Advice simple fcp setup - need raid at all?

I am getting a Mac Pro 12 Core, planning on using fcp for basic captures of small shots, maybe a minute would be the longest at 1080i pro res via kona3.

I am hoping to use the internal 3gb/sec 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA drive for that (just media).
Then Raid-1 two other internal 2tb drives for protection for system, apps & jobs, which I will be doing heavy after effects, 3d work.

Working with just an internal 1tb drive for final cut, is that possible?

Thanks in advance.
pxl

Ask yourself this:

When you have a large pet you need to feed it a lot. Do I skimp on the feed and then my pet will not be at its full potential?

Certainly for 3D work you might be OK as you will be mostly doing processor intensive renders rather than high load disk access but reading your post I have to ask exactly which disk you are using to store media?

As a very basic setup based on what I think you are saying:

1x 1TB System HDD

1x 1TB Time Machine Backup HDD for System

2 x 2TB Media HDD as RAID-1


You'll get around 80 to 120MBps out of a decent Hitachi Deskstar until you pass the half-full point and then as the capacity rises you'll get a progressively lower performance. This is true of all disk based SATA drives (not SSDs).

However I personally would NOT recommend doing HD ProRes on a single HDD disk. I recommend a minimum of a 2 disk RAID-0 (preferably a 3 or 4 disk RAID-5).

Besides - if you are doing HD 3D work I would imagine you will be exporting high-res TIFF, TGA or DPX and it is HIGHLY unlikely that on a single disk you will not be able to play the sequences back in real-time at 24fps+ in fact if using HDDs you will most likely need a 3 or 4 disk RAID-0 or RAID-5.

There are many time savings from having a fast RAID - read my article "Why Do I Need a RAID? And Why Should I Build My Own?" for an overview in the 2010 SuperMag which you can download here: [www.supermeet.com]


There are 100s of options for RAID arrays that are affordable and in my opinion no-one should be without a RAID for editing or media creation. Seriously. You won't regret properly feeding that 12-core beast you intend to buy as it will love you more!



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Thanks, good advice, I am leaning towards an array but just don't have the cash, and the system is ordered....

I would say right now...
1tb: system drive,apps
two 2tb drives at raid1: fcp captures there, jobs files,
...and incr. backup OS using carboncopycloner to that one as well (saving space and machine time from TimeMachine)

...for now, and maybe an array down the road (hopefully before I get too full on the raid1).

What happens if a raid1 drive dies, from what I've read I just continue to work and swap in another identical drive?

If 1 HDD on the RAID 1 dies you should be able to put in an identical HDD and rebuild the RAID-1

If both die you'll be screwed.

If you DO get a RAID - go for RAID-6 with 2 disks redundancy - but you also need to budget for a separate backup. As RAID is NOT a backup.

To quote Mr Jeff Harrell:

"Twice? You don't have Data until you have it Thrice!"

Although new HDDs are much more reliable than ever before - don't trust that valuable data will be safe or intact on one storage device.

Let us know how you get on with your system - my feeling is that you are buying a sportscar but without the right gas to drive it.

How much RAM have you bought? Have you specced it as triple channel by buying a set of three RAM modules?



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

What Ben said. One additional point is whether you will be dealing with media from tapes or if your media is predominantly tapeless. For tapeless, you need that backup drive and at least a pair of them, if you ask me, on top of your editing raid. For tape based media, the tape is already your backup. And yea, make sure all drives and tapes are kept in good storage conditions.



www.strypesinpost.com

Ram, ugh. I went for the most I could afford, 16gb at 8 X 2gb strips. I know you should try to do 2gb a core, but that is what I could get. Am I screwed with that?

You are getting a 12 core / Kona3 and no cash for a $600 4 TB Calgidit VR??? Does not compute. MUST HAVE, IMHO.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

pixelpoetic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ram, ugh. I went for the most I could afford, 16gb
> at 8 X 2gb strips. I know you should try to do 2gb
> a core, but that is what I could get. Am I screwed
> with that?

Starting with the 2009 Mac Pro models, there are two virtual cores per physical core, effectively doubling the number of actual cores per CPU. So, with a 12 core Mac Pro, you will have 24 virtual cores for processing. Two or more GBs per virtual core may make a difference in some circumstances.

It's too bad you already ordered the system. Can you return it?

More things you should have already considered (which you didn't mention):

- Did you order the system, with all its RAM and hard drives from Apple? You may like the convenience of buying from a single source, but you may have been able to save a significant amount of money by buying only the bare bones computer from Apple and then getting the RAM and extra hard drives from another vendor.

- Did you benchmark real world performance with the software you intend to use most? In some situations, you may have been better off just getting an 8 core Mac Pro, saving over $1500, which could have been used for more RAM and proper hard disk storage (and backups). More RAM per the 8 cores (or 16 virtual cores) may be more important than having the extra 4 cores.

