# Multiple Hard Drive Best Practices: Partitions, Libraries, Data and Mitigating Streaming Bottlenecks in an NVMe and SSD setup



## TimRideout (Nov 27, 2022)

Hello Wisest Ones;

I have just purchased a new computer and am in the setup phase. You know - the one where you re-think your entire setup and how to do it better from scratch 

I am a producer for TV and film, so I often run fairly large setups that run the gamut from full orchestral templates, to hybrid production of (a few dozen) audio tracks plus the other "usual suspect" VSTs (Kontakt, Omnisphere, Spitfire etc).

I am currently musing on best practices for drive partitioning and data location for maximum speed and efficiency and would love your thoughts.

I will have three drives: 2X NVMe 4TB and 1X SSD 2TB. My first draft of partitioning is based on my current setup and looks like this:



Drive 1: NVMe 1 (3.7 TB)
OS : 600 GB
Users: 800 GB
Projects 1: 1000 GB
Projects 2: 1000 GB

Drive 2: NVMe 2 (3.7 TB)
Instrs 1: 1200 GB
Instrs 2: 1200 GB
Instrs 3: 800 GB
Loops: 500 GB

Drive 3: SSD 1 (1.8 TB)
Aux: 500 GB
Restore: 500 GB



The storage amounts are fine by me, and will give me room for growth over a projected 8 year horizon - but I would love to have your thoughts on the placement of specifically the INSTRUMENTS partitions (ie, the sample data for my VSTis) as the most bandwidth usage will come from there. 

Let me explain further:

With all my previous systems (containing HDDs and SSDs), I have put each Instrument Drive (1, 2 and 3) on different PHYSICAL drives. This allows for more parallel bandwidth when streaming samples, and is an excellent optimization hack (FYI!).

However, this new system is a different story with the NVMe M.2 drive technology being (arguably) over 10 times faster than my older SATA 3 setup. So I am wondering:

1. Is the bandwidth of each NVMe drive so massive, that there is no way I could bottleneck the streaming, so I can just put all my Instruments / samples on the same drive
2. Or should I play it safe and still use the (arguably still un-antiquated) best practice of parallel streaming from different physical drives?

I will be running an AMD 7950x with 64Gb of DDR5 RAM. I have a robust backup system and am not concerned with RAID setups or drive life span.

Any thoughts appreciated - thanks!


----------



## gamma-ut (Nov 27, 2022)

Your bottleneck is probably going to be Kontakt.


----------



## TimRideout (Nov 27, 2022)

gamma-ut said:


> Your bottleneck is probably going to be Kontakt.


Thanks Gamma - that kind of issue is very much in flux and depends on many factors (including the CPU and DAW multithreading).

So, I would contend that "software-based" factors are very much a different issue, and essentially beyond my control - unlike "hardware-based" physical drive and partitioning setups, and best practices relating specifically to those issues.


----------



## T-LeffoH (Nov 27, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> Hello Wisest Ones;
> 
> I have just purchased a new computer and am in the setup phase. You know - the one where you re-think your entire setup and how to do it better from scratch
> 
> ...


There's the possibility to bottleneck the components of any system, but best practices are usually there for a reason, not necessarily because technology outdates their application.


----------



## easyrider (Nov 27, 2022)

A bizzare an unnecessary complex setup.😂


----------



## EanS (Nov 27, 2022)

Have you created partitions within the Disk? Or are you willing to?

Rather than the reserved OS space that automatically provides on a partition, I wouldn't partition a single disk that holds samples or anything. You'll be indeed telling Windows to read, write cache on 8 Drive devices (for instance) simultaneusly if you are loading from different instrument groups, and a long etc...

I might be outdated on that, but 1 Windows/OS dedicated Drive, unbloated as much as you can with your Programs, and the rest, just single clean units as a whistle with no virtual managed crap that will make you rely on Windows stability and then start to question if it isn't your daw or kontakt etc... Try to picture that asshole windows indexing each one of these running in the back trying to find paths to not a disk, 4 partioned disks (so disable indexing  )

For me partitioning is doom for failure. But I think I might be outdated on that, RAID I understand, it's all physical, no "stupid windows virtual machine let's see if we can be estable under any hardware config".


----------



## José Herring (Nov 27, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> Hello Wisest Ones;
> 
> I have just purchased a new computer and am in the setup phase. You know - the one where you re-think your entire setup and how to do it better from scratch
> 
> ...


I don't see any benefit in partitioning your harddrives this way.
I'd keep it real simple and just use the 1 2TB has your OS and project drive (perhaps you can do a partition for this) and the 2 4tb drives for sample storage.

There's no real need to do a separate partition for "loops" you can just make a folder for that.

NVMe drives are fast. I've not experience any bottle neck with the drives. 

That being said it isn't going to hurt you to partition out the drives in the manner you described, I just can't see the benefit.


----------



## Justin L. Franks (Nov 27, 2022)

Forget the partitions. Use the 2 TB drive for OS + programs + projects. Use the two 4 TB drives for everything else. Distribute your samples across both of those drives.


----------



## rgames (Nov 27, 2022)

Yeah I haven't seen any performance benefit in partitioning/separating drives since SSDs came on the scene. That approach is a holdover from the HDD days. As stated above, it doesn't hurt. But I doubt it helps.

FYI the only difference I've seen between SATA SSD and NVMe SSD is load times - maybe 10% - 15% reduction in template load times for NVMe. But once everything is loaded I haven't seen any difference in performance for DAW work. I do see a difference in performance for video editing but it's not huge.

PCs are so powerful these days that it's pretty hard to find tweaks that affect real-life DAW performance. As long as you don't have crappy drivers you can set it up pretty much bone stock, or not, and it'll perform just fine.

rgames


----------



## TimRideout (Nov 27, 2022)

EanS said:


> Have you created partitions within the Disk? Or are you willing to?
> 
> Rather than the reserved OS space that automatically provides on a partition, I wouldn't partition a single disk that holds samples or anything. You'll be indeed telling Windows to read, write cache on 8 Drive devices (for instance) simultaneusly if you are loading from different instrument groups, and a long etc...
> 
> ...


Thanks EanS - I will definitely be partitioning, as two of the drives are 4TB.

The OS will be installed on its own partition indeed, with "unbloated" programs.

I'm not aware of Windows 11 caring about "virtual managed crap" or "single clean units." And I'mm pretty sure Windows will be just fine to "find paths to... 4 partitioned disks.,"  

For me, partitioning is a better way to manage my different types of data (Libraries, Projects and Other) that are all different in terms of their needs (speed-wise, backup, workflow, network shares etc).


----------



## easyrider (Nov 27, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> Thanks EanS - I will definitely be partitioning, as two of the drives are 4TB.
> 
> The OS will be installed on its own partition indeed, with "unbloated" programs.
> 
> ...


Why do you want to manage loads of drive letters?


----------



## TimRideout (Nov 27, 2022)

José Herring said:


> I don't see any benefit in partitioning your harddrives this way.
> I'd keep it real simple and just use the 1 2TB has your OS and project drive (perhaps you can do a partition for this) and the 2 4tb drives for sample storage.
> 
> There's no real need to do a separate partition for "loops" you can just make a folder for that.
> ...


