XXHighEnd

For the Win 7 64 OS & xxhe only
I've got a choice of:
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5"
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148140
or
Western Digital Raptor WD740GD 74GB 10000 RPM 8MB Cache SATA 1.5Gb/s 3.5" (had another lying around here)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822144160

Any gut feelings out there?

Plus!
Thanks for this Peter.  As a long time user of PeterSt software xxhe I didn't know about this:
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?board=11.0
and with the new XXHE  0.9z-7 you better go here first.
Don't know how you squeeze the time to develop and write all this up but,
thanks again PeterSt

On gut feelings and vague memories of drive comparisons from the past, I'd be going with the Raptor. Even though it is an older model now and has half the cache of the Seagate, its rotational speed should more than make up for that. It will be slightly noisier (audibly) though if that is a concern.

If you were to choose the Seagate, I would first create a small partition of about 50GB just for the OS. That first partition will occupy the outermost sectors of the drive which are the quickest. If you have your galleries on that drive currently, you may need to adjust the size accordingly. You could than create a partition using the remainder of the disk space and use it for incidental files that you don't use very often.

I would also suggest you grab the free version of HDTune ( http://www.hdtune.com/download.html ) and run a benchmark on each drive to compare, preferably using the same controller port. HDTune allows you to take an image snapshot of the results after completion for later comparison.

Let us know how they compare.

Cheers,

Russ

Thank you for the kind words Dave. I try my best.

On the disks ...

For the OS disk, the rotational speed is of the least importance. Access time is and next throughput. So, this is a bit contrary to what Russ says about it and in the end it is up to you (all) to decide yourself;

OS files are small. They are scattered all over, and nothing will be in a nice sequence. So, the disk head needs to go there fast. In the first place this means that the average access time needs to be high. But what does that mean ?

Acces times of disks have been around 8 ms forever. So, 25 years ago not much different than today. But, today disks are 2TB (etc.) while 25 years ago they were 20MB. So, the absolute acces time went up with a factor of 100.

Average Acces Time : The time the disk head will reach the "cylinder" it needs assuming the disk is full. Cylinder : circles on the disk you could see as a track.

Say the data you need is on one cylinder (and the small files most easily are - even a music track will be); it will be on a small portion of it. Once the cylinder is reached, the data blasts through at the rotational speed. Thus, once reached, 10000 RPM will read twice as fast as 5000 RPM. True. Also, 3GB/s will read twice as fast as 1.5GB/s (this is somewhat more complicated, but for argument's sake it is). But :

A disk with the size of 74GB and an average access time of 8ms will take 10 times longer to reach the cylinder than a 740GB disk with 8ms average access time. Why ? because we now sneakily assume the 740GB disk is occupied with the same amount of data as the 74GB disk contains; we just bought the larger disk for the purpose ... And so net, the 740GB disk shows an average access time of 0.8ms over the number of cilinders it ever needs to reach (which is 10 times less than its size, assuming 74GB is occupied).

Aha.

When a disk rotates at 10000 RPM, one rotation takes 1/10000 sec = 0.0001 sec. So, for now assumed the full data on one cylinder has to be read, that takes 0.0001 sec to do it.
Obviously, the 5000 RPM disk takes 0.0002 secs to do that. A difference of 0.0001 sec. Okay ...

1ms = 0.001 sec. So, when the access time of 8ms, which is 0.008 sec is brought back to 0.0008 sec because of what's explained above, this gives a difference of 0.0072 sec.

Gain on acces time = 0.0072 sec
Gain on 2x RPM = 0.0001 sec.
-> The gain on access time is 72 times better.

Yahoo.

Do notice :
This counts for the small files which are scattered over the cyminders occupied. This does not count *at all* for the large (music) files which a. can be read in nice sequence for their data (when we nicely wrote them in sequence) and which b. may be scattered over the cylinders just the same, BUT which is not relevant because we access such a music file only once per 5 minutes. Here the sheer throughput counts, which is a derival of the RPM (again, there's more to it here).

