PDA

View Full Version : vt5: sata vs scsi



george49
09-17-2008, 10:16 PM
Newtek presently advises to use SATA drives with the VT5, but in the recent past was also advocating SCSI drives. Why the change and is one any better than the other (price notwithstanding)? I was preparing to buy some 15k SCSI's for installation into a used HP XW8200 (dual 3.6 processors), but now wonder if the SATA's would be preferable (altho I'd have to buy a SATA controller if I go that route). As always, thanx in advance,
George of the Marina

Matt Drabick
09-18-2008, 06:52 AM
SATA drives work very well . . . by the book SCSI drives are better because they do a better job of simultaneoulsy reading and writing at the same time. If you plan to build an array of drives that will be used to both playback video clips and record the live switch at the same time I would go with SCSI.


Having written that, SATA drives are so inexpensive and reliable . . . why not build an array for recording and add a separate drive for playing back clips. I would go with SATA drives.

Matt Drabick, DigiTek Systems

ScorpioProd
09-18-2008, 12:35 PM
If you're going SATA, I strongly encourage you to look at Western Digital VelociRaptors. They test as good as SCSI in the tests I've seen.

Paul Lara
09-25-2008, 02:49 PM
Newtek presently advises to use SATA drives with the VT5, but in the recent past was also advocating SCSI drives. Why the change and is one any better than the other (price notwithstanding)?

SATA technology has advanced to the point that the significantly higher cost of SCSI isn't justifiable. Nothing is stopping you from spending that extra money, though.

stargatesg1
09-26-2008, 07:38 AM
Any idea of using these http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?DriveID=301
in one of these? http://www.acnc.com/02_01_jetstor_sata_416s.html
Think it would be fast enough? I have a dual 320 adaptec scsi controler.
Currently I have 6 scsi 160 38gig drives

george49
09-26-2008, 07:46 AM
Paul - Unfortunately, I don't get paid like you high-salaried Newtek employees, so cost could be a factor. :)

Is there a quantum advantage to using 10K rpm SATAs vs 7K rpm SATAs, or is it a case of just-better-but-you-can-do-fine-without-the-extra-juice?

Thanx in advance,
George of the Marina

jcupp
09-26-2008, 10:15 AM
We have built dozens of systems with 7k SATAs and they work just great. Faster is always better but sometimes cheaper is mo better.

lvsoule
09-26-2008, 02:59 PM
I do not profess to be near as knowledgeable as the other posters. However I've found that SATA's do what I call the Hiccup. They are lightning fast most the time, but then they hiccup for a second. This hiccup as U can imagine is not good for real time recording or live playback from DDR's etc... It's like they spin themselves into a dizzy! I've experienced this with the 7k's

Blaine Holm
10-06-2008, 11:38 AM
I do not profess to be near as knowledgeable as the other posters. However I've found that SATA's do what I call the Hiccup. They are lightning fast most the time, but then they hiccup for a second. This hiccup as U can imagine is not good for real time recording or live playback from DDR's etc... It's like they spin themselves into a dizzy! I've experienced this with the 7k's

We have been using SATA for the last 24 months in our VT systems. We don't have this 'hiccup' issue and we've even done 2 drive stripes. We configure some systems to use 8 drives for a RAID-10.

Older SATA drives that con't support NCQ, or older controllers may cause issues, but not what we've been shipping the last couple of years.

ted
10-06-2008, 12:33 PM
I have always been a die hard SCSI fan for video. But we finally moved to the SATA world last year with our new system and have not regretted it. Plus we saved a bundle on drives! :thumbsup:

FinalCutToast!
10-06-2008, 01:00 PM
...I've found that SATA's do what I call the Hiccup. They are lightning fast most the time, but then they hiccup for a second...It's like they spin themselves into a dizzy! I've experienced this with the 7k'sSorry to hear of your bad experience. Which make and model are those 7,000 RPM SATA drives you tried, and how long ago have you purchased them, Ivsoule?

lvsoule
10-09-2008, 09:49 PM
The SATAs I had were a little older- probably about 1 1/2 years. I heard that they've improve a lot, thus why everyone is suggesting them. I quit trying to capture live shows on the computer anyways, so just playing back DDRs has done well. It was mainly when I tried to capture to one drive and play from another. Now I just use a Digital recorder.

