Why is everybody fighting about the MiniPro?

[ssgbryan]

right

it's a matter of perception.. for one, 'internal expansion' is pretty much a misnomer because as far as i can gather, you're still buying drives and putting them inside a box.. and you're still paying for that box and the capabilities to put hard drives inside of it.. some people want an all-in-one thing- others don't..

i mean, i have a printer and i have a scanner.. sure, i could get them as an all-in-one thing that even faxes and copies too.. but i don't- i'd rather get specialized components that do one thing and do them well.. maybe i'm a bad shopper and spent too much money and have double the cables needed for my printing and scanning needs but so be it..

and yeah, maybe someone with 5 drives inside a macpro will spend more money on storage enclosures with the new mac.. but at the same time, how many empty macpro drive bays (and pci slots) are out there.. we really don't know but i'm willing to bet $ that there are far more empty bays and slots than occupied ones..

if you want more drives- buy more drives.. and pay for an enclosure for those drives.. i don't know what else to say.. i mean, you can't just go to the store right now and buy a hard drive and do something with it.. you have to also pay for something else in order for it to be of any use. nothing has changed in this regard with the new mac.

further, there are advantages of buying a separate enclosure if you're data hungry.. currently, if you buy a computer and cram a bunch of drives inside, you've moreORless tied your storage to that single computer.. what happens if you want to use those drives for another computer? or what happens when you replace your computer? unscrew all of them then rescrew all of them? or just unplug one cord then plug it in to the new or other computer? i'd rather go with the latter.. your storage solution can be viewed as a separate investment and doesn't have to be locked to one box.. it's it's own box.

it's not much different than imac users needing to replace their displays if they want to replace their computers.. where as a macpro user just unplugs their display from the old computer and plugs it into a new one.. you buy your display according to what your needs are.. there is more freedom to customize and build to suit your specific need when peripheral objects aren't tied to an all-in-one deal.. this same idea can be applied to storage as well because storage isn't a computing necessity.. it's an add on and no two people have the same exact needs for their add ons where as an all-in-one package assumes they do and imposes limits by design..

I can access all of my drives and peripherals with other computers already - I have this thing called a network. No TB port or additional cost required.

Putting 6 HDs in my MP cost me $79 (Drive Caddy 2 - not really necessary, but makes the MP neater internally)

How much do you think the TB enclosures would cost for the following:

2x (240Gb) 2.5" SSDs - (OS & Applications)
2x(2TB) 3.5" Hard drives - Data
2x(2TB) 3.5" Hard drives - More Data (iTunes)
4x(2TB) 3.5" Hard Drives - Back ups (Raid Box)

I have been shopping and the enclosures will be around $1,600 dollars (for slower performance, btw).

$79 vs $1,600

Then there are the USB peripherals:
iPhone, iPad, iPod, mouse, keyboard, 2 additional external USB boxes (for less critical data), a scanner, DVD drive (sorry, but I still use physical media) and the occasional camera & thumb drive.

That is another $300 or so for a TB docking station - unless I want to be constantly spinning the nMP around to plug/unplug items repeatedly.

So, unless a miracle occurs and prices on TB enclosures drop through the basement over the next 4 months, I am looking at (cost of nMP) + $1900 to move to the nMP.

I'm not discussing cable hell, because I've been living that dream since I got my first computer back in the 80's. I am used to it and it doesn't bother me.

Then there is that 2nd GPU that will be unused, due to the fact that not a single application I have uses GPU acceleration. Perhaps they will 5 years from now, but they aren't using it today, or tomorrow.

I don't know who Apple thinks the target audience is for the nMP, but as someone who does 3d rendering on a daily basis, I don't appear to be it.

 

[Larry-K]

Probably because people come up with names like "MiniPro".

