Skip to main content
Harm_Millaard
Inspiring
May 3, 2009
Question

Storage rules for an editing rig. Some basics.

  • May 3, 2009
  • 36 replies
  • 117328 views

How do you set up your editing machine in terms of disks for maximum performance and reliability? (SSD's are left out here.)

This is a question that often arises and all too often one sees that initial settings are really suboptimal. These rules are intended to help you decide how to setup your disks to get the best response times. Of course the only disks in an editing machine must be 7200 RPM types or faster. No GREEN disks at all.

Rule 1: NEVER partition a disk. You may ask why? First of all, it does not increase disk space, it just allocates the space differently. However, the major drawback is that for a partitioned disk the OS must first access a partition table at the beginning of the disk for all accesses to the disk, thus requiring the heads to move to the beginning of the disk, then when it has gotten the partition info move to the designated area on the disk and perform the requested action. This means much more wear-and-tear on the mechanics of the disk, slower speeds and more overhead for the OS, all reducing efficiency.

Rule 2: Avoid using USB drives, since they are the slowest on the market. Do not be tricked by the alleged bandwidth of USB 2.0 advertisements, because is just is not true and remember that the alleged bandwidth is shared by all USB devices, so if you have a USB mouse, keyboard, printer, card reader or whatever, they all share the bandwidth. Stick to SCSI or SATA disks or e-SATA. If needed, you can use Firewire-800 or even Firewire-400 disks, but they are really more suited for backups than for editing.

Rule 3: Use at least 3 different physical disks on an editing machine, one for OS/programs, one for media and one for pagefile/scratch/renders. Even on a notebook with one internal drive it is easy to accomplish this by using a dual e-SATA to Express card connector. That gives you an additional two e-SATA connections for external disks.

Rule 4: Spread disk access across as many disks as you have. If you have OS & programs on disk C:, set your pagefile on another disk. Also set your pagefile to a fixed size, preferably somewhere around 1.5 times your physical memory.

Rule 5: Turn off index search and compression. Both will cause severe performance hits if you leave them on.

Rule 6: If the fill rate on any of your SATA disks goes over 60-70% it is time to get a larger or an additional disk.

Rule 7: Perform regular defrags on all of your disks. For instance, you can schedule this daily during your lunch break.

Rule 8: Keep your disks cool by using adequate airflow by means of additional fans if needed. You can use SMART to monitor disk temperatures, which should be under 35 degrees C at all times and normally hover around 20-24 C, at least in a properly cooled system.

Rule 9: If people want raid, the cheapest way is to use the on-board IHCR or Marvell chip, but it places a relatively high burden on the CPU. The best way is a hardware controller card, preferably based on the IOP348 chip. Areca ARC and ADAPTEC come to mind. 3Ware uses it's own chipset and though not bad, they are not in the same league as the other two. Promise and the like in the budget range are no good and a complete waste of money. Expect to spend around $ 800 plus for a good controller with 12 connectors internally and 4 e-SATA connectors. Important to consider in a purchasing decision is whether the on-board cache memory can be expanded from the regular 256/512 MB to 2 or even 4 GB. Be aware that 2 GB cache can be relatively cheap, but the 4 GB version extremely costly ($ 30 versus $ 300). For safety reasons it is advisable to include a battery backup module (BBM).

Rule 10: If you can easily replace the data in case of disk failure (like rendered files), go ahead and use raid0, but if you want any protection against data loss, use raid 3/5/6/10/30/50. For further protection you can use hot spares, diminishing downtime and performance degradation.


In general when you get a new disk, pay close attention to any rattling noise, do perform regular disk checks, and in case of doubt about reliability, exchange the disk under guarantee. Often a new disk will fail in the first three months. If they survive that period, most of the disks will survive for the next couple of years. If you use a lot of internal disks like I do (17), set staggered spin-up to around 1 second to lessen the burden on the PSU and improve stability.

