[davelong9050]

After struggling with XP for video editing I have decided to purchase a Mac Pro. I am working on the configuration and need some advice. I believe RAID 10 is the most effective way to improve performance and provide redundancy. Although the primary reason for making the switch is video editing, I'm sure it will be a matter of time before I move other applications to OS X as well. Here are my questions: 1) Is RAID 10 the best way to approach performance and redundancy for video editing? And 2) Can I run Parallels (XP and OS X)on the same RAID devices?

[osij2is]

I'm assuming you know, that RAID 10 is merely two array sets of RAID 0, paired together as a RAID 1. But to answer your questions:

1) For your situation, I believe so. RAID 0 is the best performance though no redundancy. Adding an additional pair should help with that, but it will also affect your read/write I/O slightly. If I'm not mistaken, I think your read time will decrease, but your write time will increase ever so slightly. If I could recommend absolutely anything about RAID is to always use hardware controllers. Don't use software RAID. You'll regret it.

2) I believe you can use Parallels, it depends on how you partition your disk. Is it safe to assume you won't be using parallels while you're video editing?

[davelong9050]

osij2is,

Thanks for your response. I have heard HW RAID is the best way to go. Do I add the HR RAID controller in the cabinet or is this an outboard issue? Do you have any manufacturer recommendations?

What is the issue with using parallels while video editing?

[osij2is]

(disclaimer: sorry for all the assumptions)

I imagined your RAID 10 array inside of your Mac Pro with the RAID controller simply being a PCI/PCI-e flavor of some sort. There are quite a few brands out there but 3Ware I've heard does wonders on Mac. I've used Adaptec "way back in the day" for SCSI but I don't know if I could recommend them now for SATA. What type of hard disks to do you want to use?

For a system level partition, you wouldn't really want this setup to be external unless you had some sort of fiber SAN (big $$$) but that's for true network storage.

Parallels + video editing == lot's of CPU and RAM usage.

Again, I don't know the specifics on your computer, but video editing in and of itself is extremely I/O intensive and virtualization.. well.. also I/O intensive. I'd try to keep the machine prioritized on one and not the other. But then again, what CPUs and RAM all factor in this equation.

Can you divulge some info so I'm not guessing so much?

FYI. I'm planning on an identical setup as well, so I too have some personal interest in this whole setup as well.

[davelong9050]

osij2is,

I am looking at the Mac Pro with 2 Core-Duo 2.66's, 4 MB of RAM and 4-500GB hard drives. My first priority (for performance) is video editing with Premiere Pro and also Photoshop. All other functions are not process intensive. I have 4 apps that require XP, plus it's a false sence of security, I can use. I/O issues are huge with Premiere so I started down the RAID path. I am trying to get as much out of the Mac Pro as possible, so the last thing I want is external HW, except off line storage, for archive when a project is complete. Because of Mac Disk cost, I was thinking Hitachi drives. Great reputation and 5 year warranty. I am not finding much information on the web about RAID and Mac Pro. Is it possible to configure HW RAID in a Mac Pro?

[osij2is]

I believe it is possible to setup a hardware raid in a Mac Pro. I personally have never done it, but it must be possible, as long as the card has the driver support.

What may have to happen, in addition is that you'll have to completely resetup your computer to run to the raid array. Again, I myself have done plenty of RAID arrays on non-Macs, so this is murky territory for me.

Have you considered splitting your drive situation up?

For example, I've contemplated on this setup:
System disk: 2x 150GB WD Raptor drives (RAID 0) --> PURE RAW SPEED/ NO REDUDANCY (<300GB total)
Storage disk: 3x 500GB 7200rpm drives (RAID 5) --> PURE STORAGE w/ REDUDANCY + (SLIGHT) PERFORMANCE EDGE (<1000GB (1TB) total)

All the work gets saved on the storage side, OSX and apps remain on the system side. If the system disk goes bad, who cares, cuz all the data is on the storage side.

Having the raptor drives as a system partition will definitely help in all that heavy I/0, and with all the writing going to a RAID 5 partition, you'll definitely have the redundancy, but not near the speed of RAID 10. I'd keep an image of your system disk so if something were to happen, you could simply reblast your system disks with the new image, and start from scratch, but have all your data intact.

Now, I have been contemplating even buying a NAS just to deal with pure storage mechanism too so, it really depends on just how much TOTAL storage you actually need and just how much swap storage you'll need too. Infrant makes a fairly good NAS device that you can load 4 drives into and just throw it up on a network, or even connect to directly via USB/Firewire.

It's all very cool, but it's tricky because like all mere mortals, budget is always a concern.

[OreoCookie]

A hardware RAID is the `best' way to go. A RAID10 also wastes capacity as you can only use half of all available disk space. The best alternative is a RAID5 where one disk may fail and your data is still in tact. A RAID5 doesn't have a slight edge in performance, it has a massive edge in performance, second only to a RAID0. RAID5 implies that you need a hardware RAID controller and external drives -- a considerable expense.

However, you might not even need a RAID5 and RAID all your disks. Probably you would also be just fine with two RAID0 scratch disks (fast drives, e. g. Raptors would be natural choices) and one or more `slower' storage drives (don't let slow mislead you, a Raptor's advantage is seek time, not throughput, there are high-capacity drives with a similar throughput than the Raptor). So this would be cheaper gives you speed when you need it and simplicity for anything else.