Thanks José - so you would recommend installing the Instruments / Samples on the fastest (NVMe) drives, as they would be doing the most streaming, correct? 

Theoretically, the OS should reside in RAM as should the VSTs - hence no need for streaming there. 

I think this is solid advice.


----------



## easyrider (Nov 27, 2022)

Filling your system drive up with sample data is a bad idea not just from a performance perspective but from a data management one.

The default install for developers is C but this is not because its the best directory to use.

Storing large amounts of data on C drive makes backups more complex and slow, just like storing data on your desktop makes loading times for windows slow.

There literally is no reason to store samples or document data on the system drive in 2022.

I have my C drive for windows and programs and thats it.

Samples are stored on multiple SSD's pooled together into one drive volume labelled X:

I use Stablebit drive pool

This means...Kontakt, Native access, Spitfire player, Orchestral Tools sine juts focus on one drive letter X:

Windows drive becomes corrupt? I don't care... I can format and reinstall windows from an image file and point eveyting to X: in seconds.

I can add SSD's to the pool in seconds and all the sample players are unaffected and X: just gets expanded.

Here is an example Drivepool X:







As said samples on Mine are stored by Vendor

Drivepool X:

Spitfire
Native Instruments
Audio Imperia

etc...

My pool currently is a mixture of 2 x 2TB SSD and 1 X 4 TB for a drive pool of 8TB

Now all you have to do in the future in mange one drive letter X for everything. You just ignore the other drives completely. You can even hide them in windows so you dont see them.

So my a new spitfire library you down load it to Drivepool X: Spitfire

Point Native Access to Drivepool X: Native Access

Point OT Sine to Drivepool X: Sine

etc....

Makes things so easy to manage as all your sample are now on one single volume called Drivepool X:

Backup are super easy as you dont need to remember directories any more and makes backing up super simple.

I backup my Drivepool to a server also running Drivepool






Start running out of space on the pool? No problem just install new SSD in PC add the drive to the existing drivepool and voila the drivepool expands in seconds.

Want to remove a drive from the pool? No problem just remove it as long as there is enough free space in the pool to migrate the data.

PC dies one day? No problem you can access the data from any computer wether it has drivepool installed or not.

I'm down to 705GB free on my Pool and looking to add another 4TB SSD come amazon prime sales time. I dont have to do anything with my samples or data. I just add the 4TB SSD to the pool and the pool expands without me having to faff with moving files etc.

Hope this helps.


----------



## easyrider (Nov 27, 2022)

To clarify:

Spitfire App Just looks for X: Spitfire

Sine just looks for X: Sine

Native Instruments just looks for X: Native Instruments

It complete negates the anything to do with missing samples...

Its a clean powerful way to manage your storage on windows.

And I really do wonder why people fanny about multiple drives on windows....

Say your windows machine dies and you have to reinstall windows...Native access can be back up running in seconds as no potential drive letters have changed.

D: has changed to E: for example and native instruments is throwing a tantrum cause it can't find samples.

Same with spitfire. You install the spitfire app point it to X: Spitfire and BOOM all your libraries are back online without fuss.


----------



## TimRideout (Nov 27, 2022)

rgames said:


> Yeah I haven't seen any performance benefit in partitioning/separating drives since SSDs came on the scene. That approach is a holdover from the HDD days. As stated above, it doesn't hurt. But I doubt it helps.
> 
> FYI the only difference I've seen between SATA SSD and NVMe SSD is load times - maybe 10% - 15% reduction in template load times for NVMe. But once everything is loaded I haven't seen any difference in performance for DAW work. I do see a difference in performance for video editing but it's not huge.
> 
> ...


Thanks RGames - partitioning my drives just helps me organize the data, really. Practically speaking, it also can help with network shares, backups, permissions, bandwidth etc. 

At least, that's been my experience - but... it is* possible that I am over-thinking and micro-managing my partitions and data. I will meditate on this - thanks for the perspective


----------



## TimRideout (Nov 27, 2022)

easyrider said:


> Filling your system drive up with sample data is a bad idea not just from a performance perspective but from a data management one.
> 
> The default install for developers is C but this is not because its the best directory to use.
> 
> ...


Thanks EasyRider - great thoughts, and interesting to see your data management!

Regarding the System drive - I absolutely agree that the best practise is to have Windows on it's own drive or partition! Makes it easy to restore or revert. I store nothing else on the Windows partition (C for me) except Windows.

My "User files" I store on my USERS drive (D for me). This drive is synced to a NAS and across multiple workstations.

I love the idea of a Storage Pool (like in my NAS) - although, I don't relish the idea of using a third party solution for that. I believe Windows 11 has a built-in solution. My only issue would be the structure of teh data (ie, if one drive of the pool fails, do I lose all data in the pool).

My best practise to work around storage pools is try to anticipate my data needs well in advance. I haven't had any problems with my last system (7 years old) so I hope to continue with my luck there!

But I do* like the idea of simplifying. My only issue would be backups - but I suppose instead of Backup Jobs by DRIVE (partition), they could be by FOLDER...


----------



## TimRideout (Nov 27, 2022)

easyrider said:


> To clarify:
> 
> Spitfire App Just looks for X: Spitfire
> 
> ...


Again, very interesting. Perhaps I could look at my data in terms of its ROLE or USAGE, instead of looking at where it should LIVE, and splitting that up. Instead, I could use Storage Pools to consolidate drive letters, and have my best practises revolve around that idea - similar to my NAS.

How about:

C: Operating System
D: User files (by User)
L: Libraries (by Vendor)
X: Aux (Backup, Temp, Restore etc)


----------



## easyrider (Nov 27, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> Is don't relish the idea of using a third party solution for that. I believe Windows 11 has a built-in solution. My only issue would be the structure of teh data (ie, if one drive of the pool fails, do I lose all data in the pool).


Christopher (Drashna) They guy behind Stablebit Drivepool used to work for Microsoft as a windows programmer. Support and programming is exceptional.

Drive Pool is not Raid, the data is not spanned…you can remove a drive from the pool plug it into another computer not running drive pool and read the data just like any other disk.

if one of the drive fails within the pool you don’t lose all the data in the pool.

You would just lose the data on the drive that failed. Just like it would be if the drive was on its own drive path.

I have run drive pool for years…on my Main Daw machine , my media server and backup server all without issue.

The software is amazing and makes storage and backups a breeze.


----------



## Markastellor (Nov 27, 2022)

Hi Tim, I used to partition everything about like you are planning to do. The problem I regularly ran into was partitions running out of room....even when I oh so carefully planned ahead and provided twice as much space as I thought I would ever need. At that point my carefully calculated plans would fall apart. You can adjust the partitions, of course, but what a hassle. This was especially true with sample libraries. As SSD's get bigger, the library producers create bigger libraries. I was looking at the Hans Zimmer Strings Library from Spitfire and it was something like 250 GB just for that one library. 

I just bought a new 8TB NVME drive as well as some new SATA drives. I sort things out now with folders instead of partitions. When one grows more than expected and one grows less than expected, I still have room on the drive.

