[rog5878]

Hi:
I have just ordered a 2008 2.8 Mac Pro with 320gb hard drive. It is supposed to be delivered the end of the month. I was planning on adding a 500gb or possibly 750 gb hard drive. I was considering the Seagate 7200.11 SATA II 32 mb cache hard drive but I am having second thoughts b/c of several postings on this and other websites noting problems with the Seagate hard drives and Mac Pro. Are these isolated problems or should I consider other hard drives?
I also ordered the standard 2 gb of memory and will be adding an additional 8gb. Will be using Aperture, Photoshop CS3 etc.
Plan on getting one or more additional hard drives at 500 or 750 gb with 32 mb of cache. (Retail versions since some posters have recommended that oem versions should be avoided.)
The Hitachi enterprise hard drive has 32 mb of cache but it is $50 to $75 more. Any suggestions

[mduell]

Cache doesn't really matter; yea, it's nice if you're doing a lot of small writes but not a huge deal for general usage. The Seagate/Mac Pro issue was specific to one firmware revision (3.AEE IIRC) for the 7200.10.

With a machine in your price/performance range, I'd go with a 150GB Raptor for scratch and 1TB Seagate or Hitachi for storage. Keep in mind you want to keep your working drive about half empty for performance, so 1TB gives you 500GB usable. The Hitachi has the edge for I/O performance in 1TB drives; I wouldn't bother paying for the Ultrastar enterprise drive. There's nothing wrong with OEM drives, they carry the same 3 or 5 year (depends on brand) warranty as their retail counterparts.

150GB Raptor for $170
1TB Hitachi for $272

[rog5878]

1. What, if anything, should I do with the 320 gb hard drive
that will come with the standard Mac Pro configuration?
Should I put it in one of the other hard drive slots and put an extra copy of my raw and jpeg photos on it.
2. I am planning on adding a Sonnet Tempo SATA E2P
PCI Express card with two external esata connections.
I was going to connect an external drive for time machine via esata -- if I put a 1 T hard drive on the Mac Pro, how large should the external drive be? -- also I was thinking of LaCie unless someone recommends an alternative.

[rog5878]

I am planning on adding Fusion, Windows XP and Wordperfect. I will also be accessing the office through a VPN through Fusion/Windows XP.
Should I put them on the Raptor drive?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by rog5878 

1. What, if anything, should I do with the 320 gb hard drive
that will come with the standard Mac Pro configuration?

Use it for OSX/Apps/Windows.

Originally Posted by rog5878 

Should I put it in one of the other hard drive slots and put an extra copy of my raw and jpeg photos on it.

No need to move it. Why make copies of your photos?

Originally Posted by rog5878 

2. I am planning on adding a Sonnet Tempo SATA E2P
PCI Express card with two external esata connections.

Bad idea, doesn't work with 10.5 on Intel. Either wait for new drivers or pay up for the $250 E4P or just buy a $5 bracket to connect the extra SATA connectors to eSATA ports.

Originally Posted by rog5878 

I was going to connect an external drive for time machine via esata -- if I put a 1 T hard drive on the Mac Pro, how large should the external drive be? -- also I was thinking of LaCie unless someone recommends an alternative.

1TB should be fine for your TM volume; going above that becomes kinda painful. I'd stay away from LaCie (poor experience and poor prices). Buy another 1TB Hitachi and an external enclosure with the ports you desire (USB, FW, eSATA).

Originally Posted by rog5878 

I am planning on adding Fusion, Windows XP and Wordperfect. I will also be accessing the office through a VPN through Fusion/Windows XP.
Should I put them on the Raptor drive?

Put them on the 320GB. The Raptor is for scratch.

[Big Mac]

Great post, mduell.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by rog5878 

I also ordered the standard 2 gb of memory and will be adding an additional 8gb. Will be using Aperture, Photoshop CS3 etc. The Hitachi enterprise hard drive has 32 mb of cache but it is $50 to $75 more. Any suggestions

IMO you will want more capacity than you seem to be going toward if you are using Aperture and CS3 like I am. Note that hard drives start slowing at something like 50% full and can get very slow or even unstable above 85% full; a good rule of thumb is not to exceed 70% full. Raptors are fast but very low capacity. It seems me that for our needs a 2 or 3-drive RAID0 array of 1 TB sized drives is a better way to proceed. Note too that our apps do lots of small reads and writes; anecdotal reports suggest that 32 MB drive buffers may help significantly.

I will probably remove the stock 320 GB drive and put it in an enclosure for external usage. Currently I am debating (all 1 TB sized drives) among the below options. Comments/critiques Option 1 vs Option 2 are much appreciated.
---------------------
Option 1
Drive A system and apps
Drives B,C RAID0 array for Aperture Library, images and scratch
Drive D onsite backup
---------------------
Option 2
Drives A,B,C RAID0 array for system, apps, Aperture Library, images and scratch
System and apps on their own partition to facilitate cloning using SuperDuper
Drive D onsite backup
--------------------
Variation A
Drive E in the extra optical bay
Drives D,E configured as a RAID1 array; when D/E fill, reconfigure as RAID0.
--------------------
Variation B
Drive E in the extra optical bay
Drives D,E configured as a RAID0 array with hourly backups from the B/C or A/B/C RAID0.
--------------------
Variation C1
Drive E in the extra optical bay
Option 1 with RAID 10 configuration
--------------------
Variation C2
Drive E in the extra optical bay
Option 2 with RAID 10 configuration
--------------------

RAID0 array drives (unless being used for backup) will not be allowed to exceed 50% full (note the impact on actual usable capacity). OS 10.5.2.