---

What can further bring down the access time at one moment (which can be seen as the absolute access time) ? the cache the disk carries. Cache : a sort of copy of the data where it belongs originally, but with faster access time; direct accessable memory is an example of it). So, the larger the cache of the disk (which is directly accessable memory), the more chance there is that the data we need is in there. For example, the data of a whole cylinder could go there, never mind we needed a small portion of it only. BUT if, in a next round, a subsequent data portion of the cyinder is needed, it will be in the cache with a. an access time of virtually zero and b. a throughput which does not depend on the rotational speed of the disk.

---

When we access our music folders to only sum up what's in there (like the Library Area does that), things become more complicated. But because I'm even more smart than you thought :fishy: here the Galleries come into play. So, these only contain the small files as meta data + Coverart files, and here the same applies as the OS disk, but more. So now think why I advise to use an SSD for that ? well, because of its unlimited small access time, which btw is absolute here and not "average". This is how my 28000 albums in there show up in less than 10 seconds when "Search" is used (when they are stored as Saved Result Lists this is 0.1 sec or so). Thus, 28000 albums are not only found on "disk" in less than 10 seconds for their more than 560000 files what it comes down to but all the processing is done to cough up the proper (multi volume) structure and the Coverart to show in the Library Area, which latter actually takes the most of the time.
And then to think that I am using an old 1.5GB/s SSD for it, while today they exist in 6GB/s format (real SATAIII).

In the end there is a LOT more to it, like taking care that the one disk is not in the way of the other, when two are used at the same time (like with copying). There is not much in XXHighEnd where *this* applies, but when I'm copying disks I really take care of this (it could be a matter of copying a 2TB disk in 3 hours vs 48 hours, really).

Of course this is all related to the block sizes as well (also see A Guide to Glitchless Playback (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2029.0)), so when you're at it anyway, takes this into account too.

---

With this little knowledge it may be more easy to see what we need. Of course it is obvious that the largest disk with the best average access time and the highest throughput plus highest rotational speed, will bring us the best all over. But :
It is not as simple as this, because, for example (!), 3TB disks at 1000RPM do not exist. Maybe 1TB disks do, but they will be twice as expensive as the 3TB. This, while it was layed out that the 3TB will gain on net throughput for at least the small files because of the more gain on the access time.
Also, a 64MB cache disk will be faster than an 8MB one. But, you may not be able to find it, and when you do they may be 50% more expensive at least.
While 3GB/s disks exist all over, the 6GB/s do not (yet). So, you may be able to find them in the size you want, but with a poor amount of cache. Or just too small.
Etc. etc.
The "green" disks may not be what you want at all, because they have variable rotation speed and don't ask me at this moment how that will suffer the throughput (for what we do with it !).

---

A notice which applies to a somewhat different area, but as important : use the proper "disk interface". So, a NAS is totally worthless for its (not) speed, as USB2 is unusable (Firewire the same). eSata is also not "it". Only internal SATA is, and today USB3 is there to our luck. IOW, you can have the disks organised the best as you could think of, but put them in a NAS and you did all for nothing. It looks convenient, but only USB3 really is, net.

Peter

Well I didn't want to get into symantics, but as a general observation, the faster the rotational speed, the better the transfer rate, and I've noticed the random access speed is generally lower. Obviously there are other factors at play such as cache size, and physical structure of the disk, which is why a benchmark test can be very helpful. So, I'm in general agreement with you. Perhaps it didn't come across as such though.

It is generally recognised that the Raptor range have been the fastest on a per generation aspect, although I have no doubt the older models would not compete favourably against the latest high density disks from other manufacturers.

Cheers,

Russ

Hey Russ,


I think it still doesn't, because the underlaying subject is another one : the price. So, just go out and look for a "too large 10KRPM" so the access time is going to play its most significant role. And, what do you get ? 300 euros ? 400 euros ? 500 maybe ? This, while the very same disk except for the RPM costs maybe 60. And *now* do the math again on what we lost by those fewer RPMs (which are not ~5000 and half but ~7500 and quarter).

