i see alot of people these days buying the stock computers from retail stores like best buy.
alot of these computers come stock with one terebytes hard drives.
 
the more tests ive done ive found these results: sonar runs much better on a smaller hard drive(500,250,exc.)
it seems retreaving data on a large hard drive isnt difficult,but when retreaving data from multiple parts of the hard drive is a problem.
one sector is opening software in possibly the outer edges of the disk,while some windows system functions are opening data from the lead part of the hard drive
in a sector on the insude of the disk.
i cant be totaly sure as to weather or not these disks can retreave data from two different ends of the disk in totalt different sectors and be productive.
 
i first learned of this while testing a 1 t.b. seagate 7400 rpm,64 chache high performance hd.
while copying data from one file on the h.d. to anothe file on the hd(while the same hd is being used a windows system drive.)
i noticed a huge amount of lag and sometimes just stop and then continue.
 
i noticed this same lag in sonar when saving files.opening vst,vst-i,and other components.
the same file saved the here said project almost 20% faster using a smaller hard drive.
vs the large seagate 1 t.b.
now is it coinsedence? maybe but maybe not.
 
it also occured to me when i noticed users on the forum exspressing their frustration with lag and other related problems.
alot of them were using really large storage drives
 
its in my opinion that some problems may be resloved by looking into this a little bit.
id love to hear your opinions on performance.
you guys are really good when it comes to looking at all aspects.and i value your thoughts.
 
also love to hear from other users who are using large hard drives vs smaller hard drives.
might be great if this is confirmed to have a sticky somewhere informing users better performance can be achieved by using the less space for system features and the large hd for sample librarys and such.
as it may seem like common sence to some,others are ignorant to the fact. 
 
charlie roy

HI,
i have to tell you this is completely wrong. if anything.. due to the fact you should not fill drives past 65% a larger hard drive will perform better.
more importantly MULTIPLE hard drives are required for best performance.

1) OS and programs
2) audio
3) samples
4) back up..


anyone buying from BB for an audio computer well... you get what you pay for. or not

jcschild


HI,
i have to tell you this is completely wrong. if anything.. due to the fact you should not fill drives past 65% a larger hard drive will perform better.
more importantly MULTIPLE hard drives are required for best performance.

1) OS and programs
2) audio
3) samples
4) back up..


anyone buying from BB for an audio computer well... you get what you pay for. or not

so you would use a 1 terebyte hard drive for your o.s.,sonar,and audio files,songs,exc, ??
maybe you missed the point here,i totaly agree with multiple hard drives.im all for them.
what this thread was about was people using 1 gig hard drives for everything.
thought that was pretty clear.
 
i think something else you are failing to recognize is more and more users are indeed buying there computers from local retail stores.
why not,for the average not so serious user?
i wouldnt,but if i was, half the percent of users who are using sonar are using it on consumer bought computers,yes atleast half of sonars users are using consumer desktops and laptops. 
the average joe,who uses his surfing computer/daw..there perfectly adiquite.
but most of these come stock with larger then normal hard drives.
 
so this part of im totaly wrong id like to hear more about.
now whats this about only using 65%of your hard drives cap.
i have 2- 1 terebyte hard drives each over 80 % and they run fine. 
those are filled with pictures,samples,songs,movies,exc. 
  
what you also failed to recognize is retreaving data from larger drives is more time consuming to the fact the data is spread out over a larger area.
so how is using a larger hard drive for your os better?
its not. 

jcschild


HI,
i have to tell you this is completely wrong.

Why would it be wrong at all? I think you missed the point of the post.
I've also noticed several unhappy post from sonarites having problems using a single huge HDD .
I think it's really logical that writing and reading simultaneously several sources in several disc locations is much slower on a 1,5 Tb HDD than  on a 500 Gb one.

if using 1 drive for all then yes shame on them

i dont  think more than a 500G for the OS is required but it was a 1TB it would NOT be slower.

500G drive 1 platter, 2TB 4 platter

1 Platter 1 head, 4 platter 4 head
larger = more heads to locate info/store info
also platter density the larger each platter the faster it will be.
larger drives usually mean larger density.

all drives: the outside is faster than the inside, drives start writing on the outside and work in.
as you FILL up the drive it mechanically becomes slower, this is the same nonsense as partitioning drives
the 1st part will always be faster than the 2nd part. yrs ago we used to do this and it was called stroking. and you would not use the latter part, its long since been a dead idea. like once we got to ATA 100.

so filling up drives past 65% is NOT smart.

http://macperformanceguide.com/Storage-BiggerIsBetter.html

im talking about smaller hard drives..320's...500's
and you post this link about how large 3 t.b hard drives are better then smaller 1 t.b hard drives
on a mac.
lol.
 
how bout this for the platter theory,2 platter are working at the same time,thats only 50% of the hard drive working correct?
the program you are using,say sonar, its using information from both platters,and heck,maybe even a little bit more of the third.
hows that working?
 
3 platters,3 heads all moving and trying to transmit data through the only ONE sata cable?
 
im not buying it.
lol.
 
but i will say this,you sound like youve been around enough to know about hard drives and data transfer.
but your stubborn...like me  :)

its what i do for a living since 1898 chuck (actually longer 98 was when i started my biz)
i go thru about 400 drives a month.. i might have a small clue as we benchmark EVERY drive we ship.

jcschild

its what i do for a living since 1898...

You must be nearly as old as me.

Kev999

jcschild

its what i do for a living since 1898...

You must be nearly as old as me.

51 and yeah getting old and feeling it...