I wrote down my thoughts on drives for my own reasons, just to organize my thinking, shared below, long:
================================================== ===========
Backup and how we configure it is actually key to the hard drive configuration process. IMO we should first define our specific backup protocol and drives. My analysis follows, an exercise of brainstorming my individual needs. Please feel free to critique/comment:

First question is what can one afford to lose? E.g. in financial transactions, nothing, real time (hence mirror backup strategies). In photography not one image. However we do not care about real-time because images are static chunks of data. IMO images need to be backed up asap after capture such that at least 2 copies always exist. In my case often right on site I copy CF originals to MBP hard drive and burn a DVD before reformatting CF.

Once originals are backed up all that can get lost is edits/organizational work. How much loss can one tolerate? A minute? An hour? A week? Before we can answer we need a reasonable expectation of how often we can expect the catastrophes we are backing up against: fire (been there, East Bay Hills Fire), earthquake (been there), theft (ditto), drive failure (guaranteed to happen at some point).

If the cumulative average time of failure was every 5 minutes even backing up every minute might not be frequent enough. Fortunately with modern drives we can expect such events to average every few years rather than months, days or weeks. And often hard drives presage failure by conveniently making inappropriate noises, giving us time to backup and replace.

On Site Backup
IMO for planning purposes on a typical 3-drive RAID0 array single-workstation setup we can estimate a catastrophic hard drive failure every 1-2 years. So assuming every 1-2 years we lose our RAID0 array, how much editing/organizing time are we willing to redo every 1-2 years? Each person makes her/his own choice; for me I would say 1-3 days. Ergo daily backup on site. Note that 2 or 5 drives of RAID0 changes the probability of failure, but for me and my personal risk acceptance level I would still end up with daily onsite backup.

Daily backup need not be fast, so a single large hard drive should suffice.

The system/apps drive deserves separate consideration because on the one hand everything there is available elsewhere, no irreplaceable data to lose, but OTOH reinstalling all apps and the OS is an all day task. Fortunately we seldom change apps/OS, so backup protocol is simple: clone the drive to off site concurrent with regular off site backup protocol.

Off Site Backup
Certain events - primarily fire and theft - may take out all the drives and the computer as well. These are true catastrophes and very individualized. At one time I had offices in a bad neighborhood where the probability of hardware theft on a monthly basis approached 100%, so hard drives were stored in vaults at night. Today my offices are very low risk and alarmed, but in a 120-year-old historic building, so fire is the major risk. We keep our building clean and well managed and a fire station manned 24/7 is 100 meters away, so I put our full-loss fire risk as very low. Each user has different risk, and how quickly system reinstatement must occur post disaster is also very relevant.

In my personal example a fire would wreck h*ll with my client's operations from an accounting and stores management standpoint because of lost paper. If I could bring the Mac and PC computers back in 2 weeks I would be perceived as a hero, because the paper would never come back. New hardware can easily be purchased and reinstalled within a week at one of our other locations and it would take at least a week to establish the other location.

What that says for my world is that consequent to fire/theft I can easily tolerate 2-3 weeks or more loss of editing/organizing time. Ergo plan on routine weekly backup to off site (our accounting data is backed up off site daily via an employee taking a CD home).

Off site backup done only once a week need not be particularly fast. A TB of data can be stored in a transportable external FW 800 drive. I will just buy a 1 TB external drive and add another when needed.

-Allen Wicks

[SierraDragon]

A Raptor dedicated to scratch is good if one has plenty of drive slots available and is only dealing with Photoshop. However Aperture's Library will require throughput speed plus capacity, and if you use a drive slot just for scratch that limits your RAID options because the more drives in a RAID array the better the array performs.

-Allen Wicks

[mduell]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

IMO you will want more capacity than you seem to be going toward if you are using Aperture and CS3 like I am. Note that hard drives start slowing at something like 50% full and can get very slow or even unstable above 85% full; a good rule of thumb is not to exceed 70% full. Raptors are fast but very low capacity. It seems me that for our needs a 2 or 3-drive RAID0 array of 1 TB sized drives is a better way to proceed.

Here is a typical hard drive performance curve (in this case, a Hitachi 1TB 7K1000).

Once you get to 20-25% full, you've blown your access time by a factor of two and you're halfway to the full disk access time. The transfer rate degradation also starts at about 20-25%, but isn't too bad until out around 70-75%. I would not expect instability or unreliability at any capacity level. My rule of thumb is to buy storage for 25-35% initial capacity and replace at 75% capacity.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Note too that our apps do lots of small reads and writes; anecdotal reports suggest that 32 MB drive buffers may help significantly.

Disk cache works well for small writes (since it doesn't care where they go), but does nothing for reads (since it can't predict what will be read). If you're routinely working with files where 16 vs 32MB makes a difference (which is right around where digital photography is today), there may be some tangible benefit to the larger caches. Good news is that all 1TB drives (from major brands) are 32MB cache so there isn't really any choice.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

I will probably remove the stock 320 GB drive and put it in an enclosure for external usage. Currently I am debating (all 1 TB sized drives) among the below options. Comments/critiques Option 1 vs Option 2 are much appreciated.

My suggestion is a 150G Raptor in the optical bay and 4x1TB in RAID0 or RAID10. The Raptor for the OS/apps/housekeeping files (like email which are mirrored on a server somewhere) and I'd be surprised if those exceeded 50GB today. The tradeoff between RAID0 and RAID10 is really a tradeoff between how soon you can be back working after a drive failure (1 day with RAID0 if you have a cold spare, 3 if you don't, and no time with RAID10) against how soon you'd have to replace the drives due to storage growth. The performance, particularly for reads, should be largely the same with modern RAID controllers employing striped reads on mirror sets. If your storage needs today are 400-650GB I'd go with RAID10 and RAID0 if larger; this also depends on growth rate, with a high growth rate favoring RAID0 even with modest current needs.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

The system/apps drive deserves separate consideration because on the one hand everything there is available elsewhere, no irreplaceable data to lose, but OTOH reinstalling all apps and the OS is an all day task. Fortunately we seldom change apps/OS, so backup protocol is simple: clone the drive to off site concurrent with regular off site backup protocol.

