Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro 2010 - Set up for video editing, graphics etc..
- Thread starter steveOooo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just keep in mind, that the Greens are slow with random access performance, which is what an OS/application drive primarily uses.
If cost is an issue, a 7200rpm HDD would be a better choice, but there are even SSD's that aren't horrible either (which are the fastest performers for random access).
It would help to know a budget but yeah, I would not want a green 5400RPM drive as my boot. Only for storage as they add little to power bill and are fairly quiet. If you want RAID and boot get all 7200RPM Caviar Blacks or get an even faster boot drive. 1st choice would be SSD, 2nd would be Samsung F4 320GB, 600GB Velociraptor is expensive for what you get but very reliable and the fastest mechanical HDD. The Samsung F4 gives it a run though and is way cheaper.
Hmm ok, I just thought it would be ok as my Mbp is 5400rpm and seems to load ok etc. If its not much extra power the it seems fairly pointless, well £40 cheaper than the blacks
I'm going to use the supplied as the boot, the 2 blacks as raid and the green as storage / manual back up of important docs (although maybe pointless if I'm backing up to ext USB drives anyway) - or just get 2 more 2 tb blacks
I'm going to use the supplied as the boot, the 2 blacks as raid and the green as storage / manual back up of important docs (although maybe pointless if I'm backing up to ext USB drives anyway) - or just get 2 more 2 tb blacks
Derbothaus, I'm curious about the RAID boot setup myself. Would you need to go with the Enterprise (RE4) Caviar Blacks or would the regular Caviar Blacks be fine for such a thing?
For a software based RAID, the Caviar Blacks will usually suffice.
But if the load is heavy (i.e. high IOPS), or the disks are attached to a proper hardware RAID controller, the RE4's would be necessary.
Has anyone used a 600gb raptor WD drive in their system? 10,000rpm vs 7200rpm of standard drives
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-rev...ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFourStar
I've also read that it's best to partition your boot with Os apps, then have your data on a separate partition?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-rev...ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFourStar
I've also read that it's best to partition your boot with Os apps, then have your data on a separate partition?
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Try Adobe Premiere Pro
I realize that your questions are really about hardware, but I've recently switched from FCP 7 to Adobe Premiere Pro 5.5 ... which has resulted in a huge speed boost on my 2010 MP rig. Premiere Pro is 64 bit so it can address all the RAM you can throw at it, and utilizes multiple cores. That switch will maximize the performance of whatever hardware you end up with (I'd also recommend a SSD or two).
The learning curve from FCP 7 to Premiere is pretty easy ... far easier, I'm told, than going from FCP 7 to FCP X. And Adobe (and others) offer plenty of free training/learning resources to help switchers.
After switching, I no longer have to wait for the timeline to render between edits, especially working with high def and multiple layers.
I realize that your questions are really about hardware, but I've recently switched from FCP 7 to Adobe Premiere Pro 5.5 ... which has resulted in a huge speed boost on my 2010 MP rig. Premiere Pro is 64 bit so it can address all the RAM you can throw at it, and utilizes multiple cores. That switch will maximize the performance of whatever hardware you end up with (I'd also recommend a SSD or two).
The learning curve from FCP 7 to Premiere is pretty easy ... far easier, I'm told, than going from FCP 7 to FCP X. And Adobe (and others) offer plenty of free training/learning resources to help switchers.
After switching, I no longer have to wait for the timeline to render between edits, especially working with high def and multiple layers.
I've a 300GB version, and I'm happy with it (OS/applications volume). Not as fast as SSD, but at the time, SSD's were way too expensive.
Unless you just want to segregate the data, No (can actually hinder performance).
I suspect you're thinking of a separate volume (different disk), not partition on the same disk that contains the OS/applications. There are reasons this is a good strategy:
- Increased performance if you need to access the information on each volume simultaneously.
- If the OS/applications disk dies, your data is still in tact. IF the reverse happens, it saves time in a recovery as there's no need for an OS installation (just replace the disk/s, and restore from backup locations; you even have access to the browser if you need to do any research, or order new disks).
As stated already, you don't need to have enterprise grade. I'd personally save the scratch if it is for software RAID. If you were investing in a card and chassis it would make more sense.
RAID for boot is OK. Personally I would not do it for more than 2x RAID0 disks. Too much room for failure and data loss. I think the better way is to get the quickest boot HDD or SSD you can afford and use RAID0 in SW for data streams or to expand smaller disks for greater storage.
