# Opinion on Brand & Size of SSD for Sample Library



## owenave (Apr 11, 2016)

I am getting ready to purchase another SSD for more Sample Library 
that I am getting ready to purchase. I am going to get 1 TB SSD.
Is it better for Streaming different Library's to be on 2 separate 500 GB SSD
or one Single 1 TB SSD? And is their any brands I need to stay away from 
that are bad and have problems? The 2 I am using so far are Samsung 850 EVO's
500 GB one for Boot and Apps and one for sample library.
Thanks


----------



## colony nofi (Apr 11, 2016)

owenave said:


> I am getting ready to purchase another SSD for more Sample Library
> that I am getting ready to purchase. I am going to get 1 TB SSD.
> Is it better for Streaming different Library's to be on 2 separate 500 GB SSD
> or one Single 1 TB SSD? And is their any brands I need to stay away from
> ...


I'd say get the largest you can afford.
I use both Samsung EVO 850's and Crucial SSD's. It is very easy to quickly fill up drives when it comes to samples!

There is no noticeable difference having OS on a different SSD to your samples. Most folk to it because it is "cleaner" organisationally. 
Indeed - you can get away with 128GB or less for OS, and then perhaps grab a 1TB for your sample libraries.

SSD's do work well in raid 0 as well - if you get the right enclosure / setup for them. There are limitations with standard SATA bus connections and RAID (and how the raid might be implemented at times) so YMMV. There is, of course, less to go wrong if you are not using raid. 

As for better for libs to be on 2 separate SSD's - that entirely comes down to how the SSD's are connected to your system. I have never come up against issues with using samples off single SSD's - even with very low preload buffers in kontakt. I would definitely go for a single 1TB rather than 2x500's. 

Another thing to keep in mind - do you ever use your libraries across 2 or 3 computers? a lot of folk are now putting their SSD's in external cases (blackmagic / Pegasus / OWC etc) which means you can just plug them into the computer you are using. (Laptop at home, workstation at the studio etc!) Again - just depends on your working situation.


----------



## owenave (Apr 11, 2016)

colony nofi said:


> I'd say get the largest you can afford.
> I use both Samsung EVO 850's and Crucial SSD's. It is very easy to quickly fill up drives when it comes to samples!
> 
> There is no noticeable difference having OS on a different SSD to your samples. Most folk to it because it is "cleaner" organisationally.
> ...


Thanks for your info. I am using all my SSD's on PCIe cards in my Mac Pro 5.1 12 Core. I have one on a single card that is boot drive, was much faster than being in Sata buss of 3gb/s. And I have a dual Sonnet PCIe card with one 500 GB SSD w Sample library. I will add the other 1 TB to the Sonnet card. I have not set up my network net for VEP5 and my MBP and my older Mac Pro Tower. I got a 500 gb SSD to install in the MBP, but the old Mac Pro Tower is a 1.1 and it doesn't do SSD very fast so not sure I will put one in it yet. Might just run plugins on it.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 12, 2016)

MyDigitalSSD has excellent devices for cheap.
Best controller for random access and random reads too.
105k is what I report using 2 different bench tools.

My guess is any SSD using the most recent Phison controller would be similar.
Most SATA III SSDs get 80-90k.
The extra 15k is a sweet spot for me.

They are stocking back up at Amazon.
Guys from New York.
They do sales every month or so.
Personally I think theyre cheap enough.
But 40 bucks is a dinner at an entry level Italian Resturant like Olive Garden.


----------



## Soundhound (Apr 12, 2016)

Jimmy nice find! Do you think these could be as good (for what we need, streaming samples, recording audio etc.) as Samsung/Crucial et al? 

http://mydigitalssd.com/2.5-inch-sata-ssd.php#bp5e-slim-7-ssd


----------



## vrocko (Apr 12, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> Jimmy nice find! Do you think these could be as good (for what we need, streaming samples, recording audio etc.) as Samsung/Crucial et al?
> 
> http://mydigitalssd.com/2.5-inch-sata-ssd.php#bp5e-slim-7-ssd


Per Chimuelos recommendation, I purchased two 960GB mydigitalSSD's. I have been using them for a couple of days and they are working great, I can't tell any difference between these and my Sandisk Extreme Pro's.


----------



## Soundhound (Apr 12, 2016)

That's great news. I wonder if they'll be coming out with 2TB drives?


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 12, 2016)

One thing is certain in life....death, taxes and Samsung forcing competition.
So 3TB by years end most likely.
Enterprise devices are already at 4TB SAS 12GBps.

They function well under sustained heavy reads.
But not that. I would ever read and write, but thats thier selling strength the Phison offers.
Seems if a device just reads well it throttles down under heavy loads.
Write numbers seem to be an easy indicator of a good controller from recent experiences.
Corresponds to excessive I/Os bi directionally speaking.