Blaine Holm
10-10-2008, 07:55 AM
We ship systems that folks use to record and playback from the same array all the time. There are a lot of variables other than the drives that can affect the playback/record performance.

Quiet1onTheSet
10-10-2008, 09:44 AM
The SATAs I had were a little older- probably about 1 1/2 years. I heard that they've improve a lot, thus why everyone is suggesting them. I quit trying to capture live shows on the computer anyways, so just playing back DDRs has done well. It was mainly when I tried to capture to one drive and play from another. Now I just use a Digital recorder.Oh, Ok. -- Well, what digital recorder have you been using -- simply a DV deck or camcorder?

Q1

lvsoule
10-10-2008, 10:34 AM
I actually use 4 decks.
1- DVHS 24MB recording system for backup
2- DVD-R Recorder - To Make Copies for Players quickly
3- SVHS recorder. - Local Station uses
4- Mini-DV - For another local station.

and a fourth - Capture directly to a laptop for Comcast On-Demand & digital channel.

I do not use the toaster in anyway to capture during live shoots. I've had too many problems. It's funny because the same store that quoted me 2k for an upgrade, also built me a 5 disc scsi array at about $1.8k and it has never captured well. They call it user error, but funny thing is another one they built identical to mine has the exact same problem. So I use the toaster for switching and titling and DDR playback only.

Don't get me wrong the toaster has been the most unbelievable switcher for the money, but the capture side just hasn't worked well for me. Like everything that is quirky, I've just adapted and make it work.

Doc
10-10-2008, 10:59 AM
lvsoule,

If you capture the "Main In" as your source while switching live between cameras, the capture will most definitely abort. You need make sure you are capturing the "Program Out", this way when you switch cameras there is consistent sync while capturing. Plus this is the correct source for capturing any live production. Double check your Capture panel options.

Also if you are using a 5 disc array, what type of raid was used? I've heard that using an odd number of drives in a Raid 0 setup actually slows the MB/sec down. If you use the right array/system, you should be able to capture the program out, and play multiple B-roles from the same drive.

logic28
10-10-2008, 10:33 PM
http://www.acnc.com/02_01_jetstor_sata_416s.html
Think it would be fast enough? I have a dual 320 adaptec scsi controler.
Currently I have 6 scsi 160 38gig drives

Just thought this might be of interest.

Looking at your link, it appears that I have been using a similar method to that of the Jetstor 416 running an 8-disk SATA array from my onboard 320 Ultra SCSI controller by means of these SCSI to SATA adapters:

http://www.pc-pitstop.com/scsi_ide_adapters/aec7730.asp

They work just fine, just wondering though if there are any gains by accessing the striped disk through a SCSI controller as opposed to from a standard SATA controller?

Maz

logic28
10-10-2008, 10:51 PM
lvsoule,

If you capture the "Main In" as your source while switching live between cameras, the capture will most definitely abort. You need make sure you are capturing the "Program Out", this way when you switch cameras there is consistent sync while capturing. Plus this is the correct source for capturing any live production. Double check your Capture panel options.



You are very right and I can confirm.:thumbsup:

When I first built my system I spent a great deal of time running any kind of bizarre combination of capturing and playbacks including simultaneous multiple captures and multibple playback together.

The motherboard configuration (bus speed, no. of busses, etc.) together with the VT settings are crucial for obtaining the right performance.

But it works! It definitely does! Beside, if one was worried about the RAID system performance I would suggest to simply capture each stream on a standard ATA / SATA drive.

That way you would have the same result as that of using digital recorders as they also have one drive per unit.

A vulgar old ATA drive can easily capture an uncompressed RTV + PCM audio, and it's safe enough as each stream goes to one drive.
You can still use the RAID for accessing your DDR files or whatever else.

Maz

logic28
10-10-2008, 11:16 PM
Sorry, this was a double message!

george49
10-17-2008, 08:51 PM
As a followup to my original post, I ended up going with the SCSI drives. This was mainly because the XW8200 has a SCSI controller built in and this allowed me to use the 3 SCSI's (with another as an option), whereas the SATA route would have only accepted 2 drives unless I purchased a hardware SATA controller. At this point, I'm trying to stripe the SCSI's together but have run into unexpected difficulty (as noted in a separate post). Specifically it involves doing a "Create Volume" on the drives. If anyone can offer guidance on this, then I would appreciate it. In the meantime, thanks for all the info already provided.
George, of the Marina