Good advice, follow it. No other comments on your backup strategy.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

A Raptor dedicated to scratch is good if one has plenty of drive slots available and is only dealing with Photoshop. However Aperture's Library will require throughput speed plus capacity, and if you use a drive slot just for scratch that limits your RAID options because the more drives in a RAID array the better the array performs.

The improvement in stripe performance, particularly with software RAID, is really pretty marginal after the third disk.

[SierraDragon]

Excellent, Mark. Thank you very much!

Originally Posted by mduell 

I would not expect instability or unreliability at any capacity level. My rule of thumb is to buy storage for 25-35% initial capacity and replace at 75% capacity.

I have frequently observed instability as drives get full. Not instability in the drives, but instability in apps as the drive performance deteriorates. However modern drives/apps may be better, I don't know. In any event your 25/35% - 75% rule makes sense.

I will do as you suggest, Raptor for system/apps. For convenience a 4-drive RAID 10 array would be nice. However my growth rate in mass storage needs is high and is likely to get higher when I have a more competent mass storage setup attached to a fast tower. After your counsel I am tending toward these two choices:

---------------------
Option X
Optical Drive: Raptor, system and apps
Drives A, B, C, D: RAID 10 array of 1 TB drives
---------------------
Option Y
Optical Drive: Raptor, system and apps
Drives A, B, C: RAID 0 array of 1 TB drives
Drive D: onsite backup, 1.5 TB or 2 TB size
--------------------

Option X is easy and clean, yields 1.4 TB usable (70%) working capacity mated to 1.4 TB backup capacity (and gives the unnecessary but very significant benefit of real-time backup).

Option Y is more complex and costs more but yields 2.1 TB usable working capacity with to 1.35 or 1.8 TB usable (90%) backup capacity. I apply a 90% full usable capacity when using a single non-RAID backup drive because no apps will ever access data from that drive, speed is not relevant and routine drive maintenance including full reformatting is easy if necessary.

A benefit of Option Y is that by the time I push the capacity of the RAID0 array to its 2.25 TB maximum larger drives will be available and I can simply replace Drive D with a larger drive.

Yet another question: Why is rebuilding a RAID0 more difficult? I would think (assuming a cold spare) that it would be as simple as replacing the drive, reformatting the RAID0 and overnight copying data from the backup. However I have never rebuilt any level of RAID array, so any info is appreciated.

Thanks again. Multiple thanks in fact. After this discussion I will be quite comfortable with either Option X or Option Y.

-Allen Wicks

[mduell]

The problem with Option Y is that you can't get a 1.5 or 2TB drive yet; I haven't even seen them announced (but are expected later this year). Since you now have to go external for backup (I like the SiI Steel Vine based enclosures for this), you may as well build a 4 drive RAID0 internally.

Rebuilding a RAID0 array isn't terribly difficult or time consuming, you're just offline while you do it. With RAID10 you can rebuild while still using the degraded array.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The problem with Option Y is that you can't get a 1.5 or 2TB drive yet...

A 1 TB drive will suffice for backup for 6 months or so, perhaps longer because much of my existing data will not be migrated to the new drives. I really would like to have onsite backup internal. Right now I have a half a dozen external drives and I would like to eliminate that with the new setup except for offsite backup, which by definition lives off site.

-Allen Wicks

[mduell]

Then 3+1 sounds like the way to go.

Someone just announced a 1.6TB drive today... but it's flash and U320 SCSI... and probably costs more than my condo.

[cnlevo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Then 3+1 sounds like the way to go.

Someone just announced a 1.6TB drive today... but it's flash and U320 SCSI... and probably costs more than my condo.

yea, i'm sure that the SSD 1.6tb drive is going to be OUTRAGEOUS!!!! Considering a 64gb is $500. Not worth it. I've always had great luck with Seagate drives, but the Mac Pro comes with WesterDigital and you can get a WD 1tb for $249 on newegg.

But I would spend the money on a hitachi or seagate personally.

[misterdna]

I've been trying to read all the threads that discuss RAIDs in the new Mac Pros, since I plan to order one in a month. I've never used a RAID, but it sounds like it's about time I do. So, in response to expert Sierra Dragon's idea for the RAID in his new Mac Pro I saw:

Originally Posted by mduell 

Then 3+1 sounds like the way to go...

So this is three drives at RAID 0 plus a fourth drive for daily on-site back-ups, correct? So boot drive, apps, files, scratch are all part of this three drive RAID, and the set-up seems to be approved by both Sierra Dragon and mduell (as appropriate for Sierra Dragon's needs). But then I read this on another thread from another expert:

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

— You should not RAID the system drive. If you lose a drive, you won't be able to boot easily, firmware conflicts, slowdown due to one head trying to read both system commands and the files, etc.

So my simpleton head spins when it seems you smart people have different ideas of what RAID set-up is appropriate. I would think, in this case, the issue isn't as bad as ninahagen says, because if your RAID went down, it seems like you could just boot from the back-up drive, and the only problem would be the loss of data since the last back-up... Yes? No?

I also read this in response to a post I wrote, thinking RAID 0+1 was the way I would go:

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

...0+1 means almost no performance boost. It'll be about 1.2x for
typical usage. You might be better off not going for a RAID at all in that case. If you
partition your scratch and storage drive in about half the 1st half of that drive (partition 0)
will be close to the same speed as that RAID. Now for a 3 or 4 drive RAID0 (not +1) you
will see a nice boost out of having the raid. A 4-Drive RAID0 will typically deliver speeds
of over 3x (Between 3x and 3.5x).