We all want all the speed we can get, but it's really not needed for sample playback. Computers today are designed for video production which puts WAY more of a strain than audio. SATA Drives can still work for audio. I usually put my operating system on a really sturdy NVME drive, and I put sample libraries that may strain my system on another. But you can save a lot of money just by putting some on SATA drives. I typically have 50 to 60 tracks of virtual instruments playing in a song and sometimes more than 100. I haven't choked the system yet and I have a really early i9 processor...(about 5 years old).

In theory, writing hurts the SSD more that reading. So if you put all your sample libraries on one SSD then just leave it alone it should last for a very long time...though there are always random failures so you should always back up everything. As a standard practice, I fill a harddrive about 75% full, back it up a couple times a year and just leave it alone. If it does fail I can replace and restore it easily.


----------



## TimRideout (Nov 27, 2022)

easyrider said:


> Filling your system drive up with sample data is a bad idea not just from a performance perspective but from a data management one.
> 
> The default install for developers is C but this is not because its the best directory to use.
> 
> ...


I am looking into Stablebit DrivePool:



It truly seems brilliant. Incredibly well thought-out and forward-looking.

I especially like the fact that, if one drive fails, *only the files stored on that drive are affected. This is huge, compared to Windows Storage Spaces.

Have you seen good performance using this system, EasyRider?


----------



## easyrider (Nov 27, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> I am looing into Stablebit DrivePool:
> 
> It truly seems brilliant. Incredibly well thought-out and forward-looking. I especially like the fact that, if one drive fails, *only the files stored on that drive are affected. This is huge, compared to Windows Storage Spaces.
> 
> Have you seen good performance using this system, EasyRider?



The overhead is non existent. And performance has been no different than using single drives. Kontakt and Spitfire just assume the pool is one disk.

works like a dream.


----------



## easyrider (Nov 27, 2022)

I’ve just added another 4tb disk to my pool…Took seconds and the drive pool automatically balanced itself.


----------



## rgames (Nov 27, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> Thanks RGames - partitioning my drives just helps me organize the data, really. Practically speaking, it also can help with network shares, backups, permissions, bandwidth etc.
> 
> At least, that's been my experience - but... it is* possible that I am over-thinking and micro-managing my partitions and data. I will meditate on this - thanks for the perspective


Yeah I'm with you on the organization part - I do the same. I've had three sample drives forever so even though I can get them on two drives these days I still partition them out into three. Likewise with drives for music projects, video projects, scratch, etc. I like having drives for each rather than folders, I think because old habits die hard...


----------



## TimRideout (Nov 27, 2022)

rgames said:


> Yeah I'm with you on the organization part - I do the same. I've had three sample drives forever so even though I can get them on two drives these days I still partition them out into three. Likewise with drives for music projects, video projects, scratch, etc. I like having drives for each rather than folders, I think because old habits die hard...


I totally understand that - however, I am *very* impressed with DrivePool. I can see the similarity in how my NAS approaches storage: your DRIVE is no longer a unit of measurement at the file system level. It's more like ... a piece of hardware that contributes to a STORAGE POOL. This pool is easily added to, and you can manage "partitions" if you like, or create Folders instead (akin to SHARES on a NAS).

I can really see the value in simplifying - the pooled storage idea is brilliant, especially if it lays on TOP of Windows (ie, there is no danger of losing data as in a STRIPED or SPANNED software RAID).

Thanks to @easyrider for bringing DrivePool to my attention!


----------



## cloudbuster (Nov 27, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> I will have three drives: 2X NVMe 4TB and 1X SSD 2TB


That's what most people here just bought only for this years's freebies


----------



## Stevie (Nov 27, 2022)

easyrider said:


> I’ve just added another 4tb disk to my pool…Took seconds and the drive pool automatically balanced itself.


What I would like to know (haven’t found info on that):
does Drivepool first fill the other (empty) drives to 50% before it goes beyond?


----------



## easyrider (Nov 27, 2022)

Stevie said:


> What I would like to know (haven’t found info on that):
> does Drivepool first fill the other (empty) drives to 50% before it goes beyond?


I leave mine on default.

But you can choose when the Pool balances etc..







StableBit - The home of StableBit CloudDrive, StableBit DrivePool and the StableBit Scanner







stablebit.com


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 27, 2022)

easyrider said:


> Filling your system drive up with sample data is a bad idea not just from a performance perspective but from a data management one.


Well, if your system drive is large - as, say, the 4TB one in my Mac Studio is - then why not?

In any case, my answer to the original question is do whatever makes it easiest for you to find stuff and don't worry about phantom bottlenecks that don't exist.

For me the solution is not to phaff with partitions. I used to do that years ago, but then decided it just added unnecessary complexity.


----------



## easyrider (Nov 27, 2022)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Well, if your system drive is large - as, say, the 4TB one in my Mac Studio is - then why not?


I just like the insurance if Sys Fails or becomes corrupt. My samples and Data are not affected.

The smaller the Sys drive the quicker the backups are etc....


----------



## José Herring (Nov 27, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> Thanks José - so you would recommend installing the Instruments / Samples on the fastest (NVMe) drives, as they would be doing the most streaming, correct?
> 
> Theoretically, the OS should reside in RAM as should the VSTs - hence no need for streaming there.
> 
> I think this is solid advice.



Imo ever since I switched to decent NVMe I have no idea if they are the "fastest" but I do know they are fast enough. I never worry about them. I also store samples on external SSD's and even they are fast enough for streaming. 
As I habit like @easyrider mentioned, I tend not to put sample streaming on the same drives as my OS. I figure that the OS like you said will sit in RAM and will be doing a lot of read/write. I've heard that the NVMe's and SSD's only have so many writes on them before they go bad. That may be years or it may be centuries, don't know. But, I do know that I want to separate out drive that will be doing more writing on them from the ones that will be primarily "read" type use like sample streaming.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 27, 2022)

easyrider said:


> I just like the insurance if Sys Fails or becomes corrupt. My samples and Data are not affected.
> 
> The smaller the Sys drive the quicker the backups are etc....


If the system drive on a modern Mac goes, you need another Mac.

It won’t, because I told it not to.


----------



## Stevie (Nov 28, 2022)

easyrider said:


> I leave mine on default.
> 
> But you can choose when the Pool balances etc..
> 
> ...


Thing is, SSDs become slower, when they reach 50+ %, that's why I tend to manually spread libraries across my drives. But only having ONE drive letter is really appealing 🤔

But I'm a but worred that Drivepool will constantly move the samples around when balancing is activated.


----------



## ZeroZero (Nov 28, 2022)

Another vote for not partitioning. I would simply by a NMVE M.2 drive of 1TB for the system drive and leave it well alone. Do you know that when a nmve M.2 drive nears capacity it slows. As for partioning, why not simply use folders? If at a later stage you want to move something, you can do this with a folder, doing this with a partition is all sorts of problems. I think when two partitions are addressed on the same disk, its the same as addressing two folders/locations


----------



## ZeroZero (Nov 28, 2022)

Another thing to consider is where your NMVE drives are allocated on the mobo. The manual might have things to say about fastest spot. If the are on a card this might be best nearest the CPU. If your doing graphics too the Graphics card might want that slot, here I took out my graphics card and simply run off the on board graphics card. It's fine for my purposes - music and the occasional utube watch. I don't do games.


