What's new

OWC NVMe U2 Shuttle - 4NVMe drives inside an enclosure!

David Kudell

LA-based Composer
I’d love to see some tests of other sample players besides Kontakt, if that’s truly holding NVME back. With both Spitfire and OT having their own players it could mean NVME making a bigger difference in load times. And I imagine a new Kontakt will come eventually as well. Maybe I’ll run a comparison between my iMac’s internal SSD which is very fast and ally Sata SSD in Sine player.
 

colony nofi

Senior Member
I’d love to see some tests of other sample players besides Kontakt, if that’s truly holding NVME back. With both Spitfire and OT having their own players it could mean NVME making a bigger difference in load times. And I imagine a new Kontakt will come eventually as well. Maybe I’ll run a comparison between my iMac’s internal SSD which is very fast and ally Sata SSD in Sine player.
Yeah - run some tests and see how it effects you. Both for loading, and then streaming samples. There's some pretty cool little tools out there to help you - and you can actually SEE how your drive is being used while you're working. Blackmagic Speed Test unfortunately won't do that for you :).

I'm not holding my breath for Kontakt to suddenly be better with SSD's - SATA or otherwise. It will require a huge re-think, and the codebase is massive & like other music software (Cubase cough cough) has code from a LONG time ago which is not trivial to unpick. In some cases it might be easier for a company to simply start again, and thats with 100's of 1000's of lines of code.

Newer samplers *should* run more efficiently. But just don't expect to see performance similar to peak figures mentioned in drive specs, as it very much relates to HOW a drive is used. So even though our U.2 drive does 4000MB/s reads, I've got some custom code here where the peak is closer to 600MB/s. Theres more to reading data off a drive than just MB/s!
 

colony nofi

Senior Member
There's really no difference between NVMe and SATA SSDs, other than how fast they can transfer data, so I don't think there's any reason to feel squirrelly about using them. That said, I think SATA is a better option if you need more storage space than a single NVMe drive can provide, so I think you're fine with your recent purchases. SATA drives in a multi-bay enclosure will still provide their maximum performance, individually or in a RAID setup, over Thunderbolt, whereas a single fast NVMe drive is possibly already faster than Thunderbolt can deliver.

So, for maximum performance in a single-drive configuration over USB-C or Thunderbolt, go with NVMe, but for a multi-bay device, I think SATA is a better match.
SATA was never designed to run SSD's. Its not a great fit. NMVE has been designed from the ground up for SSD's and has all sorts of design advantages. It negates the need for AHCI - and essentially means the CPU can communicate directly with the SSD over PCIE - which is awesome for latency (very different to the latency we normally talk about in these parts)

Just looking for a nice simple explanation article - this one isn't too bad, and avoids going too deep into details.
 

rnb_2

Rick Baumhauer
SATA was never designed to run SSD's. Its not a great fit. NMVE has been designed from the ground up for SSD's and has all sorts of design advantages. It negates the need for AHCI - and essentially means the CPU can communicate directly with the SSD over PCIE - which is awesome for latency (very different to the latency we normally talk about in these parts)

Just looking for a nice simple explanation article - this one isn't too bad, and avoids going too deep into details.
I'm not disputing that - for single-drive or internal applications, I'd definitely go NVMe. It just feels like a waste to put four NVMe drives in a Thunderbolt enclosure and have them not reaching anything like their performance potential (and I say that as an owner of, and generally happy with, such an enclosure - it was my only option when I bought it).
 
Top Bottom