But then I found some charts that seemed to indicate 0+1 has more of a performance boost than Tesselator says:
ImageShack - Hosting :: sisandrasequentialread4yi.jpg
ImageShack - Hosting :: sisandrasequentialwrite9nb.jpg
As well as another page (with links to charts I don't fully understand) that seem to indicate 0+1 is pretty fast compared to a single drive:
Overclock.net - Overclocking.net - View Single Post - * OFFICIAL * HD Database / Benchmark | RAID & non-RAID Drives
The bottom line is I'm trying to understand the speed differences between the different RAID possibilities, and these links seemed to answer that question, unless there are "real world" conditions that these tests don't address (and perhaps that's what Tesselator was referring to with his slower rating of 0+1). Any of you RAID experts want to weigh in? Is there another link I should look at to understand the speeds of RAID set-ups?

Ugh, and I still need a better understanding of seek times vs. data transfer rates and how that effects the myriad of things I do with my Mac (from manipulating huge PSD files to creating music to editing video). My gut is faster data transfer rates will benefit me more than faster seek times, but I don't really know...

[mduell]

Originally Posted by misterdna 

So this is three drives at RAID 0 plus a fourth drive for daily on-site back-ups, correct? So boot drive, apps, files, scratch are all part of this three drive RAID, and the set-up seems to be approved by both Sierra Dragon and mduell (as appropriate for Sierra Dragon's needs). But then I read this on another thread from another expert:

So my simpleton head spins when it seems you smart people have different ideas of what RAID set-up is appropriate. I would think, in this case, the issue isn't as bad as ninahagen says, because if your RAID went down, it seems like you could just boot from the back-up drive, and the only problem would be the loss of data since the last back-up... Yes? No?

What you missed was that Allen would also have a Raptor in the second optical bay as his OS/Apps/housekeeping drive. In Allen's case, the backup is not necessarily intended to be bootable.

Originally Posted by misterdna 

I also read this in response to a post I wrote, thinking RAID 0+1 was the way I would go:

But then I found some charts that seemed to indicate 0+1 has more of a performance boost than Tesselator says:
ImageShack - Hosting :: sisandrasequentialread4yi.jpg
ImageShack - Hosting :: sisandrasequentialwrite9nb.jpg
As well as another page (with links to charts I don't fully understand) that seem to indicate 0+1 is pretty fast compared to a single drive:
Overclock.net - Overclocking.net - View Single Post - * OFFICIAL * HD Database / Benchmark | RAID & non-RAID Drives
The bottom line is I'm trying to understand the speed differences between the different RAID possibilities, and these links seemed to answer that question, unless there are "real world" conditions that these tests don't address (and perhaps that's what Tesselator was referring to with his slower rating of 0+1). Any of you RAID experts want to weigh in? Is there another link I should look at to understand the speeds of RAID set-ups?

Ugh, and I still need a better understanding of seek times vs. data transfer rates and how that effects the myriad of things I do with my Mac (from manipulating huge PSD files to creating music to editing video). My gut is faster data transfer rates will benefit me more than faster seek times, but I don't really know...

I also disagree with Tesselator's RAID10 performance assertions; 4 drive RAID10 performance should be about the same 2 drive RAID0 performance for writes and possibly as good as 4 drive RAID0 performance for reads (if your controller will interleave reads).

Ideally we'd all have giant RAID10 arrays of 300GB 15kRPM SAS drives. Coming down from that to reality, you either have to go with arrays of 150GB 10kRPM disks or 1TB 7.2kRPM disks depending on your storage needs and financial resources. As I said in another thread, RAID10 vs RAID0 is largely about drive failure recovery downtime vs how soon you need to upgrade your disks.

[misterdna]

Thanks for clearing that up about Raptor drive in Sierra Dragon's scenario, not sure how I missed that!

Should I be confused by me saying "RAID 0+1" in my examples, and you saying "RAID 10" like it's the same thing?

Again, thanks to you everyone for helping me learn this stuff. I feel like I learn more in this forum than I have reading a lot of online articles.

I just found two decent links on 0+1 vs 1+0:
Nested RAID levels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why is RAID 1+0 better than RAID 0+1?

[mduell]

RAIDxy and RAID x+y are two ways of writing the same thing. RAID10 is a stripe of mirrors while RAID0+1 is a mirror of stripes. I prefer the former for reduced recovery time (although you're still online during recovery, so it's not such a big deal).

[radarseven]

Hi All,

Great thread here, I hope you don't mind if I jump in. I'm new to the forum.

I'm also weighing options for a storage strategy for my new Mac Pro and would welcome any feedback or advice. I'm fairly new to RAID and considering hardware RAID options (either the Apple RAID Card or new CalDigit RAID Card at a fraction of the $$).

I'm pretty set on using the Raptor for boot/system drive, either a single Raptor or a pair in RAID 0 stripe for performance. I'm intrigued about using the Raptor in the optical bay, but am curious if it takes a performance hit since its using the PATA-SATA adapter.

Here are few of my storage options, please feel free to comment or tear these apart!

Option 1A:
---------------------------------
Boot: 2 Raptors, RAID 0 stripe, slots A-B
Data: 2 WD RE2 750GB, RAID 0 stripe, slots C-D
Scratch: 2 WD RE2 750GB, RAID 0 stripe, external OWC enclosure (via eSATA extender cable)
---------------------------------

Option 1B:
---------------------------------
Boot: 1 Raptor, slot A
Data: 3 WD RE2 750GB, RAID 0 or hardware RAID 5, slots B-D
Scratch: 2 WD RE2 750GB, RAID 0 stripe, external OWC enclosure (via eSATA extender cable)
---------------------------------

Option 2:
---------------------------------
Boot: 1 Raptor, Optical Bay (performance hit?)
Data: 4 WD RE2 750GB, RAID 1+0 or hardware RAID 5, slots A-D
Scratch: 2 WD RE2 750GB, RAID 0 stripe, external OWC enclosure (via eSATA extender cable)
---------------------------------

Option 3:
---------------------------------
Use the Raptors instaed as the scratch disk(s) and maybe a pair of WD RE2 in RAID 0 as boot volume, or a single 7200RPM drive as boot.
---------------------------------

Cheers

[dpicardi]

[QUOTE=mduell;3594139]Use it for OSX/Apps/Windows.