 

[flat five]

If I were to generalize, the PCIe card -based complaints I've been seeing tend to be either music-oriented or high end video.

as far as i see it, there's a change and some people are okay with exploring new possibilities and others are more "change is bad- final answer"

From:

(Mac Pro w/PCIe Card) <---cable--> peripheral

To:

(Mac Pro) <---TB---> (PCIe Adaptor Box w/PCIe Card)* <--cable--> peripheral


Future:

(Mac Pro) <---TB---> (speciality box)* <--cable--> peripheral

why not:

(Mac Pro) <---TB--->peripheral*


i mean, that's where i see many or most future solutions being.. but i admit, i think i'm more of a dreamer/optimist in many regards.. and yes, i can also admit that's not necessarily a good thing.. but that's how i am, you know? it's my personality. im INTP

Sure, it is "livable" ... but the question really is more of if it still represents a reasonble value, hence the Thunderbolt Tax parlance. Add to this the complexities of product lifecycle variations and release dates and an ugly transition period (of presently indeterminate length) is assured. In the meantime, while "+1 Cable" doesn't sound too bad, that's in many cases a "1+1", which means two and thus a doubling of connections.

dunno.. i outlined in this thread my situation which shows me using less cables if i adopt thunderbolt.. i'm ok with that (though i'm not excited at the thought of less cables.. i don't really care about that.. i wouldn't really care if i was going to add more cables either-- so i don't even know why i'm arguing about this in the first place
i'm more excited about being able to use one style connector for many more situations.. less fussing around with finding the right cord when i need to hook something up etc)

YMMV as to what the threshhold is for how many cables cross over into Hell, but as one can see by the above illustrations, the number of cables to support N Peripherals is likely in a lot of cases to double, to 2N...and that's before considering the potential for additional power feeds (and a risk of 3N).

i guess all i can say is that if a cable# sensitive person does actually buy a new mac pro then i hope they'll be able to arrive at a solution which they'll be happy with.. otherwise, why bother buying it.

 

[wonderspark]

...i mean, you can't just go to the store right now and buy a hard drive and do something with it.. you have to also pay for something else in order for it to be of any use. nothing has changed in this regard with the new mac...

This statement is completely false.

I buy bare HDDs and even SSDs, and slide them into their slots or plug them into internal cables without paying another cent, and they're 100% useful. What are these "something else" items that *you* are paying for, in order to use a hard drive and 'do something' with it?

Current MP - bare drive goes inside, works with nothing else.
nMP - bare drive has to go in some other enclosure or otherwise connect with at least one cable.

Something has indeed changed in this regard with the new Mac, which is more cables - some of which are very expensive.

 

[-hh]

...
it's a matter of perception.. for one, 'internal expansion' is pretty much a misnomer because as far as i can gather, you're still buying drives and putting them inside a box.. and you're still paying for that box and the capabilities to put hard drives inside of it.. some people want an all-in-one thing- others don't..

If there wasn't a significant difference {cost, performance, reliability} between the options, most people probably woudn't give a damn.

...and yeah, maybe someone with 5 drives inside a macpro will spend more money on storage enclosures with the new mac.. but at the same time, how many empty macpro drive bays (and pci slots) are out there.. we really don't know but i'm willing to bet $ that there are far more empty bays and slots than occupied ones..

Sure, but there's also a 'Opportunity Cost' -esque factor: while people buying a big empty box are indeed paying more, the extra amount isn't much more than a smaller box...but if they use it, they save quite a bit versus how much a TB enclosure would have cost them. Call it 'Cheap Insurance'

if you want more drives- buy more drives.. and pay for an enclosure for those drives.. i don't know what else to say.. i mean, you can't just go to the store right now and buy a hard drive and do something with it..

Sure one can: the design of the legacy Mac Pro makes it quite trivial to pop in/out a 'bare' drive. If we assume a very generous 3 minutes to unscrew/reattach the tray, the whole process takes <5 minutes, including shutdown & reboot times.

you have to also pay for something else in order for it to be of any use.

You're going to quibble over the $3 for a size #0 Phillips screw driver? Really?

nothing has changed in this regard with the new mac.

...well, except that it reportedly has no provisions for internal hard drives whatsoever.

further, there are advantages of buying a separate enclosure if you're data hungry.. currently, if you buy a computer and cram a bunch of drives inside, you've moreORless tied your storage to that single computer.. what happens if you want to use those drives for another computer?