Hope this helps to answer some basic questions. If not, let me know. Further enhancements and suggestions are welcome.

    This topic has been closed for replies.

    36 replies

    Participant
    December 3, 2009

    I thought I'd get your thoughts on a discussion I'd been having when I found my disks being the bottleneck. I base it mostly on DB experience...

    I have a Raid 0 and two raid 1 partitions. One of the Raid 1's is my OS and program files, the other is storage and the raid 0 was where I did my editing. I had on the Raid 0 copies of the original files, the working and I exported to that array.

    When looking to improve performance, the biggest factor was sequential reading vs. Random reading. Because I was reading from the disk (inputs to the rendering) and writing to the same disk (outputs of the rendering) I was effectively 'thrashing' the needle on my hard drive and generating random I/Os. I've now moved to a system where I write to a Raid-0 during rendering, and read from Raid-1s. This generated a 20-30x improvement in disk performance (edit note: the performance gain was sequential throughput - I've gone back to the CPU being the bottleneck as opposed to the disks, so can't say the actual improvement)

    I don't know much about the underbelly of Adobe Premiere, but in the editing process, what are the primary read and write files

    - Source video files: Read

    - Rendered files in editing: Write and read during editing

    - Exporting: Read from source files and write export files

    Do I have that right?

    Lastly, in MSFT DBs we try and match up LUNs/logical partitions with CPU cores (quad core = max 4 LUNs) - is there any value to that in video editing?

    Thanks

    Mac

    October 27, 2009

    .... i was just wondering.. all these talk about HDD performance.... why did you leave out SSD again? as per my other posts i am planning to build the BEST machine money can buy (whilst still being a somewhat practical) and SSD was my first choice dedicated for OS Drive and Scratch/temp files.. was just wondering why you left it out.. is it a bad idea?         

    Harm_Millaard
    Inspiring
    October 27, 2009

    At the moment I wrote this article, SSD's were too expensive and did not offer a significant speed/performance gain over a good raid setup.

    One can still wonder at the current time (october 2009) whether they will offer any significant performance gain with the new controllers and trim function in Win7 over old fashioned hard disks.

    For OS, SSD's are approaching the level where you can consider them, a single 160 GB Intel SSD for around € 520 here in comparison to a single 150 GB Velociraptor for around € 140.

    For editing the capacity is still a major bottleneck. I prefer a 12 TB raid30 with 800+ MB/s transfer rate for around € 1600 (including a top notch raid controller) over a 640 GB SSD raid0 with around 750 MB/s transfer rate for around € 2080.

    Participant
    October 29, 2009

    Harm,

    First of all, I'd like to congratulate you on your excellent articles about your hardware configurations.  I've just ordered a new pc and I'd have a question for you.  I would like to set up a system with one HDD for my OS and 4 HHD's in raid 0 config for my main storage with a hardware raid card.  But mostly on the net when you reed about raid, it's always a "total" raid config (with all the HDD in raid & OS also on the raid) and mosstly a software raid.

    Also some scary story's about suddenly having a pc that's not bootable anymore...

    So my question is how about am I to go to work ? I tought of the following scenario :

    1) set up pc with 1 HDD and install win7 ultimate 64bit on it.

    2) open up pc, put hardware raid controller card & 4 HDD in it.  Also connect the 4 HDD to the hardware raid card.

    then I'm not so sure, do I have to go into the BIOS at next startup to set up the 4 HDD in raid (or is this only needed for software raid ?)

    Or do I only have to config the 4 HDD with the setup software that comes with the raid card ?

    Sincerely,

    Frank from Belgium

    Participating Frequently
    October 9, 2009

    Thanks for the interesting information. Two questions:

    Is a seperate scratch disk for basic editing (AVCHD, little video effects) really needed? Can't you just use a disk for OS/programs and a storage disk for media, project file and preview files?