- The "upgraded" graphics card (ATI Radeon 5870) can make a huge difference, depending on the applications you use, as more and more graphics processing and rendering are off-loaded to the graphics card's GPU.

The point of this is that you may have been able to get an overall system that would work better than what you seemed to have decided on... a system that may work better as a whole, rather than one consisting of a 12 core Mac Pro but short on RAM and sufficient hard drive performance (and space). Food for thought...



-Dave

Excellent points, and I will get a raid eventually, and more ram. But for now I will live with the ferrari on 87 octane and see if it knocks and pings, for a little while. Thanks for the advice.

Doesn't make sense. Hopefully lesson learned. You need to do research BEFORE purchasing. RAM & RAID should be included in the primary purchase - no brainer. NEVER buy RAM from Apple...get the minimum included with the machine and get the full kit from OMC for less than half the price.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

"full kit from OMC for less than half the price."

Ok, I'm on the cusp of ordering my new Mac. OMC? Can you elaborate who/what that is?

Thanks!
Jeff Johnston

And don't forget to leverage its triple-channel RAM interleave-- I own last year's 8-core, with 4 slots per CPU. But if you fill them all, you lower your bus speed! I believe the new 12-core is the same config and likes ram sticks in threes, not 4, not 8.

It's only critical for fastest throughput. if that's not critical, max out the slots.

I am also enjoying an internal 2TB RAID 0 -- knock on wood.

- Loren

Today's FCP 7 keytip:
Play from Playhead to Out Mark with Shift-P !

Your Final Cut Studio KeyGuide? Power Pack.
Now available at KeyGuide Central.
www.neotrondesign.com

Jeff Johnston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "full kit from OMC for less than half the price."
>
> Ok, I'm on the cusp of ordering my new Mac. OMC?
> Can you elaborate who/what that is?
>
> Thanks!
> Jeff Johnston

I think Joey meant to type "OWC" instead of "OMC," the former stands for Other World Computing (OWC Website). My favorite RAM vendor is RAMJet. Crucial is another good place to buy RAM. "OMC" could be the pop band from New Zealand (maybe Joey was listening to them while typing his post... or not).


Part of the point I tried to make earlier was that Apple tends to charge significantly more for add-ons that third-party vendors. Often, the savings in going elsewhere for RAM and hard drives can be relatively "big," allowing one to buy much more RAM or hard disk capacity than is possible when buying everything from Apple.

In "pixelpoetic's" case, depending on how many add-ons were bought directly from Apple, the savings could have meant that he/she may have been able to get more RAM or, say, an external RAID setup like Joey mentioned.

Addiitionally, buying an 8 core system instead of 12 cores (a savings of at least $1500) could mean getting a system that functions better overall, if that savings is used to get a better graphics card, a hard disk array, back-up drives, more RAM, etc. It's all a "balancing act" when planning for a new system purchase. In many cases, a few less processor cores but more RAM and better hard disk setup (RAID) may result in overall better performance.


-Dave

Sorry...meant OWC...I just had shoulder surgery and typing through a immobilizer sling...PITA.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Let's see, Mac 32 gig ram option for $3,550, or OWC 32 gig for $729.99 ... decisions, decisions.

Thank you gentlemen, this ram tip alone is worth the price of admission. leaves more budget left over to upgrade the Kona/Black Magic/etc part of the purchase.

Jeff Johnston

All the new 2009/2010 MacPros have Triple Channel memory.

Go for 3x or 6x Memory Modules in one of these configurations:

06GB - 3x 2GB or 6x 1GB

12GB - 3x 4GB

24GB - 3x 8GB or 6x 4GB

48GB - 6x 8GB


To learn why you should go for Triple Channel over dual read Lloyd Chambers article here: [macperformanceguide.com]

Personally I think Apple should cram in 9 or 12 slots in the MacPro. Not going to happen anytime soon.



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Ben King Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All the new 2009/2010 MacPros have Triple Channel
> memory.
>
> Go for 3x or 6x Memory Modules in one of these
> configurations:
>
> 06GB - 3x 2GB or 6x 1GB
>
> 12GB - 3x 4GB
>
> 24GB - 3x 8GB or 6x 4GB
>
> 48GB - 6x 8GB
>
>
> To learn why you should go for Triple Channel over
> dual read Lloyd Chambers article here:
> [macperformanceguide.com]
> em-Tests-Memory.html
>
> Personally I think Apple should cram in 9 or 12
> slots in the MacPro. Not going to happen anytime
> soon.

Ben,

Thanks for pointing out the article by Lloyd.

Actually, on closer reading, Lloyd mentions that you are better off with more memory... the real-world benefits of triple channel configurations is less important (noted in both places):

Memory Configurations

Conclusions

The worst thing is when a system starts using virtual memory... no fun... more memory is good...