Simply pop open the Mac Pro's side and remove them; plug them into another Mac Pro. The legacy Mac Pro's design purposefuly makes this very easy to do...and it is even easier when the MP's are of the same vintage (don't even need to change out the trays).

or what happens when you replace your computer? unscrew all of them then rescrew all of them?

Yes, pretty much. With a ten minute investment, you can expect a $500 cost avoidance.

or just unplug one cord then plug it in to the new or other computer? i'd rather go with the latter..

If you're happy to pay the Thunderbolt Tax, that's your business. YMMV.

your storage solution can be viewed as a separate investment and doesn't have to be locked to one box.. it's it's own box.

True...but...one can't use your box without any other boxes. As such, it is merely one cog in a larger system context.

... it's an add on and no two people have the same exact needs for their add ons where as an all-in-one package assumes they do and imposes limits by design..

Yes, this is all trying to examine the trade-off implications of various design approaches.

While we are generally willing to pay something extra for convenience, there's also a limit to what we're willing to pay. This is essentially why this entire internal-vs-external discussion really isn't about Capabilities but the question of at what Cost are which Capabilities afforded? which makes it really a Value discussion instead.



-hh

 

[flat five]

How much do you think the TB enclosures would cost for the following:

2x (240Gb) 2.5" SSDs - (OS & Applications)
2x(2TB) 3.5" Hard drives - Data
2x(2TB) 3.5" Hard drives - More Data (iTunes)
4x(2TB) 3.5" Hard Drives - Back ups (Raid Box)

10 drives?
2 for itunes alone?

dunno, i'd say rethink the amount of drives you need before you even begin worrying about how much it's going to cost.

or maybe i'm misreading how many drives you're talking about?
(didn't make it through the rest of your post yet.. maybe after you clear this bit up)

----------

This statement is completely false.

I buy bare HDDs and even SSDs, and slide them into their slots or plug them into internal cables without paying another cent, and they're 100% useful. What are these "something else" items that *you* are paying for, in order to use a hard drive and 'do something' with it?

hmm.. i might of not typed the thought clearly.. i was just trying to say that a hard drive (other than the boot drive) is a peripheral component.. it's an add on.. an extra which someone is buying in order to customize their exact usage scenario.. it can't be used by itself and needs to be hooked up to something else that you either A)already paid for or B) are going to pay for

----------

You're going to quibble over the $3 for a size #0 Phillips screw driver? Really?

lol.. no
that's not what i meant

but hey, i like talking with you and a few others around here because at least you're thinking it through.. we just have different views and maybe different needs&wants but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it.

anyway, i'd like to respond to some of the stuff you just wrote but i really can't.. i've been procrastinating on too many potential projects while discussing this new computer so in that regard, this new mac pro is proving to be absolutely horrible for my workflow.. i gotta get a grip on that soon or i'm not going to be able to buy one
tata for now.

 

[wonderspark]

There are a lot of things that I really like about the new design.

One is that the GPUs have no fans, since they're cooled from the 'thermal core' triangle. It will be incredibly quiet.

I'll keep my eye on the refurbished section when they get there, and pick one up cheap. If the low-price guessers are correct, it should be only $1100 or so. It would be pretty cool to modify one to have two or three internal 1TB+ SSDs, and upgrade the CPU.

 

[-hh]

as far as i see it, there's a change and some people are okay with exploring new possibilities and others are more "change is bad- final answer"

Not really. What you're describing is simply that some people have already gone through the "there's a change ... but is it beneficial to ME?" step, and have now reached a provisional conclusion which isn't positive.

To carry an assumption (believe) that all change is always beneficial for all customers is logically flawed: every decision commitment invariably has trade-offs somewhere...one just has to go find them to see how applicable they are to your use case. FYI, Apple's Mac IIvx is a concrete historical example of a "Change for Worse"...not sure if there was anything positive about that 'Road Apple'.

why not:

(Mac Pro) <---TB--->peripheral*

For some peripherals, this is just the case (eg, data RAID). However, for the likes of music control boards, HD video, etc, you'll need to go research the relevant products. And sure, we might get to that possiblity at some point in the future, but that future is not today.