How would you partition the original drive?

I just bought an 8-core MP with 8GB Ram and the 8800 GT card and am looking for advice as to how to set up my HDs for three things:
1. Performance - I want it to be fast but I don't need bleeding edge - I'm intrigued by the raptor scratch disk but I really don't want to hear my machine unless I'm working on it and sitting right next to it.
2. Quietness - really key for me as I'd like to leave it on all the time - I have been scarred for life by my Dual G4 vacuum cleaner. the MP will be about 10 feet from my wife and I's bed.
3. Space - for video both that I shot and that I've encoded, lots of raw and edited pictures and music

I have a feeling that the 8800GT card is going to produce a significant amount of heat as compared to the stock card. I hope it doesn't mean the fans will be on all the time.

Ideally I want to do the following with my mac.

First and foremost it will be a mac, through I want to install bootcamp and win XP or possibly Vista so I can finally get rid of my PC and play the occasional game in all it's glory.
Where should I install bootcamp? I got a 500GB HD in the machine. You said install OSX, apps and windows on the main HD. Got that. But don't I have to partition it? If so how would you recommend?

Second. I want to run time machine. I was thinking about doing it with an internal drive. Is there any benefit to doing it that way vs external? I was thinking there would be but I don't know.

Third. I have a significant iTunes library that is growing fairly fast due to the fact that I also have Apple TV and I'm encoding a lot of video to stream to it. I was thinking of having a 500-750 GB hd just for itunes. I already have 300GB in my itunes folder.

Fourth. I have a ton of photos and when I shoot video it is in HD. I was thinking about getting 2 500GB HD and striping them for speed for these two uses. Not sure if that is necessary or not. I was just assuming that since these files are large that might be of significant benefit.

Programs I most use:
Lightroom
Capture NX
PSE4 - because I can't bring myself to spend $600 on an editing program (PS3) - but I might now because of this MP
Office 2004 - will likely upgrade to 2008 once all the bugs are worked out
Handbrake
the iLife suite (iphoto and itunes mostly)
Some FCE - though a lot of what I do I can do in iMovie

I know the MP was a bit of overkill, but I wanted to future proof myself and difference between 4 and 8 cores was less than $500.

Any help you can provide in terms of HD configuring/partitioning would be greatly appreciated.

I know mduell is a huge Seagate fan. I was also looking at the Samsung Spinpoint and F1 HDs as well as I heard they were both quiet, cool running and fast.

Thanks in advance for all your help.

Dave

[mduell]

Originally Posted by radarseven 

I'm also weighing options for a storage strategy for my new Mac Pro and would welcome any feedback or advice. I'm fairly new to RAID and considering hardware RAID options (either the Apple RAID Card or new CalDigit RAID Card at a fraction of the $$).

I'm pretty set on using the Raptor for boot/system drive, either a single Raptor or a pair in RAID 0 stripe for performance. I'm intrigued about using the Raptor in the optical bay, but am curious if it takes a performance hit since its using the PATA-SATA adapter.

Hardware RAID is a great idea.

There are two extra SATA ports on the logic board, so no adapters are necessary.

With a single optical drive, you have five hard drive bays. I'd suggest a Raptor for boot (RAIDing the boot drive introduces some annoying limitations), a Raptor for scratch if you're a heavy or professional Photoshop user, and 1TB Hitachi (great I/O performance) drives as necessary to meet the 25-35/75 rule for data storage. Remaining bays can be used for more 1TB drives for backup.

Originally Posted by dpicardi 

First and foremost it will be a mac, through I want to install bootcamp and win XP or possibly Vista so I can finally get rid of my PC and play the occasional game in all it's glory.
Where should I install bootcamp? I got a 500GB HD in the machine. You said install OSX, apps and windows on the main HD. Got that. But don't I have to partition it? If so how would you recommend?

Second. I want to run time machine. I was thinking about doing it with an internal drive. Is there any benefit to doing it that way vs external? I was thinking there would be but I don't know.

Third. I have a significant iTunes library that is growing fairly fast due to the fact that I also have Apple TV and I'm encoding a lot of video to stream to it. I was thinking of having a 500-750 GB hd just for itunes. I already have 300GB in my itunes folder.
Fourth. I have a ton of photos and when I shoot video it is in HD. I was thinking about getting 2 500GB HD and striping them for speed for these two uses. Not sure if that is necessary or not. I was just assuming that since these files are large that might be of significant benefit.

I know mduell is a huge Seagate fan. I was also looking at the Samsung Spinpoint and F1 HDs as well as I heard they were both quiet, cool running and fast.

A few thoughts in no particular order:
Upgrading to 500GB with Apple was dumb; read the forums first next time.

0/1. Same advice as everybody else: Raptor for boot, Raptor for scratch, Hitachi 1TB as necessary. Depending on how much you'll be installing in Windows, either partition your boot Raptor (min 20GB for Windows, but larger if you're going to have more than 15GB in Windows) for it or add another Raptor (if you need more than 75GB for Windows).

2. Assuming an external disk would be Firewire or USB, then it's faster to go with an internal TM disk.

3. Media files are just files, put them with the rest of the files.

4. RAID is a hassle that it doesn't sound like you need. Have a 1TB drive for data and a 1TB drive for backup in addition to your Raptor or two.

Seagates are great drives, but in the 1TB class Hitachi is the winner.