    Scratch disk setup in premiere offers options for captured video and video previews. Assuming captured video means raw source video, this will point to the storage disk. So a seperate scratch disk would only be used for video previews, am I correct?

    The WD green 1TB does go to 7200 when needed and therefore seems as fast at other storage disks. Is green really that bad?

    @Ulf Larsson: what difference did you notice by going from green to black?

    Harm_Millaard
    Inspiring
    October 9, 2009
    Is a seperate scratch disk for basic editing (AVCHD, little video effects) really needed? Can't you just use a disk for OS/programs and a storage disk for media, project file and preview files?

    It is about the same as having a car with a manual gearbox. Sure you can use that car and drive wherever you like while using only the first and second gear. However, if you also use 3-rd, 4-th and 5-th gear, it will take less time and entail less risks in traffic. Same with the number of disks.

    So a seperate scratch disk would only be used for video previews, am I correct?

    No, it will be used for the media cache. the indexed, conformed and peak files and possibly for the pagefile, as well as all preview files.

    Mechanical disks are the slowest components in a computer. To get optimal results you need to get the last bit of performance from them. Even if what you say is true that the WD green disk can adjust their speed from 5400 to 7200, consider the enormous amount of time needed to get up to speed. That is an eternity in computer terms. Two or three seconds to stabilize at 7200 is extremely slow when disk access is measured in ms. And why? There is no discernable price difference or it can be measured in peanuts.

    Participating Frequently
    October 9, 2009

    thanks for your reply. What confuses me is that premiere does not offer scratch settings for  these categories you mentioned: media cache. the indexed, conformed and peak file. Only captured video and preview video.

    Assuming a 3 disk setup (OS, scratch, storage), and setting captured video to storage disk (raw footage) and preview video to scratch disk, which disk is used by premiere for what?

    Participating Frequently
    September 27, 2009

    Rule 10: If you can easily replace the data in case of disk failure (like rendered files), go ahead and use raid0, but if you want any protection against data loss, use raid 3/5/6/10/30/50. For further protection you can use hot spares, diminishing downtime and performance degradation.

    Is there a reference link you could provide as to what all the different levels of RAID do?

    UlfLaursen
    Inspiring
    September 27, 2009

    I actually changed a few 'green' discs to black caviar because of your advice, Harm, and I have been really satisfied. Thanks.

    /Ulf

    Participating Frequently
    October 9, 2009

    can you please eleborate on the difference you experienced?

    Participating Frequently
    September 26, 2009

    Harm Millaard wrote:

    How do you set up your editing machine in terms of disks for maximum performance and reliability? (SSD's are left out here.)

    This is a question that often arises and all too often one sees that initial settings are really suboptimal. These rules are intended to help you decide how to setup your disks to get the best response times. Of course the only disks in an editing machine must be 7200 RPM types or faster. No GREEN disks at all.


    What do you mean by "GREEN disks"?

    Harm_Millaard
    Inspiring
    September 27, 2009

    Green disk are in marketing terms ECO friendly disks that use less energy, because their rotation speed is lower. Like a car, if you do not go over 40 MPH you use less fuel than when driving 70 MPH. Slowing down the slowest component in your computer is bad, like a snail hitting the brakes before cornering.

    Participating Frequently
    September 27, 2009

    Thanks for the explanation Harm. Seems like those "Green" drives would be best suited for backup type functions.

    Participant
    September 12, 2009

    Thank you Harm for very informative guides! One question about storage:

    I've just got a new Canon Legira HF200 camera, and I need to build a new PC to edit the AVCHD files. I'm only a hobbyist, so I I'm not going for the high end systems, but I need a system that is reliable and "fast enough" for making editing AVCHD a "positive experience" ...

    On my present editing machine (3 yrs old by now) I've got 3x320 GB SATA2 (7200) drives - which I guess are the only components that might be used in my new system. I've also got a WD 1TB e-SATA for backup.