FYI, sidestepping into another peripheral to look at technology diffusion rates, the advent of Ethernet connections directly on lab grade IR cames has occurred within the past decade...despite the fact that the 10bT physical interface is now 23 years old. If we use this as our technology diffusion model, then what you're anticipating should exist by year 2025.

dunno.. i outlined in this thread my situation which shows me using less cables if i adopt thunderbolt.. i'm ok with that (though i'm not excited at the thought of less cables.. i don't really care about that.. i wouldn't really care if i was going to add more cables either-- so i don't even know why i'm arguing about this in the first place
i'm more excited about being able to use one style connector for many more situations.. less fussing around with finding the right cord when i need to hook something up etc)

YMMV. About the only time that I really care about the "which cable?" type of question is when the cables are expensive.

i guess all i can say is that if a cable# sensitive person does actually buy a new mac pro then i hope they'll be able to arrive at a solution which they'll be happy with.. otherwise, why bother buying it.

And that's precisely the dilemma that they face.


-hh

 

[ssgbryan]

10 drives?
2 for itunes alone?

dunno, i'd say rethink the amount of drives you need before you even begin worrying about how much it's going to cost.

or maybe i'm misreading how many drives you're talking about?
(didn't make it through the rest of your post yet.. maybe after you clear this bit up)

----------



hmm.. i might of not typed the thought clearly.. i was just trying to say that a hard drive (other than the boot drive) is a peripheral component.. it can be used by itself and needs to be hooked up for something else that you either A)already paid for or B) are going to pay for

[/QUOTE]

13 drives total actually.

I have actually thought it through. If everything you do with your computer can fit on 1 hard drive, well, bully for you. I haven't been able to do that since the early 90's.

1. Hard drives get slower as you fill them up - therefore, make sure you have plenty of space to stretch out.

2. Raids have faster throughput - a lot faster actually.

3. A backup strategy that works requires more than 1 drive.

My OS & applications are on 2 240 SSDs in a RAID 0. I ran out of space on the 1st SSD, it was cheaper to add a 2nd 240 & raid it - not to mention faster - I can saturate the bus with the raid.

My iTunes library is currently 3.48Tb (2x2Tb drives, RAID 0). 3,724 CDs (Music is an important part of my life.) in lossless compression + 1,100 movies & a dozen or so TV series take up space. Hard Drives are cheap, so why run heavily compressed audio & video though a $6,000 A/V system? I suppose if you are used to "substitute goods" in the economic sense, it would be ok, but in all honesty, life is too short for substitute goods.

Data for my applications is 2.5Tb - by going with a Raid 0, I have faster thruput.

4 2Tb hard drives are in an external RAID 5 for daily backup. With a RAID 5, if one of the drives goes down, I pull it, replace the drive & the RAID rebuilds. No data loss may not be important to you, but it is to me. I really, really, don't want to re-encode my iTunes library.

1 3Tb (usb3) hard drive for less important back ups (historical work I may or may not need access to on a regular basis)

2 1Tb in a usb enclosure - older backups I haven't fooled with lately, (older software applications - for testing purposes).

 

[VirtualRain]

13 drives total actually.

I have actually thought it through. If everything you do with your computer can fit on 1 hard drive, well, bully for you. I haven't been able to do that since the early 90's.

1. Hard drives get slower as you fill them up - therefore, make sure you have plenty of space to stretch out.

2. Raids have faster throughput - a lot faster actually.

3. A backup strategy that works requires more than 1 drive.

My OS & applications are on 2 240 SSDs in a RAID 0. I ran out of space on the 1st SSD, it was cheaper to add a 2nd 240 & raid it - not to mention faster - I can saturate the bus with the raid.

My iTunes library is currently 3.48Tb (2x2Tb drives, RAID 0). 3,724 CDs (Music is an important part of my life.) in lossless compression + 1,100 movies & a dozen or so TV series take up space. Hard Drives are cheap, so why run heavily compressed audio & video though a $6,000 A/V system? I suppose if you are used to "substitute goods" in the economic sense, it would be ok, but in all honesty, life is too short for substitute goods.

Data for my applications is 2.5Tb - by going with a Raid 0, I have faster thruput.

