-
Adobe support says Thunderbolt external is not “supported’ by premiere
-
I’m happy to report that all is well again and I’m back to doing what I’m good at, which is editing and not having to deal with technical problems. My iMac was apparently defective because after exchanging it with a new one with the same exact specs, everything is working as it should be. A few things to note: I haven’t put in any third party memory, just using the stock 8gb for now. I also didn’t connect the ONE, just using the onboard audio. Furthermore, I installed the latest CUDA drivers and used that instead of OpenCL. The WD dual Thunderbolt drive is working like a dream with RAID 0 and I haven’t had a single problem since I started editing a few hours ago. Going to send back the Kingston RAM and pick up the OWC ones. Anyway, I’m surprised it was the computer itself that was defective but I suppose it happens. I wonder what exactly was wrong with it that caused so many problems. Thanks to everyone for taking time to answer some questions. Cheers!
-
A 2 TB raid will not offer great performance, even TB.
Chris
-
It’s more correct to say that Thunderbolt is a derivative that combines PCIe and DisplayPort protocols onto a single physical transport. I’m not suggesting a bandwidth equivalence. However a Thunderbolt connected storage device is effectively on a PCIe bus, just as is any SATA add-on card that plugs into a standard PCIe slot. As for crashes, that doesn’t make it “not PCIe” it just means it’s subject to driver and firmware bugs.
In any case, the application use of a disk for scratch space is creating a file via OS level APIs. The application has no idea what the underlying hardware is, what sort of bus it’s on, nor even if it’s rotating or non-rotating media.
-
[Chris Tompkins] “A 2 TB raid will not offer great performance, even TB.”
??
I have a 1 Terabyte Raid 5, it offers great performance.
-
Good for you.
When I run the BMD speed test on small raid sets the speeds are much slower. The more drives, the faster the thru-put.
Chris
-
Ya, a RAID 5 has more than two drives….
someone who doesn’t know any better may have misinterpreted your statement.
-
The original statement mentioned array size as the factor determining performance, rather than number of disks, and it also didn’t distinguish between reads and writes. It’s true that there is a raid5 write penalty that is most noticeable with fewer disks.
Both slow reads and writes indicates full stripe reads aren’t happening which points to too large chunk size for the test; or conversely the test is making many small IO requests that the raid has to do large reads, discarding most of the data to fulfill the request. So it’s a mismatch between test and configuration. Either the configuration is wrong or the test is wrong. Without detailed information on the configuration, the tests, and the real world usage, it’s not possible to categorically say the tested performance won’t meet real world requirements.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up