Recommend a second hard drive

[R & S Hanlon]

I have a 8GB Seagate Cheetah (Dual Ultra wide SCSI). It\'s not enough space for all the gigs I have and will be getting, along with the audio files I store. So I want to get a second hard drive.

I went to PC Mall.com and found some inexpensive Ultra IDE drives, specifically the ones recommended by the Gigastudio ReadMe files (IBM Deskstar, Seagate Ultra IDE 7200RPM,)

Would there be conflicts with buying a Ultra IDE drive and running it along with my Cheetah SCSI drive.

Second question: Has anyone notice that big of a giga performance difference between the SCSI and Ultra IDE drive.

Any recommendations/suggestions as to a second hard drive buy?

Thanks!!!!

[killerbobjr]

If you only have two drives in a system, one SCSI, the other IDE, the IDE drive automatically will become your C: drive. You will not be able to boot from your SCSI drive then.

Between an identically spec\'ed IDE drive and SCSI drive, the SCSI drive will always have a slight edge in performance over IDE. But as far as real world applications, a current generation high performance IDE drive (such as the IBM GXP series) will be more than enough to stream Gigasamples from.

[R & S Hanlon]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killerbobjr:
If you only have two drives in a system, one SCSI, the other IDE, the IDE drive automatically will become your C: drive. You will not be able to boot from your SCSI drive then.

**** Thanks for your reply, killerbobjr. Do you see the above situation as a problem?

Between an identically spec\'ed IDE drive and SCSI drive, the SCSI drive will always have a slight edge in performance over IDE. But as far as real world applications, a current generation high performance IDE drive (such as the IBM GXP series) will be more than enough to stream Gigasamples from.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

******If you were to buy the IDE with an existing SCSI how would you organize the drives.

I was thinking to put the programs (that includes gigasampler/cakewalk pro audio9) and cakewalk wavedata folder on the IDE and just use the SCSI drive to hold the GIGs libraries.

I\'m only using gigasampler (soon Gst) and cakewalk on this computer with no other soft synths or audio editing programs. Does this seem like a reasonable set-up?

[LHong]

=============================================
If you only have two drives in a system, one SCSI, the other IDE, the IDE drive automatically will become your C: drive. You will not be able to boot from your SCSI drive then.
=============================================
It is not necessary that C-Drive must be IDE or SCSI, neither it must be only booted from C-Drive(I have multiple boot, I can choose any drives or partitions I want). It denpends on how you setup boot prority in the CMOS and how you format it. there is some ultility program will helps such as \"on-fly partition\" in Powerquest partition Magic program for example. http://www.powerquest.com/usindex.html (\"http://www.powerquest.com/usindex.html\")

============================================
I\'m only using gigasampler (soon Gst) and cakewalk on this computer with no other soft synths or audio editing programs. Does this seem like a reasonable set-up?
============================================
Good idea to have this setup, to dedicate Giga and Cakewalk. My opinions, to have two IDE-HD/7200 + SCSI-HD/7200. Here is what I would do:
1>First IDE-HD/10GB for OS + Giga and Cakewalk executable programs + others
2>Second IDE-HD/20GB for giga sound loading program, mixdown wave data, and other relative audio and video data (MPEG, MP3, etc)
3>SCSI-HD/8GB (same one you have now) for Cakewalk audio streaming data (cakewake-Wave), Giga audio streaming data (capture data)
LHong

[R & S Hanlon]

Thanks, LHong! I wanted this kind of detailed response that you provided.

I just have some other questions.
First, let\'s pretend you have the SCSI and only 1 IDE-HD/7200. How would you set-up a system that only has Cakewalk, gigasampler and a few other applications like office 97 and Exact audio copy, etc.
I don\'t store video data nor mpegs.
Where would you put the cakewalk wavedata with the above set-up? would you put wavedata folder with the gig libraries or separate on the HD with the programs.

Okay, now let\'s say, you\'re going to get the two IDE-HD with a SCSI HD. Why would you buy a 10 GB HD for just the programs. This seems like a lot of space.
I can understand 6-10 or 20 GB for audio data/wavedata and another 6 -20 GB for giga instrument libraries but really a computer dedicated to just a few software programs would seem to only require a few GB of disk space. What do you think?