4 2Tb hard drives are in an external RAID 5 for daily backup. With a RAID 5, if one of the drives goes down, I pull it, replace the drive & the RAID rebuilds. No data loss may not be important to you, but it is to me. I really, really, don't want to re-encode my iTunes library.

1 3Tb (usb3) hard drive for less important back ups (historical work I may or may not need access to on a regular basis)

2 1Tb in a usb enclosure - older backups I haven't fooled with lately, (older software applications - for testing purposes).

I suspect there are a lot of people here with similar storage needs (including me), but there are more elegant ways to address this...

I have a Mac Mini HTPC / NAS with 12TB (2x2TB and 2x4TB) connected via FW. That stores media files, manual backups, and archived data. Admittedly, the fact that I use this for a HTPC makes the NAS aspect basically free.

I have a Time Capsule for automatic Time Machine backups.

I have all my active workflow on SSD.

I have an offsite backup drive (3TB) that I connect occasionally via USB3.

The new Mac Pro won't require me to change anything or buy any new enclosures.

 

[ssgbryan]

I suspect there are a lot of people here with similar storage needs (including me), but there are more elegant ways to address this...

I have a Mac Mini HTPC / NAS with 12TB (2x2TB and 2x4TB) connected via FW. That stores media files, manual backups, and archived data. Admittedly, the fact that I use this for a HTPC makes the NAS aspect basically free.

I have a Time Capsule for automatic Time Machine backups.

I have all my active workflow on SSD.

I have an offsite backup drive (3TB) that I connect occasionally via USB3.

The new Mac Pro won't require me to change anything or buy any new enclosures.

I am sure I could make this all more elegant if I threw everything out and started over. My setup grew organically as I needed it.

Since I don't have a mini, your solution wouldn't work for me.

My Time Capsule is why I have a RAID 5 now - the lack of heat dissipation killed the hard drive inside it.

 

[calaverasgrande]

right
it's a matter of perception.. for one, 'internal expansion' is pretty much a misnomer because as far as i can gather, you're still buying drives and putting them inside a box.. and you're still paying for that box and the capabilities to put hard drives inside of it.. some people want an all-in-one thing- others don't..

i mean, i have a printer and i have a scanner.. sure, i could get them as an all-in-one thing that even faxes and copies too.. but i don't- i'd rather get specialized components that do one thing and do them well.. maybe i'm a bad shopper and spent too much money and have double the cables needed for my printing and scanning needs but so be it..

and yeah, maybe someone with 5 drives inside a macpro will spend more money on storage enclosures with the new mac.. but at the same time, how many empty macpro drive bays (and pci slots) are out there.. we really don't know but i'm willing to bet $ that there are far more empty bays and slots than occupied ones..

if you want more drives- buy more drives.. and pay for an enclosure for those drives.. i don't know what else to say.. i mean, you can't just go to the store right now and buy a hard drive and do something with it.. you have to also pay for something else in order for it to be of any use. nothing has changed in this regard with the new mac.

further, there are advantages of buying a separate enclosure if you're data hungry.. currently, if you buy a computer and cram a bunch of drives inside, you've moreORless tied your storage to that single computer.. what happens if you want to use those drives for another computer? or what happens when you replace your computer? unscrew all of them then rescrew all of them? or just unplug one cord then plug it in to the new or other computer? i'd rather go with the latter.. your storage solution can be viewed as a separate investment and doesn't have to be locked to one box.. it's it's own box.

it's not much different than imac users needing to replace their displays if they want to replace their computers.. where as a macpro user just unplugs their display from the old computer and plugs it into a new one.. you buy your display according to what your needs are.. there is more freedom to customize and build to suit your specific need when peripheral objects aren't tied to an all-in-one deal.. this same idea can be applied to storage as well because storage isn't a computing necessity.. it's an add on and no two people have the same exact needs for their add ons where as an all-in-one package assumes they do and imposes limits by design..

Yes. I will just "unscrew all of them then rescrew all of them". It's never been a big hassle to migrate drives from an old Mac Pro to the new one. Until now. (well there was that time they changed the size of the drive brackets...)
I have several hard drives in my Mac Pro, as well as a 2nd older mac pro just running as a headless file server filled to the brim with drives.
Both my work and my home Macs have plenty of internal and external peripherals. Most of which are not TB or USB3 equipped.