    My plans for storage on the new PC is:

    1.- 150 GB Velicoraptor for OS/Premiere

    2.- Media drive (AVCHD-files, music, pictures etc)

    3.- Scrath/pagefiles/???/-drive

    4.- A fourth array???

    (And it will be a i7 920, 12GB+ RAM, ... system)

    The basic question is:

    As a hobbyist, how much will I profit of making no. 2 and/or no. 3 (see list above) a RAID-array (0 and/or maybe 1)? I do not think I want to pay a lot to get an expensive RAID-controller. BUT disks are not expensive, so if the performance will increase significantly by using RAID1 (2 or 3 disks), and that can be efficient managed by the MBO - I'll use such a system. I'll use my eSATA drive for backup (and maybe an internal drive for backup as well?).

    Of course - I do already have the 3x320 GB SATA2 disks - where would this be most useful, or should I rather invest in som newer and faster (7200) disks?

    I guess I'll wait a couple of months before I buy, as I still have some DV-material I have to edit, which work just fine on my previous system. No need to upgrade before I need to -as prices are decreasing and components improve fast! And I guess it is worth waiting for Windows 7 64 bit - am I right?

    Thanx

    Nicolaj

    Harm_Millaard
    Inspiring
    September 12, 2009

    Nicolaj,

    I would initially keep it simple, since the burden of AVCHD editing is on the processor and memory, not on the disk.

    1. Velociraptor for OS & Programs

    2. 320 G for Pagefile, scratch and final results

    3. 320 G for media

    4. 320 G for projects

    5. 1 TB eSATA for backups or additional media.

    Raid1 has no speed advantage over a single disk, it just duplicates the single disk. If you run out of space in the future, you could replace a 320 G disk with a 1 TB or lager disk for you media.

    Get a very good cooler for your system, since you want to overclock the i7 for editing AVCHD and get DDR3-1333 memory, not DDR3-1066.

    Participant
    August 3, 2009

    Hi Harm,

    I'm looking to build a system very similar to yours, minus the large raid array.

    For storage, I'm looking at:

    System/App drive: 300GB WD VelociRaptor drive

    Editing Drive: Two 1TB Samsung Spinpoint drives in Raid 0 using onboard Marvell

    Pagefile/Scratch/Render: 1TB Samsung Spinpoint drive

    (all drives would be backed up to a homeserver)

    Is this a decent setup? I'm looking for something faster than 3 single disks, but cheaper than a full RAID solution.

    Rest of the hardware would be P6T Workstation, i7 920, good case and ps and cooling, 12GB corsair, gtx260 or 285.

    Let me know your thoughts. I need to order tonight.

    Thanks!

    Mike

    Harm_Millaard
    Inspiring
    August 4, 2009

    Looks like a good disk setup. Your media drives on the Marvell will be nearly twice as fast as a single disk with very limited CPU overhead. The video cards are good as well, although the 285 is a bit pricey in comparison to an ATI 4870/4890.

    Participant
    August 4, 2009

    Thanks Harm - went ahead and pulled the trigger. I need all the horsepower I can get to handle 5D mkII files!

    Thanks again!

    Mike

    Participant
    August 1, 2009

    I have a troubling situation.  My rig once was a gaming rig with an h20 custom setup.  After I configured the loop, the remaining space allowed for 1 HDD, my OS/game/ drive.  Now, this machine is loaded with Premiere Pro CS4 and I only have the one drive to work with and I'd like to get a storage drive.

    my rig for references; Q9650 8g 4870 Ultra 320 SCSI 300g drive

    I know i'm going to need a storage drive for holding my AVCHD files (MTS) so from the get go it looks like thinking outside the case is the case i'm dealing with.   Is it a good idea to use NAS for and editing machine & how will it effect my workflow?

    Thanks  rollem!

    EDIT: tried creating paragraphs - this forum program sucks

    Harm_Millaard
    Inspiring
    August 3, 2009
    Is it a good idea to use NAS for and editing machine & how will it effect my workflow?