Glad you like them vrocko.
I only have the 480s but noticed the beating they could take.
Sansdisk Pros are good solid devices.
Pretty hot when they first showed up.
Seems like SSD guys get a few months of fame then somebody like Samsung makes them drop prices.

Good for us.


----------



## vrocko (Apr 12, 2016)

Thank again Chimuelo for recommending them, it also doesn't hurt that you saved me almost $300.


----------



## colony nofi (Apr 12, 2016)

Oh yes - larger SSD's are on the way for sure...
For example only (don't look at the price - its not for general consumers) http://www.fixstars.com/en/ssd/
Samsung is definitely leading the way with some very interesting new technologies on the SSD front.


----------



## owenave (Apr 12, 2016)

colony nofi said:


> Oh yes - larger SSD's are on the way for sure...
> For example only (don't look at the price - its not for general consumers) http://www.fixstars.com/en/ssd/
> Samsung is definitely leading the way with some very interesting new technologies on the SSD front.


While not cheap I am sure..... fanning myself... 13 TB SSD drive.... Now we know what all they guys want for Christmas.... lol but can't afford.


----------



## Soundhound (Apr 12, 2016)

Just grabbed a 1TB. Jimmy, you da man.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 13, 2016)

Federal Gangsters are sending me back some greens after they get thier cut.
You'd think developers would have tax return deals for Q1 2016. They could grab much more cash rather than having to pry it from my hands.

Great to hear Soundhound....


----------



## Soundhound (Apr 13, 2016)

Red tape, can't live with it, can't live without it. But next time I'll just send you the check directly.


----------



## tenyuhuang (Apr 13, 2016)

Samsung 850 EVO 1TB is currently on sale (~299USD) at Amazon.com. Just grabbed one for myself. If you can't decide anything at the moment, this should definitely be a great bargain.

And here's Passmark's Harddisk Price-Performance Chart for reference:
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd_value.html


----------



## Baron Greuner (Apr 13, 2016)

SanDisk Extreme Pro here. 10 year guarantee. Got them through Amazon.


----------



## Bluedive (Apr 28, 2016)

Hey everyone, I'm expanding my sample libraries and I need fast external drive for macbook pro. I got OWC usb3 enclosure, and I'm thinking of buying 500 gb Samsung Evo Pro SSD. Did anyone try this two together with mac? Thanks


----------



## EvilDragon (Apr 28, 2016)

You simply can't go wrong with Samsung 850 Evo (also there's no such thing as "Evo Pro" - it's either EVO (cheaper) or Pro (more expensive)).


----------



## Bluedive (Apr 28, 2016)

EvilDragon said:


> You simply can't go wrong with Samsung 850 Evo (also there's no such thing as "Evo Pro" - it's either EVO (cheaper) or Pro (more expensive)).


Thanks,it's pro version. i think so too...at moment I'm using external HDD at 7200 rpm and samples drop outs really slow down work flow..


----------



## smoothielova (Apr 28, 2016)

What is the difference between the EVO Pro and regular? I can't really tell a difference between them except for either the read or write speed. I forget which one it is. Is the cheaper one still crazy fast?


----------



## EvilDragon (Apr 29, 2016)

Pro has greater longetivity and double the warranty (10 years). It's different SSD technology (MLC, Evo is TLC) which allows this longetivity, but it's comparatively more expensive. IMHO there's no need to go with Pro for our purposes - they are for data centers, servers, etc, which write and delete stuff all the time.

Us, we write our sample libraries once then just read from there. EVO SSDs are just fine for that!


----------



## smoothielova (Apr 29, 2016)

EvilDragon said:


> Pro has greater longetivity and double the warranty (10 years). It's different SSD technology (MLC, Evo is TLC) which allows this longetivity, but it's comparatively more expensive. IMHO there's no need to go with Pro for our purposes - they are for data centers, servers, etc, which write and delete stuff all the time.
> 
> Us, we write our sample libraries once then just read from there. EVO SSDs are just fine for that!


I see. Thank you for explaining the difference.


----------



## Phryq (Apr 30, 2016)

Aren't there speed issues having an external drive on USB 3?


----------



## holywilly (May 2, 2016)

Does the random read IOPS really affect the speed for both loading and streaming samples?

I'm now seeing SanDisk Extreme Pro for upgrade, anyone had experience with this SSD?


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2016)

Random read IOPS is what actually happens when streaming samples from the disk, so yes, that number is very important. The higher, the better.