And by the way, I did not need to buy a single solitary item to install any hard drives in any of my mac pros beyond the hard drive itself.
You are thinking like a laptop user that must have their data in an external device.
As far as what to do if I want that data elsewhere that is "tied up" in my desktop box.
I transfer it over fiber or plain ole copper to wherever it needs to be.

 

[MacVidCards]

This statement is completely false.

I buy bare HDDs and even SSDs, and slide them into their slots or plug them into internal cables without paying another cent, and they're 100% useful. What are these "something else" items that *you* are paying for, in order to use a hard drive and 'do something' with it?

Current MP - bare drive goes inside, works with nothing else.
nMP - bare drive has to go in some other enclosure or otherwise connect with at least one cable.

Something has indeed changed in this regard with the new Mac, which is more cables - some of which are very expensive.

Kool Aid squad should stop mentioning drives and stick to other bullet points .

Ignoring obvious, basic facts to color things their direction always backfires like this.

Another forgotten detail is that 2 or 3 extra expansion boxes grazing on your desk will have to have fans to cool them. Multiple small ones frequently get a lovely harmonic drone going.

I can see where having to bust out a screwdriver for 20 seconds would be worse.

To his credit, flat five is running a 1,1 which only has PATA in the optical bays so he may not even be aware that 2009 and later machines can easily connect 6 total SATA drives before having to buy anything other than the drives...and a single screwdriver.

 

[flat five]

You are thinking like a laptop user that must have their data in an external device..

at least in a round about way, you're seeing where most everything i've said regarding this topic is coming from

i AM a laptop user.. to the point to where if i could only use one computer, it would have to be a laptop purely for logistical reasons.. i create content on the desktop but then put it to use in the field via the laptop.. if i really had to, i could create the content itself on a laptop (as i illustrated in one of these threads around here a while back) but it's less than optimal.

most (i think it's all but i'll say 'most' for safety) macpro owners i know also own and use a mbp.. that's just how people are working these days.. there's more than one computer chair.. my computer chair is sometimes an airplane seat or on the train etc.

the state of mind where data is equally accessible by all computers in the mix is good.. it's a step in the right direction.. i mean, i've been doing exactly that for years.. of course there are ways to use a macpro's drives for laptops.. it's just not too streamlined is all. there is room for improvement..

and yes, some people will not benefit from being forced into that type of working environment.. some people will switch manufacturers and operating systems because of it. but some people will actually benefit from it.. creative pros will definitely benefit based on what i see (and i live in and am active in possibly the densest creative neighborhood on the planet-- i'm not just talking out of my backside).. and as far as i can gather- it's the creatives that are and have always been apple's target market with their pro line..

it's not really my concern if you have bought into a computing system which wasn't made with you in mind but you insist on wrestling it into some sort of databasing cubicle machine which turns on a 9 and shuts down at 5.. i know for a fact those computers are out there.. most of the manufacturers are making that exact computer.. and most of the complaints around here are people saying "but this apple isn't the same thing as that dell or hp!".. yeah, no *****.. and i'm glad it's not.

[edit- and yes, that's an exaggerated tone in this post.. i don't feel that strongly or passionate about this stuff.. but something along these lines]

 

[ssgbryan]

Kool Aid squad should stop mentioning drives and stick to other bullet points .

Ignoring obvious, basic facts to color things their direction always backfires like this.

Another forgotten detail is that 2 or 3 extra expansion boxes grazing on your desk will have to have fans to cool them. Multiple small ones frequently get a lovely harmonic drone going.

I can see where having to bust out a screwdriver for 20 seconds would be worse.

To his credit, flat five is running a 1,1 which only has PATA in the optical bays so he may not even be aware that 2009 and later machines can easily connect 6 total SATA drives before having to buy anything other than the drives...and a single screwdriver.

You can run 6 HDs internally in a 1,1. There are 2 unused SATA ports on the logic board. It is what I use for my SSDs.

 

[flat five]

13 drives total actually.

well i guess you could just buy 3 current macs and put your drives in there?
seems legit

 

[VirtualRain]

I am sure I could make this all more elegant if I threw everything out and started over. My setup grew organically as I needed it.