----------



## easyrider (Nov 28, 2022)

Stevie said:


> Thing is, SSDs become slower, when they reach 50+ %, that's why I tend to manually spread libraries across my drives. But only having ONE drive letter is really appealing 🤔
> 
> But I'm a but worred that Drivepool will constantly move the samples around when balancing is activated.


It won’t


----------



## Stevie (Nov 28, 2022)

Ah, screw it, I just purchased Drivepool and I'm happily moving 16 TBs around


----------



## easyrider (Nov 28, 2022)

Stevie said:


> Ah, screw it, I just purchased Drivepool and I'm happily moving 16 TBs around


Make sure to give your pool a high letter like x: or z: 

this way it doesn’t interfere with external drives you might plugin in…


----------



## Stevie (Nov 28, 2022)

How would you go about, when removing a smaller drive and replacing it with a bigger one (putting the content of the smaller one automatically to the bigger one), is there a workflow for that?


----------



## easyrider (Nov 28, 2022)

Stevie said:


> How would you go about, when removing a smaller drive and replacing it with a bigger one (putting the content of the smaller one automatically to the bigger one), is there a workflow for that?


Have you created the pool yet?


----------



## Stevie (Nov 28, 2022)

Yes, but still ongoing! This is rather a question for future reference, when I might get rid of a 2TB and swap it for a 4TB.


----------



## easyrider (Nov 28, 2022)

Stevie said:


> Yes, but still ongoing! This is rather a question for future reference, when I might get rid of a 2TB and swap it for a 4TB.


You just remove it from the pool making sure you have enough space for the data off the drive to moved to the pool..

or alternatively add the larger drive to the pool then remove the old one.






StableBit - The home of StableBit CloudDrive, StableBit DrivePool and the StableBit Scanner







stablebit.com


----------



## Stevie (Nov 28, 2022)

But this will not automatically copy the data from 2TB to the 4TB one, or will it?


----------



## easyrider (Nov 28, 2022)

Stevie said:


> But this will not automatically copy the data from 2TB to the 4TB one, or will it?


When a drive is removed from the pool, StableBit DrivePool will move all of the unprotected pooled files stored on it onto a different drive that's part of the pool.

StableBit DrivePool will also regenerate every protected file part that is on the disk being removed (unless *Duplicate files later* was selected).

Then, the virtual pool drive shrinks in capacity by the size of the drive that was removed.


----------



## Stevie (Nov 28, 2022)

Ahh, gotcha! That was the missing link. Once a drive is part of the pool and removed, then the "removed" data will be moved. Awesome, thanks!


----------



## TimRideout (Nov 30, 2022)

This is brilliant - exactly how my QNAP server works!


----------



## Stevie (Nov 30, 2022)

easyrider said:


> When a drive is removed from the pool, StableBit DrivePool will move all of the unprotected pooled files stored on it onto a different drive that's part of the pool.
> 
> StableBit DrivePool will also regenerate every protected file part that is on the disk being removed (unless *Duplicate files later* was selected).
> 
> Then, the virtual pool drive shrinks in capacity by the size of the drive that was removed.


I have no idea if this is related (I really hope not), but opening Kontakt seems to take a bit longer than before. Talking about the GUI only here. Loading samples seems to be at the same speed.
Can you say how fast your GUI opens, when you clicked on it?


----------



## easyrider (Nov 30, 2022)

Stevie said:


> I have no idea if this is related (I really hope not), but opening Kontakt seems to take a bit longer than before. Talking about the GUI only here. Loading samples seems to be at the same speed.
> Can you say how fast your GUI opens, when you clicked on it?


No issues with Kontakt here….what did you change?


----------



## Stevie (Nov 30, 2022)

Actually nothing, I only moved all my libs into the drivepool. But something tells me, that the issue comes from something else...


----------



## easyrider (Nov 30, 2022)

Stevie said:


> Actually nothing, I only moved all my libs into the drivepool. But something tells me, that the issue comes from something else...


Did you have quick-load enabled pointing to the old directories in Kontakt?


----------



## Stevie (Nov 30, 2022)

Actually nothing with the directories changed, I assigned the same drive letter to the drivepool drive than I used before. Meaning: everything is in place.
I also fixed some broken links in the quick load directory. But that didn't do much, unfortunately.


----------



## TimRideout (Dec 3, 2022)

easyrider said:


> To clarify:
> 
> Spitfire App Just looks for X: Spitfire
> 
> ...


Question for you @easyrider: why do you use drive letter (X)?

I would tend to use the logic: I know my System Drive is going to be (C) - and the next most important data is my files - so my Drivepool could be (D). All other drive letter (if and when necessary) would come after that.

Thoughts?


----------



## easyrider (Dec 3, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> Question for you @easyrider: why do you use drive letter (X)?
> 
> I would tend to use the logic: I know my System Drive is going to be (C) - and the next most important data is my files - so my Drivepool could be (D). All other drive letter (if and when necessary) would come after that.
> 
> Thoughts?


So the pool doesn’t interfere with usb drives etc… it’s way down on the list.



Use the drop-down menu to assign a new drive letter.*Quick tip:* To avoid the system trying to assign the same letter to another drive, it's a good idea to start adding letters in backward order. For instance, instead of using D, E or F, it better to start with Z, Y or X when assigning a new letter.









How to assign permanent letters to drives on Windows 10


You can assign drive letters manually, and in this guide, we show you how on Windows 10.




www.windowscentral.com


----------



## TimRideout (Dec 3, 2022)

easyrider said:


> So the pool doesn’t interfere with usb drives etc… it’s way down on the list.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I understand...

Are you saying that, if I plug in a USB drive, that the letter could take precedence of the DrivePool assigned letter? Forgive my ignorance, but how does DrivePool manage its drive letters versus Windows?

PS - I dont use permanent external drives on my system


----------



## easyrider (Dec 3, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> I'm not sure I understand...
> 
> Are you saying that, if I plug in a USB drive, that the letter could take precedence of the DrivePool assigned letter? Forgive my ignorance, but how does DrivePool manage its drive letters versus Windows?
> 
> PS - I dont use permanent external drives on my system


Drivepool doesn’t manage drive letters….windows does.

Assigning a high drive letter like X: for the pool is best practice.

You're getting bogged down by minutia and overthinking it.

C: For windows

X Y or Z for drivepool

thats it.

Makes things cleaner when adding new drives to the pool.


----------



## TimRideout (Dec 4, 2022)

Thanks @easyrider,

Switching to a pooled solution is a fundamental change in my data management, across several systems. My "overthinking" will hopefully allow me to get it right the first time. If I am relocating my sample, library and data paths, that's something I'd prefer to only do once.

That being said, I don't see the benefit of choosing a "higher letter" - certainly if I can assign letters manually in Drive Manager. 

As I understand it, you can also hide individual drives so you only see the pooled drive letter in Windows - I assume this is what most people would want. But is there an advantage to keeping those drive letters? Is this the reason why you choose a higher letter?


----------



## easyrider (Dec 4, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> Thanks @easyrider,
> 
> Switching to a pooled solution is a fundamental change in my data management, across several systems. My "overthinking" will hopefully allow me to get it right the first time. If I am relocating my sample, library and data paths, that's something I'd prefer to only do once.
> 
> ...