I ask, because I will consider buying two IDE drives but I think I might buy a smaller size IDE for programs, a 10 GB IDE for wavedata/audio data and just use my 8 GB SCSI (the one I have already) for my giga instrument libraries.

What do you think about all of this?

Really, thanks for taking the time to respond. Where would I be without this useful Giga forum?

R & S Hanlon

My opinions, to have two IDE-HD/7200 + SCSI-HD/7200. Here is what I would do:
1>First IDE-HD/10GB for OS + Giga and Cakewalk executable programs + others
2>Second IDE-HD/20GB for giga sound loading program, mixdown wave data, and other relative audio and video data (MPEG, MP3, etc)
3>SCSI-HD/8GB (same one you have now) for Cakewalk audio streaming data (cakewake-Wave), Giga audio streaming data (capture data)
LHong

[/B][/QUOTE]

[LHong]

Good questions, my friend,
===========================================
Okay, now let\'s say, you\'re going to get the two IDE-HD with a SCSI HD. Why would you buy a 10 GB HD for just the programs. This seems like a lot of space.
I can understand 6-10 or 20 GB for audio data/wavedata and another 6 -20 GB for giga instrument libraries but really a computer dedicated to just a few software programs would seem to only require a few GB of disk space. What do you think?
==================================
Let\'s say I sell to you 10GB and 5GB harddrive about same price ($100~$150), what do you choose? just kidding! see the following:

1> Why ~10GB for OS? You are right ,you only need about 2GB, more than enough. However a> Today, IDE-HD not very expensive, with even different brands you can get same price in same size and quality (it\'s not hurt if you have more than what you need). b> With larger capacity you might want to have other two partions for multiple boot + new software versions in case you want to try-out new softwares or new upgraded-versions like cakewalk10/11 or GigaStudio320/640 whatever, until you are sure everything work properly. c> You could have large swapping space like TEMP or TMP for most of applications of cource you can have OS configuration or whatever as a backup as well. Don\'t forget your PC would be last about 2~3 years, you wouldn\'t want to add another harddrive, would you? you will find there are some spaces you could use when you need it.
2> Why three harddives?: a> Maybe an idea you want to seperate the OS and application programs, it is huge of time saver if there will be any problems in either drives. b> For best taking performances, I see in realtime recording Giga and cakewalk that it could takes advantage to access read/wirte cycles at sametime with difference harddrive, I guess. Of course I also see some expert-users here have mentioned it as well, maybe a way to reduce the latency to minimum. especial advantage if you want to record multiple audio tracks at sametime, to improve its sound quality, like pops, crakes, clicks could be avoided as well.
3> why large capacity (20+10+8GB)? Let\'s say you have one Giga + cakewalk project about 10-audio track in 44.1k/16B-5-minSong, the minimum HD-space is required about 500MB disk-space(10trackx10MB/Minx5Minx=500MB) and you might have about 4 revisions, so the total about 2Gb everage for each songs, right? Well, in this case, you can only have 15 songs in 30Gb-HD. Of course you will need to clean-up drive-space sometimes, otherwise you will need another 20GB-HD in more than a year. (my everage cakewalk songs about 20-audio-tracks)
4> In case you have two harddrives: Same idea, you might want seperate Giga loading sounds and cakewalk-wavedata into two diffence drives. Maybe a solution to put everthing in same drive except to dedicate the Drive for cakewalk audio data (SCSI-HD). why SCSI-HD? I think you know, SCSI-HD is not only fast-HD since in same 7200RMP-DATrate, it is also a reliable and hi-quality drive for Video and audio in realtime applications. If you have been noted that you couldn\'t load the cakewalk bunble project sometimes, then you should know how important it is.

With two or three harddrive are working fine, of course you will need many partitions (Partion Magic) just to manage many different programs , just keep them seperate, won\'t help much in performance if your system is very stable and reliable. Don\'t forget you need to calculate what\'s harddrive capacity in Giga-Bytes you will need at least for a year for audio projects as I descibed earlier (how many projects you will have).
overall, the best way in my mind is to use all SCSI-HDs if you can afford. I\'ve seen most of workstations and servers with SCSI-HD, they could run 24Hrs for years without shut-off the power.
Just my other two-cents-worth.
LHong

[killerbobjr]

>>>>
If you were to buy the IDE with an existing SCSI how would you organize the drives.
<<<<

Slowest drive = boot drive, Windows system, Gigastudio
Fastest drive = Gigasamples

The faster drive is the one with the better seek time. If the IDE drive is faster than the SCSI, you would want your Gigasamples on that.