You gain nothing but price is exceptionally high.
And this is NOT to be compensated by a smaller disk, because then you gained nothing on the higher RPM but lost (that 10x) on access time.

When we can agree on this we agree.
Haha

Peter


PS: Don't forget : this is about the OS disk !!

Hi Peter,

If we compare 2 disks of the same capacity with 2 different rotational speeds (example: 5400 vs 10000), would it be ok to assume that the density of the information is almost reduced by 2 for the faster drive OR are the heads geared to read/write twice as fast ?

Hi Alain,

I first had another answer, but I scratched it because it became too complicated (for me haha).

But anyway, assumed the density stays the same on the "per cylinder" of course the heads need to read (and write) faster. That is, I don't see it working otherwise.
But also : the physical density does not become higher when the rotational speed is higher. What the heads see though, will be.
(the more difficult story emerges when *because* of the higher rotational speed, the density is lowered (so less data per inch) in order to let the heads keep up with the read/write speed).

I'll leave it to this.
Peter

Thanks Russ & Peter
Always interesting
Looking like I won't start until tomorrow or the weekend again.  I am chomping at the bit to get going on this...

Dave

Maybe this article can apport some light on this issue:

How higher RPM hard drives rip you off:

Here is an extract of it:

"talking about the desktop storage market.  In that market, you will actually pay DOUBLE for 1/4th the capacity on 73 GB 10K SATA RPM drives than typical 300 GB 7200 RPM SATA hard drives.  Now the speed difference is more significant since the 7200 RPM drives have typical average seek times in the 8.9 millisecond range and you have to add 4.17 milliseconds average rotational latency for a relatively pathetic access time of 13.07 milliseconds.  The 10K RPM SATA drive designed for the enthusiast performance desktop market has an average access time of 7.7 milliseconds.  But since the 300 GB 7200 RPM drive is 4 times bigger than the 73 GB 10K drive, we can actually use quarter stroking and end up with a high-performance 75 GB partition along with a 225 GB partition we can use for large file archival such as a DVD collection.

By quarter stroking the 300 GB drive, we can actually shave 6.68 ms off the seek time which means we'll actually end up with an average access time of 6.4 milliseconds which is significantly faster than the 10K RPM "performance" drive.  This means that PC enthusiasts are paying twice the money for a slower hard drive with a quarter of the storage capacity!"


To understand it well please read the complete article:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/how-higher-rpm-hard-drives-rip-you-off/322 (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/how-higher-rpm-hard-drives-rip-you-off/322)

This was written in 2006, the hdd capacity was different but the argument of the article remains valid.

Best regards,
Juan

Hey, before anybody notices ...
In my "math" I used 1/10000 (etc.) to calculate the latency happening for accessing the data on a cylinder. But of course this is times 60, because the 10000 is per minute and not per second.

This changes things somewhat, but the general idea remains the same (also see article).

What's more - and this underlaying is about what I scratched in the post directed to Alain - is that I really wonder how a 10KRPM disk of the physical same size as e.g. the 5400RPM disk is having less in there compared to the slower RPM disk. I didn't look it up, but I wonder ...

Are there less platters in the 10KRPM disk ? That would be stupid. So if not, it *has* to mean that the density is lower on the high RPM disk. So, less data per inch. Thus, first lower the desnity to next let revolute the disk at a higher speed ? That would make no sense for the net result. So, if it really would be so that the 74GB disk would have the same physical properties (same number of platters etc.) compared to the 740 (720) GB disk, it will have a 10 times lower density of data. Then it can revolute 2 times faster as much as it wants, the read data throughput will always be 5 times lower ...

Peter

For the ones interested in SSD, e.g. to put there the Galleries I´ve read today this test:

Best SSDs For The Money: August 2012:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ssd-recommendation-benchmark,review-32512.html (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ssd-recommendation-benchmark,review-32512.html)

I hope it helps you to choose a good SSD.

Best regards,
Juan

Hi Peter,

What´s the size of your SSD to put there those 28.000 albums (meta data) plus the coverarts?.