----------



## passsacaglia (May 2, 2016)

Yo guys, just wanted to ask, would Any cable/enclosure with UASP support work for SSD's and will it be able to reach those "high speeds" as in the reviews (like 500mb/s) ?
Reading a lot stuff here incl Chimuelos tips about the mydigitalssd BP5's I just want to check what will be good, like this one for example: http://amzn.com/B011M8YACM
or this one: http://amzn.com/B00OJ3UJ2S

Best regards,


----------



## chimuelo (May 3, 2016)

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/thessdreview/KGyZ/~3/hYAXphvUqDk/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email


----------



## Baron Greuner (May 3, 2016)

holywilly said:


> Does the random read IOPS really affect the speed for both loading and streaming samples?
> 
> I'm now seeing SanDisk Extreme Pro for upgrade, anyone had experience with this SSD?



Yes I have 4 in a BlackMagic Dock. Very quick.


----------



## Udo (May 3, 2016)

Just a reminder for people talking about USB 3.0 UAS(P). Both your PC and external enclosure must support the protocol and appropriate drivers are required. Win 7 doesn't have native support for it, afaik.


----------



## Phryq (May 5, 2016)

So random read is more important than sequential for samples?

I think that means RAID 0 doesn't do much for us, as it only improves sequential, yes?

Will using USB 3 bottleneck a PCIe drive? My laptop doesn't support PCIe, but could I use a PCIe USB 3 external to overcome this?


----------



## JohnG (May 5, 2016)

Phryq said:


> I think that means RAID 0 doesn't do much for us,



I only saw one empirical test of RAID 0 for audio and you are right -- barely budged the numbers. If I remember right it was less than 10% improvement.

I do use RAID 0 on a couple of slave computers but that's so that the updates for those libraries see them on one drive, not multiple. It's not to improve speed. (and yes, I know that it increases the chance of a failure).


----------



## higgs (May 5, 2016)

JohnG said:


> I only saw one empirical test of RAID 0 for audio and you are right -- barely budged the numbers. If I remember right it was less than 10% improvement.
> 
> I do use RAID 0 on a couple of slave computers but that's so that the updates for those libraries see them on one drive, not multiple. It's not to improve speed. (and yes, I know that it increases the chance of a failure).



Just for fun I've been playing with a SSD RAID 5 array for the primary slave drive and to shuttle back-and-forth between slave & host. The results have been pretty favorable but not quite as zippy as I hoped it would be. The security afforded by the setup is worth the small dip in performance - it's a realistic expectation of what a 3 disk vs. 4 disk setup in a RAID 0 config would look like.


----------



## chimuelo (May 7, 2016)

RAID 1 is as far as I would ever want to go.
The problem with RAID in general is that it's designed for data servers.
Let's say you do have an SSD failure, even though it's a RAID 5 the rebuild process is time and resource consuming.
It would never allow you to continue performing while during a rebuild.

Maybe there's some killer feature in these inexpensive RAID chips, but a dedicated RAID 3 from NetCell could barely kick out samples, and RAID 3 was video streaming, very similar.

I would simulate a failure as there are programs inside of Intel RST that do this.
Then try and perform or record while it's rebuilding.

If I am right, you will now have extra hot spares, which could simply be popped in and out, much quicker but you lose a few seconds.


----------



## Udo (May 7, 2016)

Has anyone experimented seriously with RAID stripe sizes and stripe width in a sample environment? 

Stripe size is similar to block size with conventional drives. Typical options are 16, 32, 64 or 128 kB, but many controllers offer smaller and larger sizes. Stripe width is the number of drives in the array. There are several other factors, incl. wasted space.


----------



## chimuelo (May 7, 2016)

RAID 0 SSDs made at the factory are using their own controllers and have more to offer.
I used the Adaptec Zero RAID 5 card for Supermicro and the NetCell RAID 3.
HDD Raptors were great, but again the rebuild is a Crap shoot.
But controller cards are works of art if you are unhappy with current performance.
Just dual SSDs in a RAID 1 using Intel RST is cheap and efficient as a redundant spare.
After your recording you only know there was a failure.
Go back in and use a hot spare.


----------



## chimuelo (May 7, 2016)

Below is a SATA 3 SSD RAID Cage with cooling.
But 2 drives are hot spares.
Don't use RAID.
I can swap both of these in seconds.
I am faster than Intel RST.
Guarantee that....


----------



## storyteller (May 7, 2016)

Phryq said:


> I think that means RAID 0 doesn't do much for us, as it only improves sequential, yes?