    That depends entirely on your NAS configuration. If you have an iSCSI NAS and use teamed NIC's both on the NAS and on your workstation, you may be able to edit effectively, but I have never tried it, so I have no real life experience here. I only use the iSCSI NAS with a single NIC and use it only for backup, not for editing. With a single NIC it is just too slow. Maybe you should look at fibre channel configurations.

    Participant
    July 15, 2009

    Nice article but I have to nitpick a few points:

    Rule 1: NEVER partition a disk.

    This is incorrect. The partition table it read at boot and never again, unless you make changes to it or force it to (e.g. to rescan disks).

    You can even destroy your partition table and everything will run just fine - until you reboot.

    Rule 5: Turn off index search and compression. Both will cause severe performance hits if you leave them on.
    Correct, but I would just like to point out that the compression feature can be left on - because files aren't compressed by default, only when you ask it to. I know I'm splitting hairs but someone might want to use compression on other (non-relevant) folders/files on their disk and think they can't/shouldn't.

    Rule 7: Perform regular defrags on all of your disks.

    Defragging is in general overrated but nevertheless yes, it should be done. Personally I recommend using a 3rd party product like Diskeeper which can defrag automatically when needed and/or when usage level is low. Much easier than trying to schedule it and use the built in defragger which is slow and unreliable.

    Rule 10: <snip> if you want any protection against data loss, use raid 3/5/6/10/30/50.
    I just want to point out that RAID-5 or any other RAID where parity disks are used is likely going to cost you way more performance than all the other mentioned performance points here combined. The read performance is fine but writing is on a different planet, compared to mirroring RAIDS (1, 10, etc). Of course in most cases, RAID-5 is "good enough" but it is very relevant if we're talking about setting up a high-end large storage system, which seems to be the scope here. Also, a good fast RAID-10 makes the points about spreading your data on multiple disks, using separate disks for paging, cache, temp space, etc, redundant - because everything is spread automagically. RAID-5 does not, because the parity disk(s) becomes a bottleneck.


    Harm_Millaard
    Inspiring
    July 15, 2009
    I just want to point out that RAID-5 or any other RAID where parity disks are used is likely going to cost you way more performance than all the other mentioned performance points here combined. The read performance is fine but writing is on a different planet, compared to mirroring RAIDS (1, 10, etc). Of course in most cases, RAID-5 is "good enough" but it is very relevant if we're talking about setting up a high-end large storage system, which seems to be the scope here. Also, a good fast RAID-10 makes the points about spreading your data on multiple disks, using separate disks for paging, cache, temp space, etc, redundant - because everything is spread automagically. RAID-5 does not, because the parity disk(s) becomes a bottleneck.


    In fact, raid5 with it's distributed parity also spreads everything across all disks. Even with raid3 with it's dedicated parity drive, the data is spread over the data disks automatically. There is no discernable difference in performance between raid configurations that are mutiples of 10. Raid10, 30 and 50 perform about equal with the same number of disks. The difference is cost. Raid10 is extremely expensive and for most overkill. Example, you need 10 TB of storage. With raid30 or 50 you need 12 disks, with raid10 you need 20 disks plus additional housing and power supply and a larger (more ports, 24 ports instead of 12) controller. Usually when using a somewhat larger array, the bottleneck is the bus. Adding more disks does not give noticeable performance gains after a certain limit.

    Participant
    July 19, 2009

    Harm Millaard wrote:


    In fact, raid5 with it's distributed parity also spreads everything across all disks. Even with raid3 with it's dedicated parity drive, the data is spread over the data disks automatically. There is no discernable difference in performance between raid configurations that are mutiples of 10. Raid10, 30 and 50 perform about equal with the same number of disks. The difference is cost. Raid10 is extremely expensive and for most overkill. Example, you need 10 TB of storage. With raid30 or 50 you need 12 disks, with raid10 you need 20 disks plus additional housing and power supply and a larger (more ports, 24 ports instead of 12) controller. Usually when using a somewhat larger array, the bottleneck is the bus. Adding more disks does not give noticeable performance gains after a certain limit.

