus M3A, if that info helps.) Is the activity most > i/o intensive on the audio or OS/progs drive? I thought it was the > latter, but I have folks telling me to use the PATA(Ultra ATA, 8mb > cache) for OS and the SATA(32mb cache) for audio. > > "Sue Morton" <867-5309(a)domain.invalid> wrote in message > news:wNmLj.2481$%41.1290(a)nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com... >> >> >> Phoenix wrote: >>> So I'm trying to figure out how best to use >>> the other 400+ GB. To store some audio there seems obvious. But, >>> libraries, project files, or both? Maybe current work on the faster >>> drive, non-current on the other? >> >> You will get better performance, as a general rule, if your data is >> on a separate physical drive from the OS, IF the throughput from the >> mobo and the disks themselves are equal.. In this situation I >> suspect you will get better performance overall by using the single >> sata drive for i/o intensive work. >> >> >>> As for drive failure, who knows? I've had drives fail within a >>> couple months and there's a 15GB in my mom's machine thats I don't >>> know how old. If the new drive should fail, though, I'll have my >>> Acronis "system restore" image from the system that was and I could >>> just map it on to the drive it was on and be up and running again. >> >> OK the Acronis takes care of the OS. What about all the data on the >> "D:" partition you'll lose too? THAT was my point, not the OS. >> >> If your backups of important data are not completely current, then >> you lost that too. Slight risk? Big risk? Drive failure is a >> wildcard. But having *complete* and *current* backups is NOT :-) >> -- >> Sue Morton
From: Phoenix on 10 Apr 2008 21:37 The mobo info is less than informative on that subject. I guess I'll find out.... "Sue Morton" <867-5309(a)domain.invalid> wrote in message news:SazLj.8024$V14.5192(a)nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com... > I'd go along with that too, PATA for OS and 'trash' partition, SATA for > audio. Didn't mention it before because you wrote you wanted to use the > SATA for OS... > > I didn't look at your mobo specs so I assume you can boot with either > device type. Some mobos will not boot PATAs. > -- > Sue Morton > > Phoenix wrote: >> So do you think the SATA or the PATA should hold the OS/programs? >> (the mobo is the Asus M3A, if that info helps.) Is the activity most >> i/o intensive on the audio or OS/progs drive? I thought it was the >> latter, but I have folks telling me to use the PATA(Ultra ATA, 8mb >> cache) for OS and the SATA(32mb cache) for audio. >> >> "Sue Morton" <867-5309(a)domain.invalid> wrote in message >> news:wNmLj.2481$%41.1290(a)nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com... >>> >>> >>> Phoenix wrote: >>>> So I'm trying to figure out how best to use >>>> the other 400+ GB. To store some audio there seems obvious. But, >>>> libraries, project files, or both? Maybe current work on the faster >>>> drive, non-current on the other? >>> >>> You will get better performance, as a general rule, if your data is >>> on a separate physical drive from the OS, IF the throughput from the >>> mobo and the disks themselves are equal.. In this situation I >>> suspect you will get better performance overall by using the single >>> sata drive for i/o intensive work. >>> >>> >>>> As for drive failure, who knows? I've had drives fail within a >>>> couple months and there's a 15GB in my mom's machine thats I don't >>>> know how old. If the new drive should fail, though, I'll have my >>>> Acronis "system restore" image from the system that was and I could >>>> just map it on to the drive it was on and be up and running again. >>> >>> OK the Acronis takes care of the OS. What about all the data on the >>> "D:" partition you'll lose too? THAT was my point, not the OS. >>> >>> If your backups of important data are not completely current, then >>> you lost that too. Slight risk? Big risk? Drive failure is a >>> wildcard. But having *complete* and *current* backups is NOT :-) >>> -- >>> Sue Morton > >
From: Phoenix on 10 Apr 2008 21:44 That's what the mWave dude said. I also think he would've told me if it wouldn't boot with PATA, cos that's what I told him I had; I ordered the SATA drive afterwards. "Glennbo" <vdrumsYourHeadFromYourAss(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:Xns9A7CD1A03A781BrownShoesDontMakeIt(a)69.28.186.120... > In news:SazLj.8024$V14.5192(a)nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com the killer robot "Sue > Morton" <867-5309(a)domain.invalid> grabbed the controls of the spaceship > cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > >> I'd go along with that too, PATA for OS and 'trash' partition, SATA >> for audio. Didn't mention it before because you wrote you wanted to >> use the SATA for OS... >> >> I didn't look at your mobo specs so I assume you can boot with either >> device type. Some mobos will not boot PATAs. > > If he's got an Asus mobo, it surely will. All of 'em I've ever seen had > way flexible boot capabilities. My kid boots Linux off a flash drive for > kicks on his. ;) > > -- > Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email > ________ ____ > / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / __ )____ > / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ / __ \ > / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / > \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_____/\____/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo > Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits > Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
From: Phoenix on 13 Apr 2008 22:53
The point is now moot cos the PATA drive I was going to use went south. I'm going to have to RMA it. I think I'll stick to my original plan with one change--going to install OS/progs on a partition on the SATA, order another SATA for main audio, and leave the PATAs for my spare system-to-be. "Sue Morton" <867-5309(a)domain.invalid> wrote in message news:SazLj.8024$V14.5192(a)nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com... > I'd go along with that too, PATA for OS and 'trash' partition, SATA for > audio. Didn't mention it before because you wrote you wanted to use the > SATA for OS... > > I didn't look at your mobo specs so I assume you can boot with either device > type. Some mobos will not boot PATAs. > -- > Sue Morton > > Phoenix wrote: > > So do you think the SATA or the PATA should hold the OS/programs? > > (the mobo is the Asus M3A, if that info helps.) Is the activity most > > i/o intensive on the audio or OS/progs drive? I thought it was the > > latter, but I have folks telling me to use the PATA(Ultra ATA, 8mb > > cache) for OS and the SATA(32mb cache) for audio. > > > > "Sue Morton" <867-5309(a)domain.invalid> wrote in message > > news:wNmLj.2481$%41.1290(a)nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com... > >> > >> > >> Phoenix wrote: > >>> So I'm trying to figure out how best to use > >>> the other 400+ GB. To store some audio there seems obvious. But, > >>> libraries, project files, or both? Maybe current work on the faster > >>> drive, non-current on the other? > >> > >> You will get better performance, as a general rule, if your data is > >> on a separate physical drive from the OS, IF the throughput from the > >> mobo and the disks themselves are equal.. In this situation I > >> suspect you will get better performance overall by using the single > >> sata drive for i/o intensive work. > >> > >> > >>> As for drive failure, who knows? I've had drives fail within a > >>> couple months and there's a 15GB in my mom's machine thats I don't > >>> know how old. If the new drive should fail, though, I'll have my > >>> Acronis "system restore" image from the system that was and I could > >>> just map it on to the drive it was on and be up and running again. > >> > >> OK the Acronis takes care of the OS. What about all the data on the > >> "D:" partition you'll lose too? THAT was my point, not the OS. > >> > >> If your backups of important data are not completely current, then > >> you lost that too. Slight risk? Big risk? Drive failure is a > >> wildcard. But having *complete* and *current* backups is NOT :-) > >> -- > >> Sue Morton > > |