Since I don't have a mini, your solution wouldn't work for me.

My Time Capsule is why I have a RAID 5 now - the lack of heat dissipation killed the hard drive inside it.

I guess my point was that not all your drives need to be inside your Mac for them to meet your requirements. In your situation, whether you move to the new Mac Pro or not, you might benefit from getting your storage house a bit more organized ... fewer larger drives and/or a NAS might be a good idea... basically all your backups, media files, and archived work could live on a NAS RAID and wouldn't suffer at all. Your large application data could sit on a simple large/fast 3 or 4TB drive that could be made external at the drop of a hat and you could look at moving a minimal working set to SSD to improve your performance.

Not every hard drive you ever purchased needs to be kept until it stops spinning from old age.

 

[slughead]

but for whatever reason, i don't think he's going to make the connection that when he posts pics of his true cable nightmare then starts talking about how thunderbolt is going to cause cable clutter-- people aren't going to take him seriously at all.. except for a few other back slappers with equally wishywashy logic capabilities.

LOL we were actually joking that the expense and lack of options for Thunderbolt users would clear up desk space simply by sacrificing capability.

It's funny you point to my setup, where most of those cables are because I use an aftermarket video card--something the new Mac Pro wont be able to do.

Yeah, so your desk will be much less cluttered with the new Mac Pro, simply because you can't afford / find aftermarket options

Thanks for making my point.

 

[flat five]

It's funny you point to my setup,

I know it's funny.. that's why I posted it

Thanks for making my point.

np. glad to be of help #

 

[scottsjack]

This statement is completely false.

I buy bare HDDs and even SSDs, and slide them into their slots or plug them into internal cables without paying another cent, and they're 100% useful. What are these "something else" items that *you* are paying for, in order to use a hard drive and 'do something' with it?

Current MP - bare drive goes inside, works with nothing else.
nMP - bare drive has to go in some other enclosure or otherwise connect with at least one cable.

Something has indeed changed in this regard with the new Mac, which is more cables - some of which are very expensive.

You are correct. Most modern PCs, including the Mac Pro, just need a hard drive to be clipped or screwed onto an existing part. That said I did buy two extra rails in order to make rapid drive changes.

 

[ssgbryan]

I guess my point was that not all your drives need to be inside your Mac for them to meet your requirements. In your situation, whether you move to the new Mac Pro or not, you might benefit from getting your storage house a bit more organized ... fewer larger drives and/or a NAS might be a good idea... basically all your backups, media files, and archived work could live on a NAS RAID and wouldn't suffer at all. Your large application data could sit on a simple large/fast 3 or 4TB drive that could be made external at the drop of a hat and you could look at moving a minimal working set to SSD to improve your performance.

Not every hard drive you ever purchased needs to be kept until it stops spinning from old age.

What I have is organized. It is organized by how fast can I make the entire system, as opposed to how few drives I need to hold my data.

I am concerned about how fast I can feed data to my CPUs, either on my MP or to the render farm CPUs.

I could replace my 2 240ssds with a 480 - and make my system slower. I can actually saturate the SATA II bus with my ssds in a raid 0.

I could replace my 2 2Tb drives (Data Disc) with a single 4Tb - and make my system slower.

I could replace the 2 2Tb drives (iTunes) with a single 4Tb - and make my system slower.

I could replace the 4 2Tb drives that make my backup RAID 5 with 2 4Tb drives - and make it less reliable.

For me, thruput is king......

 

[portishead]

What I have is organized. It is organized by how fast can I make the entire system, as opposed to how few drives I need to hold my data.

I am concerned about how fast I can feed data to my CPUs, either on my MP or to the render farm CPUs.

I could replace my 2 240ssds with a 480 - and make my system slower. I can actually saturate the SATA II bus with my ssds in a raid 0.

I could replace my 2 2Tb drives (Data Disc) with a single 4Tb - and make my system slower.

I could replace the 2 2Tb drives (iTunes) with a single 4Tb - and make my system slower.

I could replace the 4 2Tb drives that make my backup RAID 5 with 2 4Tb drives - and make it less reliable.