>>>>
I\'m only using gigasampler (soon Gst) and cakewalk on this computer with no other soft synths or audio editing programs. Does this seem like a reasonable set-up?
<<<<

Gigastudio eats up an awful lot of CPU power. I have a Pentium III @ 866MHz with 256M memory and an 18G, 7ms SCSI drive. I briefly put Gigastudio on here to run alongside of Cakewalk PA9. GSt used up so much processing power that my CW tracks became out of sync. GSt is now by itself on my K6-2 500Mhz machine even though I sacrifice 40-50 voices out of the 160 max.

Combining them on one machine can be done, just be aware of the limitations.

[R & S Hanlon]

Gigastudio eats up an awful lot of CPU power. I have a Pentium III @ 866MHz with 256M memory and an 18G, 7ms SCSI drive. I briefly put Gigastudio on here to run alongside of Cakewalk PA9. GSt used up so much processing power that my CW tracks became out of sync. GSt is now by itself on my K6-2 500Mhz machine even though I sacrifice 40-50 voices out of the 160 max.

Combining them on one machine can be done, just be aware of the limitations.[/B][/QUOTE]


Killerbobjr. cheers to you for replying again. I\'m in shock about the CPU.
Actually I have giga full ed. running fairly smoothly with Cwalk PA9. I have the gigastudio 160 but haven\'t installed due to being in a current music project (plus all those scary stories I\'m reading on this forum about GSt install problems and other bugs). I thought I should wait until the smoke clears before I make the switch.
But now with you relating the CPU details I wonder if I should even use it.
Everything I\'m reading about in GSt manual in terms of effects I can do on Cwalk PA9 already.
Did you own gigasampler full ed. before you GSt? And since you use Cwalk PA 9 as well, what benefits do you see using GSt effects over the PA9? Did you buy the GSt for the polyphony factor?

To LHong,

Truly thanks for your details about the multiple hard drives.
The benefits I see now, from your explanation, is that if I buy a huge HD I can partition it and use one part as a place to try out new programs. In fact, I\'d like to try GSt 160 but my fastest computer has only one hard drive (8.5 GB) with only a GB left. Plus, I can\'t have GSt and GS running on the same HD.
I am thinking about purchasing a 10-20 GB IDE and using it for programs, wavedata and a partition to try new software.
I think I might just use my existing SCSI for my GIGs. Even though it\'s only 8.5 GB (I have about 5.5 GB in libraries now, so not much more room) it will serve me for a little while.
Thanks again for your opinions.

[ursatz]

Hi Killerbobjr,

=============================
Gigastudio eats up an awful lot of CPU power. I have a Pentium III @ 866MHz with 256M memory and an 18G, 7ms SCSI drive. I briefly put Gigastudio on here to run alongside of Cakewalk PA9. GSt used up so much processing power that my CW tracks became out of sync. GSt is now by itself on my K6-2 500Mhz machine even though I sacrifice 40-50 voices out of the 160 max.
=============================

Just curious - why do you put GSt on the slower machine? I would have thought you\'d be better off devoting the better CPU to the program that is the bigger CPU hog?

Thx,
Bill

[killerbobjr]

>>>>
Did you own gigasampler full ed. before you GSt? And since you use Cwalk PA 9 as well, what benefits do you see using GSt effects over the PA9? Did you buy the GSt for the polyphony factor?
<<<<

Yes, I have Gigsampler. I bought Gigastudio mainly for the note exclusion feature that should have been working in GS but doesn\'t. I don\'t use GSt NFX because it uses too much processing power on my K6 and besides which, I usually render MIDI tracks in GSt and import them into CW.

>>>>
Just curious - why do you put GSt on the slower machine? I would have thought you\'d be better off devoting the better CPU to the program that is the bigger CPU hog?
<<<<

I usually have maybe 2-10 MIDI tracks and about 20-30 audio tracks going at once in CW, along with EQ, compressors, reverb, and other plug-ins, all on 24bit/48KHz tracks. That uses quite a lot of bandwidth, usually too much for GSt and CW to co-exist on one machine. My K6-2 500MHz handle about 90-120 voices just fine and that\'s enough for me.