Keep Your Drivepool Letter high…

XYZ

👍


----------



## TimRideout (Dec 4, 2022)

easyrider said:


> Keep Your Drivepool Letter high…
> 
> XYZ
> 
> 👍


Thanks @easyrider.

Do you have specific reasons why you recommend this protocol?


----------



## easyrider (Dec 4, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> Thanks @easyrider.
> 
> Do you have specific reasons why you recommend this protocol?


Yep…

I linked you to an explanation above.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 4, 2022)

Another option is remove the drive letters completely…as drivepool doesn’t “need” a drive letter to function.

And mount the drives instead.






StableBit DrivePool Q4822624 - Covecube - Wiki







wiki.covecube.com


----------



## Petter Rong (Dec 4, 2022)

easyrider said:


> Filling your system drive up with sample data is a bad idea not just from a performance perspective but from a data management one.
> 
> The default install for developers is C but this is not because its the best directory to use.
> 
> ...


Mac alternative?


----------



## easyrider (Dec 4, 2022)

Petter Rong said:


> Mac alternative?


No idea….sorry…


----------



## TimRideout (Dec 4, 2022)

easyrider said:


> Yep…
> 
> I linked you to an explanation above.


I'm sorry @easyrider - I'm not following; could you re-link / re-quote the explanation? 

Thanks!


----------



## easyrider (Dec 4, 2022)

Post 52


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 4, 2022)

Petter Rong said:


> Mac alternative?


The Mac alternative is to use your system drive for samples, but obviously to put them where you can find them. And move them out of the Applications folder if Native Access puts them there, because they won’t get backed up if you’re using cloud backup. 

There’s nothing wrong with putting them in the system drive in a current Mac. It’s how they’re designed - with a large, very fast, very expensive internal drive. It used to be a good idea to use external storage for samples, but things have changed.


----------



## TimRideout (Dec 5, 2022)

easyrider said:


> Post 52


Thanks @easyrider. I have read post 52, which says in a nutshell, to choose a higher drive letter "So the pool doesn’t interfere with usb drives etc… it’s way down on the list."

I do understand that post. I am still trying to see the benefit in my use case: if I can manage USB drive letters manually, if those drive letters persist (which they do) and if I don't plug in new drives very often, I don't see the purpose behind choosing a higher letter in the Drive list. 

As I stated before, I can actually see a case for the opposite - having a *lower* drive number so that drive D (for example) is reserved for your One Big Pool (which is what we're advocating for, rather than multiple partitions). Then, any USB drives added after will take letters *after* your reserved D drive letter.

Am I not understanding something? Missing a fundamental principle? Or are these just choices that you personally have made that work best with your setup?


----------



## easyrider (Dec 5, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> Thanks @easyrider. I have read post 52, which says in a nutshell, to choose a higher drive letter "So the pool doesn’t interfere with usb drives etc… it’s way down on the list."
> 
> I do understand that post. I am still trying to see the benefit in my use case: if I can manage USB drive letters manually, if those drive letters persist (which they do) and if I don't plug in new drives very often, I don't see the purpose behind choosing a higher letter in the Drive list.
> 
> ...


I don’t know why you’re getting so hung up on a drive letter…?

Use D: 

if it makes you feel better…😂

I use a high letter X: as it negates any possible issues that could arise adding new drives.

I use X across all machines and the added advantage it’s easy to remember when setting up backups etc…


----------



## TimRideout (Dec 5, 2022)

easyrider said:


> I don’t know why you’re getting so hung up on a drive letter…?
> 
> Use D:
> 
> ...


Arguably, one of the most important conventions to establish on a Windows machine is (are) the drive letter(s). When you change the drive letter, you can "break" things that use the path of that drive - for example, sample paths, VSTs, DAW settings etc.

So there are many reasons why a studio would "get hung up on a drive letter," or, as I prefer to call it, "implement a standard practice across multiple workstations, NAS machines and user profiles."

This thread is to understand and share users' setups and use cases, and specifically the details - including the reasons behind best practices. Thank you for sharing yours


----------



## easyrider (Dec 5, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> Arguably, one of the most important conventions to establish on a Windows machine is (are) the drive letter(s). When you change the drive letter, you can "break" things that use the path of that drive - for example, sample paths, VSTs, DAW settings etc.
> 
> So there are many reasons why a studio would "get hung up on a drive letter," or, as I prefer to call it, "implement a standard practice across multiple workstations, NAS machines and user profiles."
> 
> This thread is to understand and share users' setups and use cases, and specifically the details - including the reasons behind best practices. Thank you for sharing yours


Like I said, I use X: for all the reasons I have stated and your post just reiterates my reasoning.

If building a new pool from scratch there is no reason whatsoever to Use D:

If there is then tell me….I’m all ears…


----------



## TimRideout (Dec 5, 2022)

easyrider said:


> Like I said, I use X: for all the reasons I have stated and your post just reiterates my reasoning.
> 
> If building a new pool from scratch there is no reason whatsoever to Use D:
> 
> If there is then tell me….I’m all ears…


I think the discussion has exhausted itself and come to its logical conclusion. Thanks again for sharing your setup!


----------



## easyrider (Dec 5, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> I think the discussion has exhausted itself and come to its logical conclusion. Thanks again for sharing your setup!


No worries, I hope Drivepool improves your PC user experience. I know myself I couldn't be without it!


----------



## TimRideout (Dec 5, 2022)

Here's another (3!) Drive Pool question(s): 

1) what are the drawbacks of pooling?
2) Should I use it if I already have a robust backup/ sync / RAID system
3) should I use it if I will be upgrading to 8X the storage space I require presently (currently using 1TB of Projects storage on a 2TB drive - soon to be replaced by a 8TB drive)


----------



## Petter Rong (Dec 7, 2022)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> The Mac alternative is to use your system drive for samples, but obviously to put them where you can find them. And move them out of the Applications folder if Native Access puts them there, because they won’t get backed up if you’re using cloud backup.
> 
> There’s nothing wrong with putting them in the system drive in a current Mac. It’s how they’re designed - with a large, very fast, very expensive internal drive. It used to be a good idea to use external storage for samples, but things have changed.


I was asking about a Mac alternative for the Windows software that treats several drives as one pool when referring to files. Not for an alternative for sample storage. I have a 1TB drive on my Mac, so my 3TB of samples is not going to fit unfortunately


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 7, 2022)

Petter Rong said:


> I was asking about a Mac alternative for the Windows software that treats several drives as one pool when referring to files. Not for an alternative for sample storage. I have a 1TB drive on my Mac, so my 3TB of samples is not going to fit unfortunately


You can create a concatenated drive, aka "drive spanning," meaning that several drives appear to the OS as one big one (although they all take on the size of the smallest one in the array). It's not RAID but it's very similar.

Having done that for a while, I wouldn't recommend it, however. I forget the details, but some maintenance software got confused (maybe backup software? I really don't remember) and I got tired of living dangerously.






Overview of creating disk sets using Disk Utility on Mac


Use Disk Utility on your Mac to create a Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) set, multiple disks that work as one disk.



support.apple.com


----------



## Petter Rong (Dec 7, 2022)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> You can create a concatenated drive, aka "drive spanning," meaning that several drives appear to the OS as one big one (although they all take on the size of the smallest one in the array). It's not RAID but it's very similar.
> 
> Having done that for a while, I wouldn't recommend it, however. I forget the details, but some maintenance software got confused (maybe backup software? I really don't remember) and I got tired of living dangerously.
> 
> ...