The short answer is RAID hinders sample library performance. To illustrate, if you have 4 drives, think of each drive as a pipe for data flow. If your libraries are divided out wisely across your drives, you can squeeze every bit of juice out of them as possible (IOPS). For example if you mostly mockup orchestral compositions, having your drives split by Strings, Brass/Woodwinds, Choir/Piano, Percussion/Hybrid, will allow for even usage of drives. If you use RAID, your bits of each library could (in theory) all bottleneck one or two drives of the four because the software/controller picks and chooses where bits are stored. This is why real world performance on sample libraries show dips in performance on RAID compared to non-RAID. But, the theory that having one single sample library with split bits across multiple drives via RAID increases the performance is actually true too...if it weren't that the files are so small and SSDs so fast, that no performance gains could be shown in a single-library example. This is why RAID works for video and other large, sequentially-read files.

I use RAID 5 for videos and projects, different variations of RAID (and non RAID) for backup solutions, but I would not touch RAID for sample drives (unless it was for a known purpose/outcome like @JohnG alluded to).


----------



## Phryq (May 8, 2016)

Do you think the price of PCIe will drop any time soon? Does it make sense to wait to buy one?

I'm thinking of getting a new laptop at some point, and wondering if I should wait for prices to drop, as PCIe are crazy expensive.


----------



## chimuelo (May 11, 2016)

There's a benefit with RAID 0 if you don't mind the risk.
Check out your random reads with AS SSD.
Do a RAID 0 using 2 x SSDs and check numbers again.
Take 16 MIDI tracks and keep adding 8 more at a time until it chokes.
Try this again with RAID 0.
If you see a difference make a decision.
Read up on the Adaptec 8540 RAID Card.
It's caching algos and level 1E are pretty high end tricks that might help.

CPU might lose cycles with Intel RST too if you use lots of native plugs.
RAID Cards are like discrete Graphics cards. They won't take CPU cycles.

In my experience M.2 with NVMe negates the need for RAID.
But we all have different needs.

For example a guy had a tiny PC running a Pentium G and a single M.2 for OS+Apps.
Great live rig on the cheap.
Only needs a few instruments.
Diva UVI PLAY and Kontakt ran great.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 11, 2016)

> I would definitely go for a single 1TB rather than 2x500's.



Why, just out of interest?

I have two 240GB SSDs concatenated into a single 480GB one for my system drive, and it works very well - even though my 8-year-old computer has a slow drive bus. (I started with one, realized it wasn't big enough, and added the second.)

As I've posted before, even samples on regular hard drives load a lot faster, presumably because of caching.


----------



## babylonwaves (May 12, 2016)

Udo said:


> Has anyone experimented seriously with RAID stripe sizes and stripe width in a sample environment?
> 
> Stripe size is similar to block size with conventional drives. Typical options are 16, 32, 64 or 128 kB, but many controllers offer smaller and larger sizes. Stripe width is the number of drives in the array. There are several other factors, incl. wasted space.


i had both 64 and 16 and it didn't make a significant difference in the end, at least in terms of how much free memory you have after putting on the libraries. i guess, in my case, this is because i have loads of very short drums and also loads of larger instruments. seems to equal out in the end.
hth


----------



## babylonwaves (May 12, 2016)

just a short note on RAID0 performances. i did some tests recently comparing a single Samsung SSD (approx 500MB/s read) to a cluster of 4 (which caps at 1.3gb/s in my case). on the one hand, there was this huge difference when measuring the raw performance and on the other hand, at least for Kontakt, loading an instrument was not faster when doing so from the clustered discs. i'm certain that large session benefit from the extra I/O but the load time doesn't seem to go down. does anybody know if Kontakt has a limitation in this regard?


----------



## Baron Greuner (May 12, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Why, just out of interest?
> 
> I have two 240GB SSDs *concatenated* into a single 480GB one for my system drive,




Oh Crikey!


----------



## Phryq (May 12, 2016)

Oh, now I understand my problem is that I never concatenated my hard drives.


----------



## Baron Greuner (May 12, 2016)

I asked the Baroness if there was any chance of some vague form of concacacacatenating this evening if I made tea.

She thought I was mad.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 12, 2016)

It's just another silly digital-era word. 

Concatenated simply means two or more drives are combined so they're seen as a single one by the OS, or technically they share a single directory. The only catch is that all the drives are the size of the smallest one.

It's different from RAID, and there's no advantage to doing it. But I posted about it in response to a post early on saying it's better to have a single 1TB drive than two 500s. It may well be; I just don't know why.


----------



## Ozymandias (May 12, 2016)

I imagine that smallest drive limitation must be an OS X thing, Nick? Under Windows you get all the available space when spanning/concatenating, regardless of drive size (which is handy for skinflints like me who refuse to retire aging SSDs).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 13, 2016)

No idea. My drives are the same size, so I don't have to be a skinflint.

According to this, the drives are simply added together. But not according to whatever it was I read that stuck in my head. To be clear, each drive still is combined, but if you have a 200 and a 300, you'll get 400 rather than 500.


----------