[misterdna]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I also disagree with Tesselator's RAID10 performance assertions; 4 drive RAID10 performance should be about the same 2 drive RAID0 performance for writes and possibly as good as 4 drive RAID0 performance for reads (if your controller will interleave reads)

I just realized that Apple's RAID card only supports 0+1, not 1+0. My questions about RAID for the Mac Pro have been about 0+1, but your answers have been in terms of RAID10 (which I fully understand you think is the better way to go)... But I'm confused that you are recommending a RAID set-up for the Mac Pro that doesn't seem to be supported with the RAID card that comes (optionally) with the Mac Pros. Am I missing something?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by misterdna 

I just realized that Apple's RAID card only supports 0+1, not 1+0. My questions about RAID for the Mac Pro have been about 0+1, but your answers have been in terms of RAID10 (which I fully understand you think is the better way to go)... But I'm confused that you are recommending a RAID set-up for the Mac Pro that doesn't seem to be supported with the RAID card that comes (optionally) with the Mac Pros. Am I missing something?

Thanks Apple, just what we all needed, stupid arbitrary limitations on RAID levels.
RAID01 works pretty much the same as RAID10, it just takes twice as long to rebuild after a drive failure.

[Faust]

This is exactly the information I needed, too. Now I know how to best upgrade my Mac Pro. Thanks!

[SierraDragon]

Deleted by poster (rethinking...)

[misterdna]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Hardware RAID is a great idea.
I'd suggest a Raptor for boot (RAIDing the boot drive introduces some annoying limitations)

What are the annoying limitations? I'm still trying to decide on how to configure a soon-to-be purchased Mac Pro, and I haven't been able to find details on why not to RAID the boot drive. Whilemost of you smart MACNN people recommend booting from a separate drive, I have also read that plenty of people are running their new Mac Pros with single RAID arrays (w/o a separate boot drive).

I'm currently considering a 4x1TB RAID 5, perhaps with an additional boot drive. Am also considering going non-RAID, but with a few drives to give me a separate boot drive, scratch drive, and data drive. And, of course, I am still open to considering the myriad of configurations between these two options.

I read that BENZ made a separate boot volume on his RAID 5 set-up, instead of going with a separate boot drive altogether. Does partitioning the RAID this way make much difference than just having the RAID as one volume?

Thanks!

[mduell]

If you use software RAID for the boot volume, you can't install some updates (firmware updates come to mind). I don't know if Apple's hardware RAID implementation has the same limitation.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by dpicardi 

...Programs I most use:
Lightroom
Capture NX
PSE4 - because I can't bring myself to spend $600 on an editing program (PS3) - but I might now because of this MP
Office 2004 - will likely upgrade to 2008 once all the bugs are worked out...

Try iWorks in lieu of upgrading Microsux Office. I find iWorks very useful and see no need to upgrade to yet another level of MS bloatware.

Upgrade to PSE 6, you probably do not need expensive PSCS3.

Aperture is now at v2.1 and IMO provides a much faster overall workflow than LR, you may want to try it.

Good luck!

-Allen Wicks

[Gordo123]

I'm using a Mac Pro 8 core with

1. mac 320
2. raptor 150 OS x and XP
3. raptor 150 scratch
4. seagate 750

I am using boot camp and fusion, but XP won't detect the FAT 32 drives or partitions from fusion. Does anybody have any suggestions about how to fix that?

Also, any advice about the best way to use the extra drives for data and storage for both Mac and XP would be appreciated. I'm using applications like CS3.

Thanks,
Gordo123

[misterdna]

Before you place your next HD order, check this out!

The (new) Fastest Hard Drive Ever - TheMurph - Maximum PC

[mduell]

I don't think the VelociRaptor will work in the Mac Pro's hard drive bays due to Apple's shortsighted fixed connector placement.

[Drakino]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I don't think the VelociRaptor will work in the Mac Pro's hard drive bays due to Apple's shortsighted fixed connector placement.

Why was Apple shortsighted on this? They followed SATA connector standards (And yes, connector placement is officially a part of the SATA standard), the same standards every single hard drive is supposed to be following. It would be like blaming Apple for not supporting some proprietary almost USB plug that is 2 mm larger.

I can name a ton of devices beyond the Mac Pro that expect standard SATA connector placement and will not work with the Velociraptor. The HP Blackbird Gaming PC, ReadyNAS series of NAS enclosures, several eSATA cases, most servers that use 3.5 inch drives (including the XServe), and this USB-SATA converter. Lots more out there too.

Western Digital says that the 5 year warranty on the drive will not be honored if that proprietary brick of a heatsink is removed. So people can't even make a proper 2.5 inch to 3.5 inch converter to work in the Mac Pro without risking having to buy another $300 drive if it fails.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Drakino 

Why was Apple shortsighted on this? They followed SATA connector standards (And yes, connector placement is officially a part of the SATA standard), the same standards every single hard drive is supposed to be following. It would be like blaming Apple for not supporting some proprietary almost USB plug that is 2 mm larger.

I can name a ton of devices beyond the Mac Pro that expect standard SATA connector placement and will not work with the Velociraptor. The HP Blackbird Gaming PC, ReadyNAS series of NAS enclosures, several eSATA cases, most servers that use 3.5 inch drives (including the XServe), and this USB-SATA converter. Lots more out there too.

Western Digital says that the 5 year warranty on the drive will not be honored if that proprietary brick of a heatsink is removed. So people can't even make a proper 2.5 inch to 3.5 inch converter to work in the Mac Pro without risking having to buy another $300 drive if it fails.

Please cite version/chapter/page for the SATA connector positioning that you believe WD is not complying with.

I don't doubt other vendors may have made similarly shortsighted decisions with regard to their connector position. I don't deny it would have been nice for WD to position the drive within the cooler to allow it to fit in common bay geometry.