This sounds very different than what the Drivepool software does. Sounds more like a RAID solution, which is definitely not what I'm after. Thanks for the tip though.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 7, 2022)

Petter Rong said:


> This sounds very different than what the Drivepool software does. Sounds more like a RAID solution, which is definitely not what I'm after. Thanks for the tip though.


It does exactly what Drivepool does: combine several drives to look like one. The R in RAID means "redundant," and this is different.

Again, I wouldn't recommend doing it. I also wouldn't recommend using Drivepool (even though I've never tried it), nor would I personally want to pfaff with trying to swap drives between Windows and macOS. They use different formats, and the time and money you spend on this would be better spent on a large drive.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 7, 2022)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I also wouldn't recommend using Drivepool (even though I've never tried it)



Why?

Do you even know how drive pool works?

Drive pool is not drive spanning. Data is not shared across drives.

The drives data can be accessed from any Computer running NTFS.

I would suggest you do some more research on drivepool, and actually use it before you post blanket assumptions of software on the internet....

Unless of course you can give me reason why you wouldn't recommend it based on facts not conjecture.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 7, 2022)

easyrider said:


> Why?
> 
> Do you even know how drive pool works?
> 
> Drive pool is not drive spanning. Data is not shared across drives.


The first thing on their home page:









easyrider said:


> The drives data can be accessed from any Computer running NTFS.



Macs now use APFS. Sharing sample drives between Mac and Windows... nein danke.



easyrider said:


> I would suggest you do some more research on drivepool, and actually use it before you post blanket assumptions of software on the internet....
> 
> Unless of course you can give me reason why you wouldn't recommend it based on facts not conjecture.


The verified fact is that I wouldn't recommend what I don't recommend for the reason I said: it turned out to be a PITA. Another verified fact is that an external 2TB SSD is now what, $130? How much is that software?

If it works for you then of course I'm happy, but to me this seems like the exact kind of thing that causes unscheduled visits to a proctologist next time you change anything in your system.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 7, 2022)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> The first thing on their home page:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The data is not shared across drives…



Nick Batzdorf said:


> The verified fact is that I wouldn't recommend what I don't recommend for the reason I said: it turned out to be a PITA. Another verified fact is that an external 2TB SSD is now what, $130? How much is that software?


I’m failing to see your point?

You have never used drivepool and it’s nothing like you what you used on any level.


Nick Batzdorf said:


> If it works for you then of course I'm happy, but to me this seems like the exact kind of thing that causes unscheduled visits to a proctologist next time you change anything in your system.


I’ve run drivepool for years on my DAW machine and all my servers…I have changed many things on the systems even complete motherboard cpu and ram changes….

Nothing happened….

You post is based on stuff you have created in you own head that doesn’t exist!

I think one needs to actually use software to evaluate it.


----------



## Petter Rong (Dec 7, 2022)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> It does exactly what Drivepool does: combine several drives to look like one. The R in RAID means "redundant," and this is different.


You linked directly to an Apple support page explaining how to set up RAID 0, 1 and JBOD, which regardless of the redundancy directly combines disks, which requires reformatting not virtually assigning them like I understand Drivepool does. That's not what I'm looking for.


Nick Batzdorf said:


> nor would I personally want to pfaff with trying to swap drives between Windows and macOS. They use different formats, and the time and money you spend on this would be better spent on a large drive.


I'm not sure where you got the idea from that I'm trying to combine drives between Windows and macOS, but I'm not. I'm just looking for a quick and easy solution for making any disks I want to be part of a larger "virtual JBOD" so that I can refer everything to the same place. Like Drivepool seems to do. Actually just picked up a 4TB, so space isn't an issue externally, just internally.


Nick Batzdorf said:


> Another verified fact is that an external 2TB SSD is now what, $130? How much is that software?


And that 4TB cost me about $525 total, but mostly because import and shipping is crazy expensive and the Norwegian krone is not holding up great to the dollar at the moment (still saved about $90), so say about 400$, where the comparable 4TB external drives would be about the same or higher (or slightly lower quality internal SSDs after buying a decent enclosure). But I have several cheaper 2TB disks that I have different libraries, files, projects etc. on that I would like to have as a single concentrated virtual disk. I don't like having it all on different drives. That's all.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 7, 2022)

Petter Rong said:


> You linked directly to an Apple support page explaining how to set up RAID 0, 1 and JBOD, which regardless of the redundancy directly combines disks, which requires reformatting not virtually assigning them like I understand Drivepool does. That's not what I'm looking for.
> 
> I'm not sure where you got the idea from that I'm trying to combine drives between Windows and macOS, but I'm not. I'm just looking for a quick and easy solution for making any disks I want to be part of a larger "virtual JBOD" so that I can refer everything to the same place. Like Drivepool seems to do. Actually just picked up a 4TB, so space isn't an issue externally, just internally.
> 
> And that 4TB cost me about $525 total, but mostly because import and shipping is crazy expensive and the Norwegian krone is not holding up great to the dollar at the moment (still saved about $90), so say about 400$, where the comparable 4TB external drives would be about the same or higher (or slightly lower quality internal SSDs after buying a decent enclosure). But I have several cheaper 2TB disks that I have different libraries, files, projects etc. on that I would like to have as a single concentrated virtual disk. I don't like having it all on different drives. That's all.


If you are on windows...Check Drive pool out..


----------



## kitekrazy (Dec 7, 2022)

easyrider said:


> A bizzare an unnecessary complex setup.😂


People still try to make this a rocket science.
I can't even remember the last time I partitioned a drive. Folders work just as well.
Some people have this habit of putting VSTs on a separate drive. DLLs don't take up space but it's usually the folders that hold presets or whatever in other parts of a system. I'm not referring to sample libraries.


----------



## colony nofi (Dec 7, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> Hello Wisest Ones;
> 
> I have just purchased a new computer and am in the setup phase. You know - the one where you re-think your entire setup and how to do it better from scratch
> 
> ...


Ok. I'm going back to your original post.

My point of reference : We run multiple workstations (music composition and sound post) in a facility structure. So, YMMV, but I use a lot of the facility thinking within my own personal composition setup.

Projects first. These need the least bandwidth, and arguably are the most important part of your setup from the point of view of backups. We now run ALL projects off a 10GBE NAS. The NAS takes care of both snapshot backups (daily) as well as running a full redundant secondary NAS which mirrors both the storage pool AND the snapshot pool. Finally, snapshots are backed up to our own private cloud. 

At home, I am now starting to run my projects off a similar NAS, and I back that up internally to snapshots, then mirror that all on the backup NAS at the studios, which also goes to the (private) cloud.

While I love FreeNAS/TrueNAS, we run QNAP Hero with lots of precautions to mitigate against hacks (which have been a problem for others not running firewalls / exposing their NAS to the wider web.) Our particular approach is to run PfSense on its own hardware, and for those connecting to our system to use a similar approach. Similar thinking to : https://www.servethehome.com/inexpe...firewall-box-review-intel-j4125-i225-pfsense/

You don't need to worry about partitions etc for projects and the like. I understand the thinking behind this from 10+ years ago (and why so many folk did it) but it is likely needlessly overcomplicating things.

