Is there performance or a data integrity issue putting the imported files, the FCPx Libraries, the compressor output and then the DVD Files on the same disk? Through the years I have tried to keep each of those file categories on separate disks. Is there a difference any longer?
TIA,
Pete D.
iMac, macOS Sierra (10.12.6), 16GB RAM
NO, way back in prehistoric times you speak of, I was an IT engineer, and that was not the case at all. File "type" means nothing to a hard drive, it has to access data the same way no matter what "file type". What you stat is a misunderstanding of the technical facts. Let me clarify. And no, the practice is still technically sound today.
The rule-of-thumb was to put your NLE and media on a separate drive from your system drive. And that reason stands today. It is based on the bandwidth of the connection between the drive and the CPU. Just like your Internet connection, you have a limit to how much data can flow upstream and downstream (or upload and download). The system drive has the operating system and the running applications writing invisible "working files" non-stop to the system drive. Not to mention the Virtual RAM that macOS uses your system drive for, also. All of that work goes on non-stop, 24/7 and eats up bandwidth between the system drive and the CPU.
Video editing is one of the most demanding on storage drive bus bandwidth. It has to stream multiple video and audio data streams live, plus read/write to it's own database, etc. It eats up a ton of bandwidth between the storage drive and the CPU. Thus, you use a secondary, FAST storage drive for your NLE's project files, media, and with FCPX the Libraries. This helps general system performance stay as efficient as possible, by allowing the OS an apps all the bandwidth they need to work, limited only by the system drive's abilities.
A photo library like for Photos or Lighroom don't really need a secondary drive, as they read an image into RAM, write changes to the drive, pop one, pop two, done. Photos don't need to stream media real time, just load a static image and done. So a photo library on a system drive won't effect anything.
THAT has been true since the beginning of the personal computer, and is true today. But "file type" means nothing and has no effect in this matter. Accessing a JPEG, a MOV, a DOC or a PDF means nothing to system efficiency, it is the speed at which those need to be read and written that matters. Putting different "file types" on different drives makes no technical sense. But putting NLE files on a separate drive from your system drive makes tons of sense.
So that secondary drive today needs to be minimum a 7200rpm spinning disk drive, larger the better, RAID is better (more bays the better), and USB 3, preferably Thunderbolt (any version). SSD drives are faster, but I don't recommend them as, even after all these years, the promise of them becoming affordable and large has not panned out. They're expensive and small, and unless there is a technical need for them, I'd say save your money.
If you remember the old IBM Big Blue computers, that required an amp/ohm meter for troubleshooting, and a soldering iron to repair, you know how old I could possibly be, and how far back my IT engineering experience goes.
NO, way back in prehistoric times you speak of, I was an IT engineer, and that was not the case at all. File "type" means nothing to a hard drive, it has to access data the same way no matter what "file type". What you stat is a misunderstanding of the technical facts. Let me clarify. And no, the practice is still technically sound today.
The rule-of-thumb was to put your NLE and media on a separate drive from your system drive. And that reason stands today. It is based on the bandwidth of the connection between the drive and the CPU. Just like your Internet connection, you have a limit to how much data can flow upstream and downstream (or upload and download). The system drive has the operating system and the running applications writing invisible "working files" non-stop to the system drive. Not to mention the Virtual RAM that macOS uses your system drive for, also. All of that work goes on non-stop, 24/7 and eats up bandwidth between the system drive and the CPU.
Video editing is one of the most demanding on storage drive bus bandwidth. It has to stream multiple video and audio data streams live, plus read/write to it's own database, etc. It eats up a ton of bandwidth between the storage drive and the CPU. Thus, you use a secondary, FAST storage drive for your NLE's project files, media, and with FCPX the Libraries. This helps general system performance stay as efficient as possible, by allowing the OS an apps all the bandwidth they need to work, limited only by the system drive's abilities.
A photo library like for Photos or Lighroom don't really need a secondary drive, as they read an image into RAM, write changes to the drive, pop one, pop two, done. Photos don't need to stream media real time, just load a static image and done. So a photo library on a system drive won't effect anything.
THAT has been true since the beginning of the personal computer, and is true today. But "file type" means nothing and has no effect in this matter. Accessing a JPEG, a MOV, a DOC or a PDF means nothing to system efficiency, it is the speed at which those need to be read and written that matters. Putting different "file types" on different drives makes no technical sense. But putting NLE files on a separate drive from your system drive makes tons of sense.
So that secondary drive today needs to be minimum a 7200rpm spinning disk drive, larger the better, RAID is better (more bays the better), and USB 3, preferably Thunderbolt (any version). SSD drives are faster, but I don't recommend them as, even after all these years, the promise of them becoming affordable and large has not panned out. They're expensive and small, and unless there is a technical need for them, I'd say save your money.
If you remember the old IBM Big Blue computers, that required an amp/ohm meter for troubleshooting, and a soldering iron to repair, you know how old I could possibly be, and how far back my IT engineering experience goes.
Yes, some folks advocated for going overboard with that. Cashe files, render files, output files, original media, etc, could all go on one drive just fine. All of it on one drive, separate from the system drive, has always been sufficient. Again, some folks when overboard with some pretzel logic and put renders on one drive, cache on another, etc. Those file containers did nothing to effect drive bandwidth. So yeah, two drives, that's it, that's all anyone ever needed.
While on the subject, SSD drives are still not nearly fast enough to put your media and Libraries on your system drive.
So a two drive system is all you need for optimal performance.
http://finalcutprox.guru/page/blog/files/storageexplained.html
There never was any difference. There's no logical, technical reason to put all of those on their own separate drives. You do want your FCPX Libraries and media NOT on your system drive, but on a fast secondary drive, that's all. What were you told the reason for all this was?
Way back in prehistoric times (90’s) with slower drives and higher latency there was an advantage to putting differing file types accross Disks, if you had them, to minimize disk head thrashing and add eficiency when media, cache files, and results files were being rendered or transcoded. The last Final Cut I used before this was FCP6 and that still had a preference that allowed you to do that right in the program. There were sections of most books I used as reference guides that addressed this practice, as well. I have had source and output on different disks when I can manage it. As a dinosaur I realize that, like defragging, this practice may be a thing of the past with fast spinning drives and, of course, SSD. Hence the question. Thanks.
Pete
I guess I didn’t explain myself properly (a frequent occurrence). I didn’t mean different files by .jpg, .mov, pdf, etc. what I meant was that I put source files (media), render files, cache files, output files, etc. - on different disks if possible and available, one disk for source files, one disk for render/cache files, one disk for output (considered my “main data” disk - usually one folder per customer or project). I go back to “big iron” as well, although I didn’t wield a soldering gun. At that time I loaded punch cards, mounted tapes and ran spools through teletype. Through programming, then support and then (very minor) R&D stuff I know just enough to get in trouble. It’s good to know I don’t have to do so much housekeeping.
thanks,
Pete D.
Thanks for the discussion. Good to know. That also lessens the need to backup, etc. more drives than necessary. Overall I will always use my system drive for just OS and applications exclusively. Data will always reside elsewhere. Just a personal quirk. Keeping everything non app or OS related we discussed earlier on one external drive or RAID will be my new paradigm.
thanks,
Pete D.
Storage Philosophy