[Drakino]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Please cite version/chapter/page for the SATA connector positioning that you believe WD is not complying with.

http://www.tjworld.net/specification...005-10-27).pdf

SATA specification 2.5, section 6.1.2, page 55 in the above linked document. Covers 5.25 inch, 3.5 inch and 2.5 inch devices. Revision 2.6 adds 1.8 inch devices, and a newer connector for slimline optical drives.

Seeing that Western Digital requires the IcePAK to always be attached, and the IcePAK makes the drive a 3.5 inch form factor device, not following the above stated section of the SATA specification means the drive is the problem. Every other vendor is not "being shortsighted" by using backplanes over cables.

If they either allowed the drive to work as a 2.5 inch form factor device, or mounted the drive in the IcePAK differently (placed properly, or used a daughterboard to route the connection), then this wouldn't be as big of an issue.

[mduell]

As shown in the spec you've pirated (reported your post for that, a copy can be legally purchased from SATA-IO), it is impossible for one device to comply with both the 2.5" and 3.5" specs. The VelociRaptor is a de facto 2.5" device, so compliance with that standard is the most reasonable course of action. Warranty restrictions are not technical requirements and do not make it a 3.5" device. Apple's fixed connector placement in the Mac Pro may be slick, but it's bad for users interested in affordable high performance disks.

[thewocky]

Thanks a million for this discussion--this is incredibly useful to a (hard drive) newbie like me.

I've got a 1-year-old Quad-core MP and want to update the goods. Right now I just have the WD 250 hard drive it came with, plus a 4-year-old 250 GB external LaCie drive. What makes the external drive handy is that I take it on the road with my (similarly old G4) Powerbook, and I have a carbon copy of everything on my main machine.

After reading these posts, I'm leaning toward a 150 GB Raptor for OSX and XP; for scratch, I see recommendations for another Raptor, but is there anything wrong with just sticking with my existing 250 HD? And then for storage, I'll throw a 1TB drive (Hitachi, since mduell swears by 'em....they're not paying you, are they? ) into another slot. For backup, I want another 1TB drive, but I still want to be able to take it with me. So is there a durable, reliable external drive that y'all would recommend? Or am I better off with an external enclosure for another Hitachi drive?

Many thanks....

[Drakino]

Oh noes, my post was reported for using google to find a document, I may have troubles sleeping tonight </sarcasm>.

Originally Posted by mduell 

it is impossible for one device to comply with both the 2.5" and 3.5" specs. The VelociRaptor is a de facto 2.5" device, so compliance with that standard is the most reasonable course of action. Warranty restrictions are not technical requirements and do not make it a 3.5" device.

Anyhow, I really have to question why you are so willing to jump to the defense of Western Digital here, even after being shown the standards that clearly exist to make things like drive upgrades easier. The VelociRaptor is sold, packaged and speced by Western Digital's own documents as a 3.5 inch form factor drive. Thus is should follow said guidelines. Connectors between a 2.5 inch and 3.5 inch drive are identical in size and clearance around them, so Western Digital can decide to sell a 2.5 inch form factor version of the drive with no actual modifications to the device. And for 3.5 inch form factor, all they need to do is position the drive properly in the IcePAK of theirs, or use a daughterboard or something with a SATA connector that plugs into the drive, then runs the other side to the proper position in the IcePAK.

Apple's fixed connector placement in the Mac Pro may be slick, but it's bad for users interested in affordable high performance disks.

It's more then slick, its following the SATA standards for 3.5 inch devices. I'm not running to Apple to tell them they need to support non standard SATA devices, since no user should ever reasonably assume it is their job to support every piece of proprietary hardware on the market. Apple has done a great job in shedding the Mac only connectors of their past, and it has reaped many benefits for the platform. Tacking on support for Western Digital proprietary connections will simply increase costs, be is up front costs for having to include more cables, costs for the end user to buy said cables if they are not included, or costs of assembly going up due to increased time for mounting factory provided drives. Thanks to Apple's decision to go with the fixed connector design allowed by SATA specifications and include screws in the mounting cages, I am able to buy OEM classified bare drives, instead of having to spend more on a retail package with screws and cables.


The only reason I have been commenting on this at all is because I do want a few VelociRaptor drives for my Mac Pro. Hopefully by pointing out where the problem is, other people in a similar position of wanting high performance drives will not follow your board warrior examples, and instead direct such energy towards writing to Western Digital to get them to address the issue. I've already had a dialog with one of their support engineers about this, and ensured they were aware the issue has caused them to lose a sale. Hopefully with many more similar conversations, they will find it worthwhile to follow SATA standards to increase sales of their products in the future.

[Drakino]

Originally Posted by thewocky 

So is there a durable, reliable external drive that y'all would recommend? Or am I better off with an external enclosure for another Hitachi drive?

I'd generally recommend avoiding the external cases that come with drives unless you can verify the chipset used. Oxford tends to be the most reliable chipsets for external cases, and I've never had an issue with them. Where as I have seen issues leading to data corruption with cheeper bridge chips.

If you can spring for it, I'd highly recommend this case for 3.5 inch SATA drives like the Hitachi drive. It has eSATA, Firewire 400 and 800, and USB2 ensuring the disk can be attached to numerous systems no matter what connector. I used one of these cases for a while paired with an eSATA expresscard in my MacBook Pro, and was able to get speeds well exceeding what I was limited to on the internal 2.5 inch drive. Plus with the other ports, I could easily plug it into any other system even if it didn't have eSATA.

[OreoCookie]

People, keep it civil, please.
Information that can be easily googled has obviously not been pirated by the person who has found them.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Drakino 

Oh noes, my post was reported for using google to find a document, I may have troubles sleeping tonight </sarcasm>.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Information that can be easily googled has obviously not been pirated by the person who has found them.

