Anyone versed on M2 drives? I am looking at a WDS250G1B0B:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product. ... -_-Product
It is $40 less than the Samsung equivalent and look about the same in the benchmarks from randomly googling.
Would it be worth getting two of them and putting them in Raid1? Or better to get one for os and one for cache. Or one now then upgrade later and use the WD one as the cache.
Currently looking at i5 7600k, Gigabyte GA-Z170X-Gaming 5 and 8gigs of ddr4. Keeping my 960 4gb and platter drives. Itll start out as Win7, but will upgrade to win10 eventually.
PC build thread
Re: PC build thread
You want one that runs at PCI Express speeds instead of SATA speeds. Your motherboard supports it. This one is not much more. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product. ... 6820250084
Re: PC build thread
(had typed most of this up, so I left it as it was...conclusion is the basically the same)
While I have yet to use them in any of my personal systems, I've dealt with M.2 based drives at work a bit (and Apple's bastardized variants of it).
The big thing to keep in mind with M.2 is that it's a form factor/socket, and not an I/O standard. It can be an interface for PCIe, SATA, or USB, depending on what the host and device support.
In turn, when you're looking at M.2 SSDs, there are a couple major categories for them - ones (like the one you linked) that are still SATA drives, and NVMe drives (the standard for PCIe connected storage).
SATA based M.2 SSDs offer little or no actual performance gain over their 2.5" counterparts. The benefits are more in form factor, which might be a key advantage...or irrelevant, depending on your machine.
NVMe drives blow the doors off of SATA based SSDs, but remain a bit more expensive. Still, they give a lot more reason to go with an M.2 drive. As linked the NVMe WD still comes in cheaper than Samsung. The comparable Samsung model to that is here.
Since NVMe allows for much higher bandwidth, there are no shortage of tests illustrating that. Here is a video with some real world comparisons.
Personally, I would not worry about setting up RAID or anything with it. I'd just make sure to buy an NVMe drive.
While I have yet to use them in any of my personal systems, I've dealt with M.2 based drives at work a bit (and Apple's bastardized variants of it).
The big thing to keep in mind with M.2 is that it's a form factor/socket, and not an I/O standard. It can be an interface for PCIe, SATA, or USB, depending on what the host and device support.
In turn, when you're looking at M.2 SSDs, there are a couple major categories for them - ones (like the one you linked) that are still SATA drives, and NVMe drives (the standard for PCIe connected storage).
SATA based M.2 SSDs offer little or no actual performance gain over their 2.5" counterparts. The benefits are more in form factor, which might be a key advantage...or irrelevant, depending on your machine.
NVMe drives blow the doors off of SATA based SSDs, but remain a bit more expensive. Still, they give a lot more reason to go with an M.2 drive. As linked the NVMe WD still comes in cheaper than Samsung. The comparable Samsung model to that is here.
Since NVMe allows for much higher bandwidth, there are no shortage of tests illustrating that. Here is a video with some real world comparisons.
Personally, I would not worry about setting up RAID or anything with it. I'd just make sure to buy an NVMe drive.
-
samsonlonghair
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 5188
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:11 pm
- Location: Now: Newport News, VA. Formerly: Richmond. Before that: Near the WV/VA border
Re: PC build thread
Isiola answered the M.2 question brilliantly in terms of NVME and PCIe speed vs SATA speed. I tip my hat to you, Isiola; you articulated that better than I could have. So, I will answer the raid1 vs cache question.
To put it simply, I would not invest a lot of money into a raid1 M.2 SSD solution. You would see little benefit, and (depending on the specific RAID1 implementation) you could experience slowdown. I do applaud your concern for backing up your data. I recommend that you buy or re-use a HDD to use as your backup. DO NOT try to configure a SSD and a HDD together in a RAID1 configuration. In RAID1, your drives would slow to the lowest common denominator. Instead, use a traditional file copying application for automatic backups. If you need your second drive to be a perfect clone of your primary drive, look into applications like Acronis that will clone your drive nightly while you sleep.
Early on in the life of small and expensive SSDs, some vendors tried to sell us on the idea of "caching" with a combination of a SSD and a HDD. Video editors had been using RAID0 HDD configurations to cache their data on so-called "scratch" disks for years. Using a second disk for caching isn't especially relevant for most day-to-day computing, especially given the falling price of SSDs. Note: Processor caching is still important for gaming, but that's a different matter from a cache drive.
On the other hand, using an M.2 SSD as a scratch disk is an excellent idea for certain applications! You don't need it right away, but if you can find a second M.2 SSD to use as your scratch disk, you're doing great. This is especially relevant if you edit video or audio or tons of photos; it's not nearly as relevant for gaming. Caching video data accounts for a lot of read/write cycles. Put all this extra wear and tear on a second drive to keep it off your main drive. Now here's the tricky part: If you buy a slower drive for caching, you will slow down your video encoding. If video encoding and rendering times are important to you, get a scratch drive as fast as your primary M.2 SSD. I tend to re-use old drives for caching because they are going to incur extra wear and tear. Also, your scratch drive doesn't need to be the same capacity as your primary drive. Your scratch drive only needs to be as large as the biggest project you are going to be working on for the foreseeable future.