Velociraptors are super fast and enterprise grade also. But if you are going to spring for one of those you can get a smaller SSD like OWC (or other manufacturer) 120GB for 192.00 and use RAID0 Caviar Blacks for home directory and working files and backup everything to 2TB Green 5400PRM. That would be way faster. Get the space used on your root HD and subtract the home folder contents to figure SSD size needed. Give yourself room to grow and keep at least 25% free. I have a ton of stuff but my SSD is only carrying 80GB. It is surprising how little space you need and how affordable SSD's are these days.
well my apps folder is 24gb, id imagine a 128gb would be plenty - primary apps id be installing:
FCS 3
Adobe Creative Suite CS5
(with any media on the 2x 2tb raid)
I did your calculation and it was around 120GB - but i have media files (IE motion content) on the Mac HDD and various plugins so im sure will be much lower if i do a clean install and stick on the 4tb raid.
Just have to find a good 120 gb SSD with 3.5 enclosure included - crucial uk dont seem to support 2010 mac pro for some reason.
FCS 3
Adobe Creative Suite CS5
(with any media on the 2x 2tb raid)
I did your calculation and it was around 120GB - but i have media files (IE motion content) on the Mac HDD and various plugins so im sure will be much lower if i do a clean install and stick on the 4tb raid.
Just have to find a good 120 gb SSD with 3.5 enclosure included - crucial uk dont seem to support 2010 mac pro for some reason.
Something like this should work fine with any SSD you choose.
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/MMP35T25/
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/MMP35T25/
Yeah the greens always seem to get more complaints. The Caviar Blacks are quite possibly the least buggy drives i've ever used
Seagate's reliability has gone down the toilet since ~2008. For example, the current 7200.12 series has over a 30% failure rate OTB.
As a general rule, I usually recommend WD instead, but ATM, they don't sell a 7200 rpm 3TB consumer disk (i.e. Caviar Black). It's Green or nothing from WD (they don't even have 3TB in an RE4).
The Hitachi H3IK30003272SW is 3TB @ 7200rpm, but it's another brand I recommend you avoid (afterall, the Deskstar series are also know as Deathstars
If possible, skip 3TB, or wait for a disk from a better vendor to come along IMO.
Just a couple of thoughts before you leap anyway.
Seagate has turned into complete trash. They've had a few bad batches and firmware issues that have skewed their failure rates, but even after you adjust for those they crash in the most random ways. I don't even know how Seagate has stayed in business.
The RE4's are very solid disks as well (share the same mechanics and platters as the Caviar Blacks, but have additional sensors on the controller board, and different recovery timings programmed into the drive's firmware).Yeah the greens always seem to get more complaints. The Caviar Blacks are quite possibly the least buggy drives i've ever used
It's more than bad batches/firmware. Their disks turned to crap back in 2008, and the problems are still plaguing their drives (both enterprise and consumer 7200rpm SATA).
Given the time frame (pushing 4 years), its deeper than occasional problems (fundamental problems at least in the design or manufacturing phases, and more likely both). If I had to guess, it's the result of cost cutting gone wrong (not exactly uncommon these days
).Hitachi's sort of in the same boat with their SATA models, which occurred when they shifted manufacturing from Malaysia to China (when the consumer models became known as Deathstars).
hmm think ill plonk the SSD in the optical bay.
with this http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/MM52T35MP8/
does it matter if you dont plug a 3.5 drive in with the 2.5 sdd?
Wouldnt there be heat issues running a SSD on top of a 1tb / 2tb 7200rpm 3.5 drive?
with this http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/MM52T35MP8/
does it matter if you dont plug a 3.5 drive in with the 2.5 sdd?
Wouldnt there be heat issues running a SSD on top of a 1tb / 2tb 7200rpm 3.5 drive?
So the caviar blacks are using the same parts/mechanics as their enterprise grade drives then. That isn't totally surprising. They are pretty awesome.
It's more than bad batches/firmware. Their disks turned to crap back in 2008, and the problems are still plaguing their drives (both enterprise and consumer 7200rpm SATA).
Given the time frame (pushing 4 years), its deeper than occasional problems (fundamental problems at least in the design or manufacturing phases, and more likely both). If I had to guess, it's the result of cost cutting gone wrong (not exactly uncommon these days
Yes... funny how a couple years after they acquired Maxtor, their reliability dropped off a cliff. Think of it like Highlander
. I remember when the problems started around 2008ish they kept reporting these things as firmware or bad batches. I've used Western Digital since then. I don't care if they cost more up front. With Seagate it wasn't just failure rates. They had so many stupid bugs.