Juan

90GB.
With, say (roughly estimated), on average 3-4 coverart files.  Many have the complete booklets in high resolution downsized with the defaults of the Settings in XXHighEnd. This is important because otherwise coverart files can easily be 20MB and more. Notice this downsizing is without visible loss, unless you blow them up to the original size which is ridiculous (like 40pt characters emerging from it).

Regards,
Peter

Peter, how have you formatted the Galleries drive?, exFAT or NTFS, and what´s the cluster size?

Regards,
Juan

Ok I confess,

I decided to spend money rather than choose from what I already had and judging by my little understanding of the discussion above I was still not really sure, ... and because I don't really understand and probably bought the wrong thing anyway....and maybe there really isn't a wrong drive for the Os & XXHE install... and anyway I can always use more HDDs so... I bought this for the OS/XXHE install (that will be the only thing on this HDD, Win 7 Pro au natural & XXHE)

tada
Western Digital VelociRaptor WD2500HHTZ 250GB 10000 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236245

So once I get this cute puppy (XXHE) into minimize it will stay there until the next install of XXHE.

Nice choice :)

Cheers,

Russ

wheew

Should I still partition this drive? 
Western Digital VelociRaptor 250GB 10000 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5"
50 GB seems small now, but really/literally the only thing on this will be Win 7 pro & XXHE.  When I set up galleries again I'll be picking up an SSD Later.  So 50 GB partition is the right size to choose for best imaginary performance of XXHE?

I would. 50GB should be ample for XXHE use only.

I have always advocated that the system drive only needs to be as big as required to accommodate the operating system files and intended program files used, with a little margin for normal growth due to system logs etc. User data should be directed to another partition or drive. This philosophy also allows independant backing up of system and data.

Having a small partition created for the O/S will maximise performance, as that partition will utilise the outside of the platter(s), presuming that is the first partition you created. You can create a second partition on the drive using the remaining space and use it for incidental files, such as install files or as a work space when organising your latest rips before copying to your final music folders.

Cheers,

Russ

Thanks Russ

Just installed an old 74 GB Velociraptor for the playback drive and formatted

format G:/fs:exFAT/q

I show hidden files but just chose to go here first.  Don't know exfat vs ntfs, but I guess it doesn't matter.  Thought fat was older and limited naming?

Anyway
Should I partition this drive for the Playback?  Size?

I'll defer to Peter for the total size needed, but I would think 10GB should be plenty for the playback drive, unless you want to queue up a weeks worth of listening ;)

It's probably advisable to use 64K sector sizes also. And omit the /q from the command. For a drive this small, and the fact that's its an older drive, forcing the system to verify that each physical block in intact is worth the few minutes extra needed. When using the /q you only recreate the file allocation table, which is why it is much quicker.

format G: /A:64K /fs:exFat

Peter ??

Cheers,

Russ

The formatting of the Playback Drive is only needed when those hidden files without the proper rights to them are in the way (and XXHighEnd produces an error about the Playback Drive). Otherwise it's all self-contained.

When you format it anyway, not performing a "Quick Format" like Russ said, could be a good idea. Just to check the drive. But do it right before you go to sleep because it may take an hour (or two).

I would not put another partition on the Playback Drive. Never mind it will be too large then.

Peter


PS: Your choice for the OS disk hould be very okay for speed Dave. Personally I make my OS partitions always 90GB; just experience. So, at some stage (OS upgrade) the normal space is needed another time. Plus it should not be too full (trashing). 90GB *is* on the large side, but why not.

From:A Guide to Glitchless Playback
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2029.0
"Warning : Do not make the mistake to format all your disks with the largest block size possible. So, something like the Operating System's disk contains many small files of a few bytes up to a few hundred bytes only. If *that* disk now would be formatted with a 64KB block size, all these small files will occupy 64KB on disk. So, now all takes enormously much more space on disk (10s of 1000s of files)."

So when I format my OS/XXHE HDD (bearing in mind only XXHE will be on there; not galleries not PlayBack)

What
Allocation Unit Size:
would be best?
Just Default? or something else between 512 and 64K?

Thanks,
dave

I use 512 ...