As for me, On my current setup I have my OS and my applications on my SSD, a big HDD for my archive and backups, and a pair of HDDs in a RAID0 configuration for my scratch disk. When the time comes for me to buy a new SSD, I will clone my OS and applications onto the new SSD. Then I will repurpose my old SSD into a scratch drive. My old RAID0 drives will probably get retired (if they haven't failed entirely by then).
Those are my thoughts on using a second SSD for RAID1 vs for caching render data.
To put it simply, I would not invest a lot of money into a raid1 M.2 SSD solution. You would see little benefit, and (depending on the specific RAID1 implementation) you could experience slowdown. I do applaud your concern for backing up your data. I recommend that you buy or re-use a HDD to use as your backup. DO NOT try to configure a SSD and a HDD together in a RAID1 configuration. In RAID1, your drives would slow to the lowest common denominator. Instead, use a traditional file copying application for automatic backups. If you need your second drive to be a perfect clone of your primary drive, look into applications like Acronis that will clone your drive nightly while you sleep.
Early on in the life of small and expensive SSDs, some vendors tried to sell us on the idea of "caching" with a combination of a SSD and a HDD. Video editors had been using RAID0 HDD configurations to cache their data on so-called "scratch" disks for years. Using a second disk for caching isn't especially relevant for most day-to-day computing, especially given the falling price of SSDs. Note: Processor caching is still important for gaming, but that's a different matter from a cache drive.
On the other hand, using an M.2 SSD as a scratch disk is an excellent idea for certain applications! You don't need it right away, but if you can find a second M.2 SSD to use as your scratch disk, you're doing great. This is especially relevant if you edit video or audio or tons of photos; it's not nearly as relevant for gaming. Caching video data accounts for a lot of read/write cycles. Put all this extra wear and tear on a second drive to keep it off your main drive. Now here's the tricky part: If you buy a slower drive for caching, you will slow down your video encoding. If video encoding and rendering times are important to you, get a scratch drive as fast as your primary M.2 SSD. I tend to re-use old drives for caching because they are going to incur extra wear and tear. Also, your scratch drive doesn't need to be the same capacity as your primary drive. Your scratch drive only needs to be as large as the biggest project you are going to be working on for the foreseeable future.
As for me, On my current setup I have my OS and my applications on my SSD, a big HDD for my archive and backups, and a pair of HDDs in a RAID0 configuration for my scratch disk. When the time comes for me to buy a new SSD, I will clone my OS and applications onto the new SSD. Then I will repurpose my old SSD into a scratch drive. My old RAID0 drives will probably get retired (if they haven't failed entirely by then).
Those are my thoughts on using a second SSD for RAID1 vs for caching render data.
-
fastbilly1
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13775
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:08 pm
Re: PC build thread
Thanks for the update folks. Due to finding a leak in the pool, pc upgrade may be delayed until the next big paycheck, but I will likely still go with what I lied out.
I do edit alot of photos, but all my video work is in 1080, so I do not need the i7. I was experimenting with editing on my gaming pc then rendering on one of my servers - dual xeon 5400s at 4ghz. And while it worked, it was cumbersome.
I do edit alot of photos, but all my video work is in 1080, so I do not need the i7. I was experimenting with editing on my gaming pc then rendering on one of my servers - dual xeon 5400s at 4ghz. And while it worked, it was cumbersome.
Re: PC build thread
Well, in that time, Intel has also announced their next round of CPUs, which are bumping up the core counts. So, it might be worth waiting a little anyway.
-
samsonlonghair
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 5188
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:11 pm
- Location: Now: Newport News, VA. Formerly: Richmond. Before that: Near the WV/VA border
Re: PC build thread
fastbilly1 wrote:I was experimenting with editing on my gaming pc then rendering on one of my servers - dual xeon 5400s at 4ghz. And while it worked, it was cumbersome.
I don't know what software you use, but I do know that adobe media encoder can be setup to Auto-render any media dropped into a given folder. You can even specify different functions for different folders. One folder can be for ingesting raw footage. Another folder can be for rendering projects. Another folder can be for downsampling a high definition video into a smaller size.
I set up networked folders on one computer with simple smb sharing. Then I setup adobe media encoder to render the way I like. Then I edited some videos in Adobe Premiere on another computer. I saved my project onto the networked folder when I was done and let fly.
Compatibility issues cropped up the first time I tried this. Turns out that adobe media encoder cc and adobe premier cs6 are not compatible. They use different rendering engines. After I updated my software so that I was running the same version on both computers, everything started working fine.
-
fastbilly1
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13775
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:08 pm
Re: PC build thread
Samson that was the exact same setup and issue. Glad to hear that once I bite the bullet and upgrade to CC it will work.
I am waiting to buy the other parts after I buy the cpu. The 8600k will be mine...eventually.
I am waiting to buy the other parts after I buy the cpu. The 8600k will be mine...eventually.
-
samsonlonghair
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 5188
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:11 pm
- Location: Now: Newport News, VA. Formerly: Richmond. Before that: Near the WV/VA border
Re: PC build thread
fastbilly1 wrote:Samson that was the exact same setup and issue. Glad to hear that once I bite the bullet and upgrade to CC it will work.
I am waiting to buy the other parts after I buy the cpu. The 8600k will be mine...eventually.
Glad I could help, fast.
It also works the opposite way. If you don't care to upgrade to Adobe CC on both computers, you can install CS6 on both computers. The important part is that both machines are running the same version. The version of Adobe Premiere you use (be it CC or CS6) must match the version of Adobe Media Encoder.