[LHong]

==========================================
I usually have maybe 2-10 MIDI tracks and about 20-30 audio tracks going at once in CW, along with EQ, compressors, reverb, and other plug-ins, all on 24bit/48KHz tracks. That uses quite a lot of bandwidth, usually too much for GSt and CW to co-exist on one machine. My K6-2 500MHz handle about 90-120 voices just fine and that\'s enough for me.
==========================================
killerbobjr,
Just a reference, How many audio tracks your fast PC can handle without the cakewalk Fx1~3 effects?
I\'m having the Athlon-750/320M/SCSI-HD-7200. It currently only can handles Maximum of 20~28 audio-tracks without any MIDI-tracks. Of cource the cakewalkProSuite9.03
Thanks in advances
LHong

[killerbobjr]

>>>>
Just a reference, How many audio tracks your fast PC can handle without the cakewalk Fx1~3 effects?
<<<<

Here are the results of my tests:

System -

Intel Pentium III Coppermine 650E @ 866MHz, 133MHz bus
256MB PC133 memory
ASUS P3B-F motherboard
IBM 18ES 18G, 7200RPM, 2M buffer, U2W LVD SCSI drive, 4 partitions, FAT32
Tekram U2W SCSI controller
Matrox G400 video card, busmastering off

System setup:

Cakewalk ProAudio 9.03
Set as recommended in my \"Tips\" article, except Min/MaxFileCache=4096 and Swap file=256MB

I ran a series of tests with both the Soundblaster Live! and the Aardvark Aark 20/20. I tested a variety of settings in CW in the Options|Audio dialog. Except for \"I/O Buffer size\" under the advanced tab, all other changes to latency, buffer characteristics, playback device, etc. at a given bit depth/sample rate affected the playback performance less than 5%.

Before starting, I defragmented my audio drive. I then created a silent 60 second mono WAV file at two bit depths, 16bits and 24bits, and created two test WRK files. For each file I started with a blank sequence, imported the WAV file, copied the clip 256 times, ran Edit|Audio|3db Louder on all tracks to force the rendering of all 256 tracks, then tested playback, deleting tracks until I could playback all tracks for the entire 60 seconds, at least twice, without a dropout.

For 16bit/44.1KHz playback, mono tracks, both SB Live! and Aark 20/20:

64 tracks @ 64KB I/O buffer, 11% cpu usage.
122 tracks @ 256KB I/O buffer, 22% cpu usage.

For 24bit/44.1KHz playback, mono tracks, Aark 20/20:

36 tracks @ 64KB I/O buffer, 11% cpu usage.
75 tracks @ 256KB I/O buffer, 22% cpu usage.

As you can see, the I/O buffer size affected greatly the number of tracks able to playback, but not in a linear fashion. There is a point of diminishing returns. Also, 122 tracks x 256KB = ~32MB of system memory used. Since there are probably at least two queues for each track, you would have to double that number (64MB).

When running Cakewalk and Gigasampler/Gigastudio together on one machine, you also must remember that larger I/O buffers take more time to fill, leaving less time for streaming Gigasamples off the disk. So there are performance issues to keep in mind when adjusting the buffer size.

Bottom line: bigger file I/O buffer = more playback tracks.

[LHong]

Thanks killerbobjr,
Appreciated for your time, I\'m impress about your TIPS and TRICKS, no wonder why I couldn\'t run the cakewalk that far. I will try it sometimes in the week, maybe to uprade my DRAM to 133Mhz (I have a mixed between 100 and 133). I will be happy If I can have about 40 tracks@24Bits/48khz. Honestly, I don\'t care much about the FX-effect-processing, I can have them externally with my real Digital-Mixer+DSP-card. The key to be successful need to do it right.
Thanks again, I will let you know later how It goes.
Best regards,
LHong

[nous]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killerbobjr:
If you only have two drives in a system, one SCSI, the other IDE, the IDE drive automatically will become your C: drive. You will not be able to boot from your SCSI drive then.

Between an identically spec\'ed IDE drive and SCSI drive, the SCSI drive will always have a slight edge in performance over IDE. But as far as real world applications, a current generation high performance IDE drive (such as the IBM GXP series) will be more than enough to stream Gigasamples from.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


[This message has been edited by nous (edited 07-27-2000).]