Jump to content




Photo

SSD for post yet?


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 452 posts
  • Director
  • OG from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 17 March 2016 - 08:41 PM

 

I've heard from multiple sources that consistent video editing wears down a solid state drive in less than 2 years. Have they created an SSD which attempts to counteract this issue?

 

I know RAID with USB 3.1 is an option for Windows users, but I'd rather not use external drives (my motherboard does not support RAID).


  • 0




#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11238 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 March 2016 - 09:02 PM

Flash wears when it is written, so editing from it, which is mainly a read operation, won't bother it.

 

Using it as camera recording media is harsher, because it will frequently be rewritten completely and almost to capacity. Basic types will tolerate hundreds of terabytes of writes before starting to show problems. Some of them advertise numbers indicating that they could be refilled daily for eight to ten years before hitting their MTBF.

 

Now, that's a mean time between failure, which can be very mean indeed, and LTO tape exists for a reason. It's not hard to find horror stories, because early types were not this good, and many of those are starting to hit their end-of-life more or less now. There were also specific issues of performance falloff with fragmentation that were specific to early SSDs. But no, in general, there is no problem with using flash for most applications.

 

P


  • 0

#3 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2374 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 March 2016 - 01:55 AM

I personally wouldn't use flash for media storage for many reasons. We've found large files and large flash volumes to have issues dealing with lots of small files. It's a very common problem and it results in corrupted media in some cases, in others just slow volumes. Spinning disks are still better in a lot of ways, they're just a lot slower as single volumes vs SSD's. It's one thing to store camera files on them and read, it's another to be constantly reading and writing.

Now, everything today is disposable right? So using an SSD as a boot volume on your computer and allowing it to write swap files constantly, isn't very good for it, but most vendors of computers don't care. I personally still run off spinning disks and will continue to do so until a day where SSD's price vs gig are equal or less then a mechanical device AND there have been many years of proven reliability.
  • 0

#4 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1627 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 19 March 2016 - 11:35 PM

SSD's are great for OS disk.... But I would not yet put one in my raid. HDD tend to give some warning before going out while SSDs tend to suddenly putt-out. They are expensive as well. A properly setup raid of HDD's is still faster and superior than a single SSD or a raid of SSD's.

My setup is like this:
Media In / Project Files | Raid: 4 x 3TB HDD's in raid 10 (6TB usable))
Media out / Renders | Raid: 4 x 3TB HDD's in raid 10 (6TB usable))
OS / Pagefile | No raid, 480GB SSD
Stock / RF Drive | No raid, 480GB SSD (contains things like stock footage, music, etc.)


  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Zylight

CineLab

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Glidecam

Pro 8mm

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Pro 8mm

Zylight

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

The Slider

CineLab