As for the NAS, choose a file system that you know will be able to be opened on new hardware in the future. We are using ZFS. 

1GBE is completely fine (but not speedy) for a single user on a single nas. However, you will notice slower save times compared to locally. We use 10GBE (and a solid state based storage pool) and its superb for speed, and has absolutely no trouble running multiple studios with large sessions all at the same time. For home use, I'd look at inexpensive 2.5GBE.

So why do I say this? Well, a NAS is just more robust than connected storage or internal storage. Its designed so that all backups happen whatever computer is connected to it. Change your computer, you don't need to set anything up. Just connect to the network. You can then also control things like outside connection (if you want access to your data remotely etc). Management of the data is super easy, and you can also protect the data if needed (more important in a multi-user environment)

It also makes setting up redundancy within the pools simple. Redundancy doesn't equal backup. It just means you don't need to stop working when a drive fails. Zero downtime is the key when you have a delivery for a netflix show that is mixing tomorow!

Then samples.

I've written on here multiple times that I use single large NVME drives these days. PCIE Gen3 8TB drives are awesome for samples. I use an external thunderbolt system, but internal is cool too. The way I see it is - sure, I'd like more space, but this is enough for the next few years, and by then I'll be able to get a single 16TB drive. Indeed, I have a single 15TB U.2 drive sitting next to me right now for some other tests which would actually make an AMAZING sample drive with the right setup. Way too expensive for most composition purposes (but worth it for other data purposes)

And if you want to gradually expand a single sample volume (which I recommend rather than spreading samples over multiple drives etc), then look into disk spanning / amalgamation software for sure. Some of it is amazing. Look into things that use file systems that are modern AND well supported. 

These days, while it is a PAIN to rebuild sample libraries from scratch, it also isn't nearly as hard as it used to be. Indeed, I'm about to embark on doing exactly that for my Mac Studio system. With Kontakt 7, I'm going to organise things differently to how I've done it in the past. Thats just my OCD kicking in, and completely unnecessary, and more a symptom of not having ideas for a theatre score that I really need to get moving on....

Modern SSD's - be they SATAIII, NVME, U.2 or the like are all amazing for samples. I doubt anyone would see any sort of bottle neck even running a SATA III based SSD system. But if you go to NVME, I don't see a time in the next little while where any new advances (other than storage capacity on single drives) which will mean you need to change your system / upgrade it.

I have run sessions with 1000's of voices at the same time. We run internal tests for qualifying systems in our studios - using our own custom kontakt sample libs. We have never got close to the limits of NVME drives under ANY stress test. All the bottle necks are way back down the line with regards to single core (zero core) needs of real time audio systems. Old film mixes used to run off multiple computers. Many places still do that. However, even the largest hollywood film could stream off a single drive no stress these days. Most have moved to NAS based storage which is only 10GBE. Thats not as fast as ANY NVME (and caps out at about 2 parallel SATA III SSD's)

Backup for samples doesn't need to be as robust as projects, as most of the time its just a matter of waiting for new downloads. I keep archives of all downloads here locally on the network to speed things up, but I don't (rightly or wrongly) keep a full backup of my sample drive any longer I have 2 complete computer systems I compose from, each with their own sample drive. Laptop has 8TB internal NVME and Mac Studio uses the 8TB NVME drive in an enclosure. I just carry the external NVME drive with me as a backup when travelling with the laptop. This backup does NOT work for some non-kontakt libs though. Thus having archives of the installers close enough (and I can access them remotely if for some reason I can't re-download from a sample company! Would I like a better solution? Sure! But the complexity is already enough, and I've weighed up the risks)

Anyway. There's my 2c. I'm getting back to building my new sample drive and hopefully making some noise.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 7, 2022)

Petter Rong said:


> You linked directly to an Apple support page explaining how to set up RAID 0, 1 and JBOD


Scroll down to concatenated disk set. Not sure why they call it JBOD, because that's the default (meaning that if you connect a bunch of drives to your computer, they're automatically seen as just a bunch of drives).



Petter Rong said:


> 'm not sure where you got the idea from that I'm trying to combine drives between Windows and macOS, but I'm not. I'm just looking for a quick and easy solution for making any disks I want to be part of a larger "virtual JBOD" so that I can refer everything to the same place. Like Drivepool seems to do. Actually just picked up a 4TB, so space isn't an issue externally, just internally.


Okay, never mind then. Maybe I'm confusing this with another thread, or another post in which someone asked for the same thing on Mac.



easyrider said:


> I’m failing to see your point?
> 
> You have never used drivepool and it’s nothing like you what you used on any level.


I have no problem with you doing whatever works for you.

My point is simply this: if you use software that does stuff behind the OS' back, you're asking for trouble next time you change anything - based on my experience. The computer is very likely to get confused.

I'm not sure why you find it so annoying that I'd say that!


----------



## easyrider (Dec 7, 2022)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Scroll down to concatenated disk set. Not sure why they call it JBOD, because that's the default (meaning that if you connect a bunch of drives to your computer, they're automatically seen as just a bunch of drives).
> 
> 
> Okay, never mind then. Maybe I'm confusing this with another thread, or another post in which someone asked for the same thing on Mac.
> ...


Drivepool works at kernel level so again your post is nonsense.

I’m annoyed as you’re posting disinformation.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 7, 2022)

easyrider said:


> Drivepool works at kernel level so again your post is nonsense.


The kernel level is at the very root of the OS, I think?

What happens when you need to update to the next OS version? Does anyone know?

Is that just being paranoid, or is it a rational fear? I admit that both are possible. 




easyrider said:


> I’m annoyed as you’re posting disinformation.


No, I'm posting misinformation!

Disinformation implies that it's deliberate misdirection propaganda.

(Sometimes I can't help being an ass.  )

But it's information that my *opinion*... well, you know my opinion. Files and folders seem like a perfectly good system to me.

Anyway, I still love you whether or not we agree about this historically important matter.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 8, 2022)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> The kernel level is at the very root of the OS, I think?
> 
> What happens when you need to update to the next OS version? Does anyone know?
> 
> ...


Update of os makes no difference

You could reformat your os, install drivepool, connect the drives from the previous windows build and the pool would be automatically created.

Do some research on how Drive pool works first before creating problems that do not exist!


----------



## TimRideout (Dec 12, 2022)

colony nofi said:


> Ok. I'm going back to your original post.
> 
> My point of reference : We run multiple workstations (music composition and sound post) in a facility structure. So, YMMV, but I use a lot of the facility thinking within my own personal composition setup.
> 
> ...


Wow - @colony nofi - this is great information, and very similar to my setup, to which a NAS is also integral. We use it primarily with Qsync, to make sure files are synced locally to all respective workstations (including a mobile laptop). All installations and files are mirrored, and that works incredibly well. Of course, local snapshots and remote backup are part of the strategy as well.

I also have a similar current take now on partitions (nay) versus folders (yea) versus drive pooling (maybe eventually, but not needed for years to come). Currently, I have 8Xd my storage from SATA 3 to NVMe, so I figure I am ok for 5 yrs+, given my past growth.