    Yes, the data and parity are striped but this isn't the issue. With raid-5 any write operation means you must read the parity and recalculate it. In raid-10 or any other mirroring raid, you just write it - done. This may not sound like a big deal but is in fact a very real issue in the storage industry. Any redundancy based on parity instead of simply mirroring has this problem. How big of a problem it is depends entirely on your needs and specific setup. Something like raid-50 (which is just two raid-5's striped) will of course be better, but hardly "equal". If you do need good performance (in writes as well), it's much better to just avoid the whole issue by going for raid-10. Yes, it will be more expensive but really, not massively so, and the users we are talking about here likely have photo equipment running into the tens of thousands, and make a living off this data. If you're using SATA, there is no reason to use anything other than raid-10. With SCSI/SAS, the cost difference is much more tangible (e.g. something like 10k vs 15k) but still considering the scope and audience here I consider it a small investment.

    The whole other issue is data security. Raid-5 will lose all your data if two disks fail, and even after losing one the chance of having lost or corrupted data is very real. With the size of disks today, you're almost guaranteed to encounter read errors even if a single disk fails.

    If you're a single home user or amateur, raid-5 is fine in terms of performance, but I'd personally still avoid it for this reason, plus the cost difference at this low end is very small. For a pro, with a heavy need for large IO operations and multiple simulatenous users, I would never recommend raid-5.

    A few links with more details:

    http://www.yonahruss.com/2008/11/raid-10-vs-raid-5-performance-cost.html

    http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt

    http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/raid5-vs-raid-10-safety-performance.html

    Participating Frequently
    June 8, 2009

    How would you conduct the sizing of the RAID's for a professional editing system - let's say for the material of a RED ONE. Here are some thoughts - Can you comment on it if they make sense or if I miss something?

    RAID for mayor project storage

    I consider a 1.5TB NAS storage (RAID10), just to save the whole project environment and to access some files by other applications. So the NAS storage is on a high performance network and serves as my key storage, from which I create my regular backup. If I need to work on more projects in the same time I probably will add more NAS units within the 19" rack.

    RAID for video editing

    I should probably use at least 6 discs in a RAID10 environment, each 300GB, which gives me about 600 GB to work with, if I don't fill it up completely - let's say about 70%.

    RAID for software installation

    Here I would just use 2 discs (RAID1), 32GB each - just for ADOBE CS4 and operating system.

    RAID for page-file/scratch/renders

    Redundancy isn't that critical here- so I would use 4 discs in RAID0 - I assume 120GB each should be fine. Which criteria would you use for the sizing of this RAID?

    I would really appreciate your thoughts and feedback!

    Harm_Millaard
    Inspiring
    June 8, 2009

    The NAS, 1.5 TB capacity in a NAS in a 19" rack does not seem very large. How many disks are you talking about? Raid10 makes sense, but what are you intending to use for the connection, iSCSI with teamed NIC's? (Sorry for the geek talk here, by teaming your 1 Gb network connectors, you can double the network capacity to 2 Gb, which is accessable by SCSI over IP). You mention high performance network connections. Personally I use a Thecus N7700 with 7 x 1.5 TB Seagates on a single iSCSI NIC, not teamed, but only for backup and offline storage, so speed is not critical for me. I have this in raid6, but the main advantage is the hot-swappable bays.

    Your main storage, 6 x 300 GB in raid10. Why only 300 GB per disk? Why not get some 640 GB disks, that have only 2 platters. The extra expense is negligable, they run very cool and quiet and you will not quickly run into the problem of filling them up soon.