For me, thruput is king......

And you can gamble with losing your array, save money by getting less drives, and realize your iTunes library is way too big. Fewer drives is usually better, and less of a headache to deal with. But some people enjoy making things complicated. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[VirtualRain]

What I have is organized. It is organized by how fast can I make the entire system, as opposed to how few drives I need to hold my data.

I am concerned about how fast I can feed data to my CPUs, either on my MP or to the render farm CPUs.

I could replace my 2 240ssds with a 480 - and make my system slower. I can actually saturate the SATA II bus with my ssds in a raid 0.

I could replace my 2 2Tb drives (Data Disc) with a single 4Tb - and make my system slower.

I could replace the 2 2Tb drives (iTunes) with a single 4Tb - and make my system slower.

I could replace the 4 2Tb drives that make my backup RAID 5 with 2 4Tb drives - and make it less reliable.

For me, thruput is king......

Each his own, but there's plenty of consolidation and simplification to be done if you want which might reduce risk of data loss without impacting performance. For example, running your massive iTunes library on a RAID0 array is unnecessarily risky and none of that content can benefit from the added performance RAID0 provides over a single disk.

I'm not sure how big your active working data set is, but if you haven't already, I would put as much as you can onto SSD when working on a project and then performance of the rest is less important and you can get that off RAID0 and onto something more reliable as well.

Anyway, the reason were having this discussion is because you don't think you could adapt your storage solution to fit with the constraints of the new Mac Pro... And I disagree. I have nearly he exact same data storage types and requirements but due to the way I've set it up, the new Mac Pro will not require me to change anything. It's all up to you.

 

[theSeb]

What I have is organized. It is organized by how fast can I make the entire system, as opposed to how few drives I need to hold my data.

I am concerned about how fast I can feed data to my CPUs, either on my MP or to the render farm CPUs.

If you're feeding data to a render farm, then the network is your bottleneck, not your storage sub-system. Your other concern seems to be about feeding data quickly enough to the CPU for local rendering. The CPU itself when it is rendering will be the bottleneck and not your storage sub-system. Have you actually looked at your CPU wait time to ascertain whether you really need all of this "thruput"?

I could replace my 2 240ssds with a 480 - and make my system slower. I can actually saturate the SATA II bus with my ssds in a raid 0.

I could replace my 2 2Tb drives (Data Disc) with a single 4Tb - and make my system slower.

I could replace the 2 2Tb drives (iTunes) with a single 4Tb - and make my system slower.

Real world differences between 2x2TB in RAID 0 and 1x4TB are minimal and you won't see them, unless you're running disk benchmarks or writing large sequential files all day long. Your iTunes library won't get any tangible benefit from RAID 0. All you're really doing is making your entire system more prone to failure by a factor of 2. You mention that you can saturate SATA II with your SSDs. So you're losing the benefit of RAID 0 in that use case anyway (probably a large sequential write or running a disk benchmark), and during normal random read/write operation (this is your system + app array?) you won't experience any real world benefits over 1x480 GB SSD.

I could replace the 4 2Tb drives that make my backup RAID 5 with 2 4Tb drives - and make it less reliable.

For me, thruput is king......

Keeping your backup drives in the same enclosure/computer as the drives that you are backing up is a bad idea, since you could lose all of them at the same time.

 

[ssgbryan]

And you can gamble with losing your array, save money by getting less drives, and realize your iTunes library is way too big. Fewer drives is usually better, and less of a headache to deal with. But some people enjoy making things complicated. Whatever floats your boat.

I'll make it less complicated for you......

Raid 5 - external - 1 drive goes down - no data loss, I pull the drive, replace it with the 5th drive I bought when I purchased the other 4, raid rebuilds. The only way I can lose the array is if multiple drives die at the same time. Any 1 drive system will lose everything if it goes down.

Save money by spending $1,200 on 4tb drives to replace working 2tb drives - what is that, Republican math?

No, my iTunes library isn't way too big. It may be too big for your needs, but it isn't for mine - I like having all 4,000 CDs available - it makes the shuffle feature real interesting.

The 2 hard drives take up less space than the wall of cds and dvds that it replaced.