-Dave

P.S. - I was wondering about setting things up in sets of three on the new Mac Pros (just got a 2010 Mac Pro with 6 - 2GB DIMMS; I want to get more RAM soon). Why not have a multiple of 3 for the number of RAM slots (as you mentioned)? Maybe, the next generation will use "quad channel" configurations and the eight slots (on the dual CPU) Mac Pros will then be optimal once again... I'd like to see more specific real-world results, comparing RAM "in threes" versus "in pairs" (or 6 slots versus all 8)...

I don't see anywhere on lloyd's blog where he vigorously tests video / audio / visual fx / 3d rendering speeds (he does photography) so I take all that advice with a grain of salt. If you want SERIOUS PERFORMANCE TESTS (Cinebench tests / After Effects render tests / CPU vs CPU test / video card tests / etc) that are dependable and up to date, I HIGHLY suggest Barefeats:

[www.barefeats.com]

I visit Rob-ART before every major purchase.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Ah Dave ever the reader of small print! For most people you might not notice those valuable seconds or even minutes when rendering a lot of 3D will mount up.

You have to remember that pxl will be doing a LOT of memory and processor intensive tasks screaming all 24 virtual cores on that beast.

I would still suggest you aim for the optimum system for your money - sure if you need 32GB over 24GB or 64GB over 48GB then you will have to deal with dual channel. But even a performance increase of a few percent is massive when rendering HD 3D scene that can take several minutes (or hours) per frame.



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Just so you don't think I am blowing hot air, I just put my money where my mouth is.

I am upgrading my "portable studio" to a new MBP 2.8 GHz i7 / 4 GB RAM / 512 SSD / etc. early 2011. I have ordered FIRST = an 8 GB RAM kit from OWC for $139 ($400 to purchase on Apple website with the computer - saved $260), and I am building a RAID 5 enclosure using a Stardom SOHORAID SR4 with 4 - 1 TB Hitachi Enterprise drives (4 TB RAID 5 complete) for less than $1000 (drives also ordered from OWC - $139 per drive - ordered an extra drive in case one fails for backup).

EDIT - Oh yeah...FREE SHIPPING / NO TAX from OWC!!!

So I will have my RAM maxed and my 4 TB RAID 5 waiting for the new system. That's how I roll

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Ben King Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah Dave ever the reader of small print! For most
> people you might not notice those valuable seconds
> or even minutes when rendering a lot of 3D will
> mount up.
>
> You have to remember that pxl will be doing a LOT
> of memory and processor intensive tasks screaming
> all 24 virtual cores on that beast.
>
> I would still suggest you aim for the optimum
> system for your money - sure if you need 32GB over
> 24GB or 64GB over 48GB then you will have to deal
> with dual channel. But even a performance increase
> of a few percent is massive when rendering HD 3D
> scene that can take several minutes (or hours) per
> frame.

Thanks for the additional info. I realize the original poster mentioned doing a lot of 3D work, so get RAM DIMMs in sets of three may be significant. pixelpoetic did mention having ordered 8 - 2GB DIMMs, so he/she may end up hamstringing some of the CPU cores until more memory is installed (and hopefully he/she won't end up using virtual memory because that would negate pretty much having lots of fast cores).

I'd still like to see someone benchmark Compressor/Qmaster, taking into account RAM per (virtual) core used, percent of (virtual) cores used in a Qmaster cluster, etc.

Thanks to everyone... lots of good info has been offered...


-Dave

I've been chatting to Barefeats about doing a MAJOR system "stress-test" because as Rob-ART pointed out to me; no single app really saturates the memory bandwidth to notice "much" of a difference between triple and dual-channel memory.

However as I often do (even way back on my Dual G4 and G5s); I run several memory and processor hungry apps simultaneously to render, transcode and digitise along with working on many other Apps like Photoshop whilst all this is going on.

My feeling is that triple-channel memory will really come into play when you do a lot of multi-tasking, app-switching, renders, copy/paste large pictures to the clipboard, etc, all concurrently; and that you'd notice the system benefits and have much larger recorded performance increase than a few percent for 3D rendering. However it needs to be tested. Alas even though I have 32GB of RAM - my current MacPro at home is an 8-core Harpertown from 2008 - it doesn't have triple-channel memory! Booo...

All of the "real-world" tests that have been cited don't look remotely real-world for me when I'm trying to do 10 things at once to meet a deadline! So hopefully someone who likes (and has time to do) benchmarking might like to set up some tasks that push the triple-channel memory of the MacPro 2009+ to its limits.

Heres a fun thread I started nearly 5 years ago to illustrate and test using multiple apps running concurrently without errors or crashing:

[www.lafcpug.org]

Anyone else do crazy amounts of things simultaneously? Or are you all too cautious about pushing a machine that has more than one CPU and is over a 1000 times faster than the 1976 Cray Super Computer?



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]