By the way, there are some photographers that buy harddrives for each job, I know of programmers that do the same (I used to work for a company that would send around harddrives), I'm not sure if that's common in your line of work. If it is, you might want to add an external SATA drive in the mix. That'd be a lot cheaper.

[osij2is]

Well, yes RAID5 does have an edge performance wise. I'd be hesitant to say vs. RAID10 that it's massive, but the overall point is I agree with Oreo. RAID10 does waste capacity, but the raw performance (and theoretical) is better then RAID5 under certain conditions. RAID5 is better in terms of redundancy as you really only lose 1/3 of your total disk for parity, not 1/2 like RAID10. Since dave's original question was in terms of performance, I've geared my responses to that initial inquiry.

But in dealing solely with video editing, I'm not exactly sure the how the whole read vs write debate would turn up. I'd initially say that since the editing process is heavy read/write, it's sort of a push arguement. For rendering, obviously this is heavy write, but editing, I'd guess it's 50/50. Don't forget about the file size too. The speed for each type of RAID is affected by big and small files. Anyone else chime in on video editing and read vs. writes and what type of RAID to use?

[cgc]

Originally Posted by davelong9050 

osij2is,

I am looking at the Mac Pro with 2 Core-Duo 2.66's, 4 MB of RAM and 4-500GB hard drives.

MacPros come with XEON CPUs and you may want more then 4MB memory

[davelong9050]

Great stuff, thank you.

Sounds like HW RAID is better than SW, but unknown if HW RAID can be achieved in a Mac Pro.

Can we digress a bit from the RAID discussion? What are your thoughts regarding multiple drives (each supporting different functions)? How about 10k drives for the performance work and large 7.2k drives for storage. Do we know how much more performance we can get with SW Raid vs. 10k drives?

I apologize for bouncing around but I am trying to put the RAID conversation into perspective with other alternatives.

[davelong9050]

cgc,

Thanks for the response. How much more memory and why?

[hojo]

Originally Posted by davelong9050 

cgc,

Thanks for the response. How much more memory and why?

I'm sure you meant to say 4 gigabytes of RAM. AFAIK, that would be about the lower limit of memory for a Mac Pro video work station. I bought my Mac Pro with 1 gig, and bought two 2x2gig DIMMs (total 8 gig RAM on 4 DIMMs) from Crucial for about $900, giving me a total of 9 gig RAM. My video editing is pretty low level, only using Final Cut Express, but it really screams. I set mine up using the 500 gig OEM boot drive, two 500 gig WD drives in a RAID 0, another Apple (Seagate) 500 gig drive for backup and an external 500 gig for backup. It works great for me, but your needs are likely more sophisticated.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by osij2is 

Well, yes RAID5 does have an edge performance wise. I'd be hesitant to say vs. RAID10 that it's massive, but the overall point is I agree with Oreo.

You always compare RAID performance to the performance of a single drive, and a RAID5 (with sufficiently many disks) is a lot faster. On the other hand, a RAID5 is expensive and probably overkill.

Originally Posted by osij2is 

But in dealing solely with video editing, I'm not exactly sure the how the whole read vs write debate would turn up. I'd initially say that since the editing process is heavy read/write, it's sort of a push arguement. For rendering, obviously this is heavy write, but editing, I'd guess it's 50/50. Don't forget about the file size too. The speed for each type of RAID is affected by big and small files. Anyone else chime in on video editing and read vs. writes and what type of RAID to use?

As I said, I'd probably suggest a RAID0 scratch volume made up of smaller, but very fast Raptors. That should give you enough space for one or several projects (the largest Raptors offer a capacity of 150 GB) and then have regular slower harddrive for storage. That's a lot cheaper than a RAID5, offers a similar level of security than a RAID10 (with regular backups anyway) and did I mention it's a lot cheaper?

As far as your argument goes, I think discussing RAID levels (in particular more complicated ones) is pointless, unless you invest in an XRaid-class storage solutions. However, then we're talking about 4, 5 figures worth of $$$.

[mavherzog]

RAID-Z would be awfully nice.

[osij2is]

Originally Posted by davelong9050 

I believe RAID 10 is the most effective way to improve performance and provide redundancy. Although the primary reason for making the switch is video editing, I'm sure it will be a matter of time before I move other applications to OS X as well. Here are my questions: 1) Is RAID 10 the best way to approach performance and redundancy for video editing? And 2) Can I run Parallels (XP and OS X)on the same RAID devices?

Ok, so before we get too far off track, let's swing back to the original question:

1) Is RAID 10 the best way to approach performance and redundancy for video editing.
My answer:
If money is not an issue, then yes. RAID 10 is faster then RAID 5, but wastes one disk. Both RAID 5 and RAID 10 can sustain loss of 1 disk without losing data, so RAID 10 wins out performance wise.

If money IS an issue, then RAID 0 is best for performance and an additional hard drive for storage would be the cheapest and most effective solution, meeting the performance and redundancy options.

2) I believe you can run parallels on the same RAID device. I'm not too familiar with Parallels and it's requirements, but logically, I don't see any reason why it couldn't (I'm a VMWare user). The virtual hard disk space is nothing more then one big contiguous file within OSX.

Now, again, I wouldn't know for sure, but I would not recommend rendering or doing any video editing and having an XP virtual machine on. I'd let whatever program you use have access to as much RAM as possible, because XP will suck up resources (CPU threads, RAM, disk time), so while you *could* probably run both simultaneously, I just wouldn't recommend it.