Thanks so much for the in-depth thoughts!


----------



## TimRideout (Dec 12, 2022)

easyrider said:


> Update of os makes no difference
> 
> You could reformat your os, install drivepool, connect the drives from the previous windows build and the pool would be automatically created.
> 
> Do some research on how Drive pool works first before creating problems that do not exist!


I was skeptical of DrivePool as well - but after my own research into it, its feature set and user reviews, it looks *extremely* robust, well-thought out and forward thinking. Although I don't think I have a current need for it, I will be testing it out on my home system.


----------



## colony nofi (Dec 13, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> Wow - @colony nofi - this is great information, and very similar to my setup, to which a NAS is also integral. We use it primarily with Qsync, to make sure files are synced locally to all respective workstations (including a mobile laptop). All installations and files are mirrored, and that works incredibly well. Of course, local snapshots and remote backup are part of the strategy as well.
> 
> I also have a similar current take now on partitions (nay) versus folders (yea) versus drive pooling (maybe eventually, but not needed for years to come). Currently, I have 8Xd my storage from SATA 3 to NVMe, so I figure I am ok for 5 yrs+, given my past growth.
> 
> Thanks so much for the in-depth thoughts!


So on Qsync
Its interesting that you use it for workstations - as our tests showed much less risk in just running off the server itself. No multiple copies. Just what ever is on the server. And the server handles it extremely well. 

Qsync can be good for a shared "documents" folder for a company / group of people. We use dropbox for that for legacy reasons. Actually, your mention of qsync has me thinking I'll look at this more closely again. I like having ALL our data in one place.
(my dropbox IS backed up to the NAS - this is extremely inefficient - I know!)

Ie, anyone who wants to open a project duplicates the project file, renames it according to our system, and that project is labelled to show others that it is being edited. We have an AppleScript that handles that all fairly seamlessly.

For anyone interested - this is post pro related, but there's ideas in here for collaborative composition in Longford as well.

We are also developing a workflow where there is one master project, and only "sections" are copied out to an editor. Let me try explain.
Old school long form editing means you have dialog, atmos, sfx, music edit, foley (and sometimes multiples of these) in separate sessions, which are only brought together come pre-mix time.
Now days folk want preview and work in progress mixes ALL the time.
There are many ways of doing this - and we are looking at just one of the methods.
Essentially, we have one master session.
It starts as a template with no audio in it. It is loaded with temp audio, EDL data and and AAF data from the edit, plus pictures.
At the end of each day (or start), each section (dialog, foley, sfx etc) is rendered out to a stereo file as it is in that session. This is extremely easy these days with the way DAWS for post are setup.
If I am a dialog editor, I run a script that essentially imports the dialog tracks as they are into a new session, as well as the stereo mixes for the other sections (and temp audio) + the video (which is always the latest video). 
That way, I'm hearing everything "in place". I can edit dialog at approx correct levels (keeping an eye on EBU meters all the way) knowing that things are in a good "ball park" all the time. I can hear progress on fx / atmos as I go - so if something isn't jelling, I can go talk to the other editor about how it might work better etc. 
At the end of the day, I check the tracks back into the session. This involves the old tracks being moved to another set of "old" tracks with their own dated playlist, those are turned off. The new tracks are turned on, and the process repeats daily.
Someone who is premixing will see that the dialog tracks are "checked out" (by the way they are disabled and instead replaced by a stereo render). If a mix is needed urgently, it can be made super quick using the stereo stems. No one is after masterful mixes at this stage - just good indications.
And the mixer can use separate tracks to do level correcting between the sections using VCA's, which can be printed back to other tracks later if required.
No wasted time - all premix decisions CAN be applied to edited tracks if thats wanted, or if its quick and nasty, the rides can be thrown away.
For TV where budgets are not high, this is a complete game changer. It means a small facility that hasn't been given huge budgets can spend more time on the creative. Which is a win for EVERYONE!


----------



## TimRideout (Dec 15, 2022)

@colony nofi This is so interesting.

Regarding Qsync, to give you some context, because my situation is a bit different than yours: I am doing composition and production for television, so streaming samples and VSTs over the network is a no-go for me. 

I have two workstations, and all project files, assets, recorded audio, tools etc are all synced in real time to the server. The server serves as a central hub for file access if need be, but more as a snapshot backup machine, project archive, media server. It is also backed up daily to a remote location. There are no backups that happen on production machines - all backups are done from the central file server.

The other advantage to having multiple copies locally on each workstation is redundancy - if a system goes down, the other one is ready to go. 

Obviously, there are some files that are not shared (licensed VSTs etc) but using the network only for sync, cloud and backup gives me very* robust production workflow on however many machines I want to sync up. Obviously, each production machine has the exact same file structure.

To speak to your checking in-and-out system, we use a very similar method: if a technician is working on a file, it is copied and renamed with our nomenclature, and a CHECKED OUT suffix added. It's ghetto, but man it works - you can instantly see on *all* machines who is working on what, where and when.

The Qsync system also works great when including a laptop in the equation - everything done remotely is instantly synced across all machines. If I save a great new track stack or reverb preset, it's all accessible on all machines.

I will be updating my QNAP machine this year - I absolutely love it, and it has become a stable and secure backbone of my studio and business. Highly recommended!


----------



## colony nofi (Dec 19, 2022)

TimRideout said:


> @colony nofi This is so interesting.
> 
> Regarding Qsync, to give you some context, because my situation is a bit different than yours: I am doing composition and production for television, so streaming samples and VSTs over the network is a no-go for me.
> 
> ...


So interesting.

Thanks for that info.

I am personally a composer - running VERY similarly to you in that I have 2 complete systems which I work from - and a third for an assistant if ever that is required - don't get the luxury much. My 2 working systems are a mac studio ultra and new 16" laptop. Great if I'm in a theatre project or on site for an installation more than film / tv which i mainly stick to the studio.

And of course, samples are all tied to each machine with local storage. Internal on the laptop, thunderbolt NVME for the studio. However, project files I run directly off the 10GBE nas without any issues at all. No need to run qsync - and everything is always there. I've run horrendously large orchestral mix sessions for immersive installations (think very high speaker channel counts) with 100's of recorded tracks + 90+ designed instrument tracks. And I don't notice auto-saves / speed to open is sweet. Now it would be faster internally, but not much. 

But - I'm going over in my head why it MIGHT be a good idea to use QSync like you for this workflow. Obviously it wont be used for the post studios .

A downside is just the need for additional internal storage - and I like having LOTS of old projects on hand. I keep 5 or 6 years worth on the NAS at the moment, and unfortunately that is a tonne of data mostly due to recording sessions and mix sessions for dolby atmos/immersive media (where bounces are many many tracks often with long durations and many versions. I was shocked a recent museum immersive project was 250GB in size at the end. I never thought as a composer I'd generate that much data! But I also do get sent a lot of "too hard" projects for some reason....
If it wasn't for storage requirements, I might just go for it. After I finish this current theatre project, I think I'll have a little break (like that ever really happens) and give it a go in that time. Thats march. We will see.

Thanks for the interesting conversation. There's lots here for others, which is one of the beauties of this forum.


----------

