10 Apr
2013
10 Apr
'13
12:46 a.m.
Am 05.04.2013 03:10, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 18:25 -0400, Brett McCoy wrote:
This may be true in 99.9 out of 100 minutes of recording until that
statistically unlikely event happens, that some operation is keen to
load a lib from the disk while another important operation wants to load
another 20 seconds 96/32 audio data for 32 tracks from the very same disk.
While I agree, that Linux in pretty good in using RAM for caching and we
live in times where a complete 4-min track on 20+ tracks fits into a
RAM-disk I would not take chances.
I have a SSD for all the software and the OS and a conventional drive
for the audio/video data plus 8Gig RAM and so I do not need to even
think about, whether bad side-effects could occure or not. Not that
expensive and good for my nerves... ;-)
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Grekim Jennings
<grekimj(a)acousticrefuge.com> wrote:
I don't think that this usually is needed, using one drive with one
partition IMO usually isn't a bottleneck. What's the latest consensus? Is it
recommended to have a separate drive
for audio on a Linux system? Separate partition? I'm just wondering about
performance, not practical issues like moving audio around or reinstalling
the system, etc. As we know there are Mac/PC DAW's that need things
separate. Thanks.
Yes, OS on one drive, audio on a separate dedicated drive is best for
performance (and if you are using a sampler, the samples should be on
their own dedicated drive, if possible). Pretty standard practice for
audio or video workstation, regardless of OS. It's IMO useful to separate
drives regarding to convenience, but not regarding to performance.
I might be mistaken, but I can't see a reason for a reasonably machine
to use 3 HDDs for audio production, to get a better performance.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user