I see it as no different than linking to an RIAA member owned MP3, or a torrent for the latest MPAA member owned flick. MacNN Forums certainly wouldn't allow that. That the link was found through Google is entirely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Drakino 

Anyhow, I really have to question why you are so willing to jump to the defense of Western Digital here, even after being shown the standards that clearly exist to make things like drive upgrades easier. The VelociRaptor is sold, packaged and speced by Western Digital's own documents as a 3.5 inch form factor drive. Thus is should follow said guidelines. Connectors between a 2.5 inch and 3.5 inch drive are identical in size and clearance around them, so Western Digital can decide to sell a 2.5 inch form factor version of the drive with no actual modifications to the device. And for 3.5 inch form factor, all they need to do is position the drive properly in the IcePAK of theirs, or use a daughterboard or something with a SATA connector that plugs into the drive, then runs the other side to the proper position in the IcePAK.

Did you even read the WD document you linked to?
"IcePack™ Mounting Frame – The 2.5-inch WD VelociRaptor is enclosed in a 3.5-inch mounting frame with a built-in heat sink that keeps this powerful little drive extra cool when installed in a 3.5-inch drive bay." (emphasis mine)

I'm no fan of WD; 9 times out of 10 I'll recommend Hitachi or Seagate over them.

Originally Posted by Drakino 

It's more then slick, its following the SATA standards for 3.5 inch devices. I'm not running to Apple to tell them they need to support non standard SATA devices, since no user should ever reasonably assume it is their job to support every piece of proprietary hardware on the market. Apple has done a great job in shedding the Mac only connectors of their past, and it has reaped many benefits for the platform. Tacking on support for Western Digital proprietary connections will simply increase costs, be is up front costs for having to include more cables, costs for the end user to buy said cables if they are not included, or costs of assembly going up due to increased time for mounting factory provided drives. Thanks to Apple's decision to go with the fixed connector design allowed by SATA specifications and include screws in the mounting cages, I am able to buy OEM classified bare drives, instead of having to spend more on a retail package with screws and cables.

It is not a non-standard SATA device; the VelociRaptor complies with the SATA standard for 2.5" drives. Given that 2.5" drives began appearing in servers and workstations two years ago, it would be reasonable to expect Apple to support them in their workstations. I'm glad you enjoy your screws and cages, but I prefer the screwless rails the more progressive manufacturers in the industry have moved on to.

[zeppo]

If you are highly sensitive to high frequency noises avoid WD. If you don't have those problems I would highly recommend them as they are way faster then the default 250gb seagate drive. However if you do are sensitive to those noises use seagate and samsung. I would list more brands but I only have experience with these three brands.

I bought 2 640gb WD because at the time they were an excellent value price per gig etc. It was a risk for me because when I used PCs in the old days when 80gb was considered huge it had this noise I thought I was going crazy until I discovered it was the drive. WD has improved the noise level maybe 30 to 40% but none the less the noise is still there. I had to move my macpro further away so the noise would not bother me. Good thing we live in the age where we can get long usb, dvi, and firewire cables

[UnixMac]

FYI.. I've managed to install a Velociraptor RAID 0 into bay's 2 and 3 (this meant I didn't have to wrestle out the stinking fan assembly).. buy simply unscrewing the two philips screws and loosening the mount and then while sliding the Velociraptor (heretofore VR) I patiently attached the harness and bracket to the rear of the drive.. the only minus is that I'm not able to get it PERFECTLY flush, it's about 1/2 mm out of the full in position. The access pannel still fits and the lach still closes but the drives can be pulled out and are not fully locked in. I have a theory that I can remove the cabled from the back of the mounting bracket and directly attach them to the drives (old fashioned PC sATA style) and this would reduce the amount of bulk behind the drives and allow them to be flush.

btw.. got this idea form another forum in the interest of full disclosure.

bbtw.. this thing SCREAMS!

[mduell]

Can you better explain how you connected them? I don't understand how you overcame the offset in the SATA connector position.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Can you better explain how you connected them? I don't understand how you overcame the offset in the SATA connector position.

I answered you in the other thread, but this might work better.. it's how I found out about it.

Mac Forums - View Single Post - New WD Raptor 300 GB ultrafast

[misterdna]

Wow, that seems easy enough. I wonder how many Mac Pro users returned VelociRaptors when they found out they didn't fit, bought other drives, and now are kicking themselves at how easily they could have made the VelociRaptors work.

[bballe336]

Originally Posted by zeppo 

If you are highly sensitive to high frequency noises avoid WD. If you don't have those problems I would highly recommend them as they are way faster then the default 250gb seagate drive. However if you do are sensitive to those noises use seagate and samsung. I would list more brands but I only have experience with these three brands.

I bought 2 640gb WD because at the time they were an excellent value price per gig etc. It was a risk for me because when I used PCs in the old days when 80gb was considered huge it had this noise I thought I was going crazy until I discovered it was the drive. WD has improved the noise level maybe 30 to 40% but none the less the noise is still there. I had to move my macpro further away so the noise would not bother me. Good thing we live in the age where we can get long usb, dvi, and firewire cables

If anything I have had the opposite experience. I'm fairly sensitive to obnoxious noises and the WD drives have always been the quietest, much quieter than any seagate or samsung I've ever used. I can't comment on hitachi though as I've never owned one.

[revMedia]

Originally Posted by UnixMac 

I answered you in the other thread, but this might work better.. it's how I found out about it.

Mac Forums - View Single Post - New WD Raptor 300 GB ultrafast

Awesome! Thanks for that.

[Simon]

Velociraptor problem solved.

http://www.barefeats.com/hard106.html

[UnixMac]

Great! I've just ordered two!

[mduell]

WD also announced a bare 2.5" Velociraptor without the heatsink.