    For OS/programs I have the feeling you are looking into SSD's in raid1. 32 GB is possibly not enough, no likely not enough. I have a pretty clean system, but with Vista64, Master Collection CS4, some plug-ins and utilities I currently have around 60 GB in use on my boot disk. From that perspective alone I would go for at least 128 GB SSD or 150 GB Velociraptor and you need two of those disks for a raid1. I am not yet convinced of the benefit of SSD's over conventional hard disks, at least at the current price point. Their access times are fabulous, their read times are magnificent, the power consumption is great, but from some early adaptors I have heard (no personal experience here) that the write times suffer quite dramatically after a few months of use, dropping to a mere 35 MB/s.

    For scratch/render/pagefile 4 disks in raid0 seems quite good, but again the question, why only 120 GB per disk? If these come from an older system, quite handy and economical, but if you need to buy them, why not use the 300 GB disks you intended for your main storage?

    Now for the critical question. The NAS will have it's own raid controller (not much you can do about that), but how do you plan on connecting all the other disks and configuring the three raids? You are talking about 12 disks in total (apart from the NAS) in three different arrays. Your choice of raid controller, cache memory and BBM may be critical (and as you can derive from my posts I'm a great fan of Areca).

    Participating Frequently
    June 8, 2009

    ...thanks a lot for your quick reply!

    A quick answer related to the connection of discs - for the NAS I intend to use SATA discs, for the other (3) three RAIDS I have foreseen SCSI or SAS discs. Here are my thoughts and please don't hesitate to criticize me because the editing system is budgeted for about 20000 Euro's - and I love to have a discussion with an expert in the field. This is really a great forum. Here are the details:

    Offline storrage, NAS RAID

    A RED ONE delivers about a hour 4k material on a 128 GB disc (the RED ONE discs are striped). For documentary film making I rarely use 20 hours of material - ok, some people shoot 100hours - but I don't. For corporate I use less. So in total I would need to use about 3 TB (4 discs x 1.5 TB) in a RAID10 environment. There are a couple of companies out there, which supply these 1 HE NAS storage solutions, which fit nicely in these 19" racks (I don't want to make any commercial for any brand here.) They usually hold 4 discs - I mean these SATA discs. Ok, to have more reserve I could get an enclosure, which holds 8 discs - doesn't cost much more - I got you here. I intend to use this NAS quite normally over a 1 Gb network.

    Main storage, VIDEO RAID

    I intend to use an older IBM server since (i) I know IBM quite well and I can maintain it and (ii) I know they work quite well - and are purchased in a used manner very affordable. However, the system I have chosen supports SCSI discs - I could go with extra money for the SAS discs - but SCSI discs are just available up to 300 GB (and they aren't cheap either). Redundancy I would like to have on a video storage since discs tend to fail and the cost to repeat a day's work exceeds the cost of extra drives. If I work on a sequence, which is usually about 5 minutes long, I don't need to have that much storage here. So I basically upload the material from the NAS to the VIDEO RAID, do the editing, and store it again on the NAS. My enclosure for the video RAID can hold 6 discs, which mean I can stripe 3 discs in a RAID10 environment - ok, maximum performance is achieved by striping up to 5 discs, but 3 striped discs, isn't this enough?

    RAID for software installation

    I intend to use Windows XP (SP3) as operating system. Unfortunately, I haven't found VISTA stable enough in a variety of setups and mayor software companies abounded VISTA installations from their environment, replacing them again with Windows XP. If I would install the whole CS4 Master Collection on my server - would I exceed 20 GB? (With regard to the utilization of tools in any video setup, probably even in the same installation, I am quite conservative - I prefer using a different machine, which accesses the NAS, as mentioned above.)

    RAID for page-file/scratch/renders

    Here I am looking for a formula or criteria to use - do you have some? Obviously speed is more critical here. Therefore, I thought I go for a RAID0. I have 4 bays left - so I thought I stripe them all. I thought a scratch/render RAID shouldn't be bigger then my VIDEO RAID - therefore I came up with my 4 discs, each 120 GB.