I tried a Mac for video editing...

[elgonzo]

I have never been able to sustain the published rate for any model of HDD. Always 10-15% lower.

No, usually you can't do that, unless you have a specific hardware setup that linearly read cylinder after cylinder without being concerned with whatever file system, and always promptly picking up the data offered on the SATA/SAS interface without causing further delay by either the SATA controller or the host OS. Most likely you will never achieve those numbers with ordinary PC tech,  but only in carefully set up laboratory conditions. The manufacturer can only specify what his/her HDD is capable to do. (S)He is in no condition to make precise statements about how certain hardware/chipset and software configurations will lead to a certain performance number.

Seagate ones I've seen 60% down (they've had some horrific firmware, there's a reason I won't buy them).

Indeed, consumer Seagate HDDs suck hard; not just because of shitty firmware, but also because they run so hot...

[mariush]

Indeed, consumer Seagate HDDs suck hard; not just because of shitty firmware, but also because they run so hot...

Bull... Barracuda Green 2 TB/s ...  (datasheet here):

sustained date UP TO 144 MB/s

Average Latency (ms) 4.16
Average Seek, Typical Read (ms) 12
Average Seek, Typical Write (ms) 13

Connected on SATA 3 gbps (150 MB/s max)  even though it's a 6 gbps hdd:



Sounds about right considering it's on sata 2.

WD1000FAEX , again 6gbps interface on sata 2 (3gbps) ...(drops due to disk access from other stuff):

datasheet here
 up to 126 MB/s , actually does more

[elgonzo]

mariush, don't look at the max transfer data rate in HD Tune. The value that comes closest in meaning of sustained data transfer rate (as often published by the manufacturers) is the average value.

The max transfer rate displayed by HD Tune is only valid for the outer tracks of the platters, and cannot be sustained at the inner tracks due to zone bit recording.

If you are lucky, you might find a datasheet for a HDD that specifies different SDTR's for different zones...

[mariush]

I agree with you. I was just bothered by the statement:

never been able to sustain the published rate for any model of HDD. Always 10-15% lower. Seagate ones I've seen 60% down (they've had some horrific firmware, there's a reason I won't buy them).

10-15% lower at 144 MB/s would be 115-120MB/s which obviously isn't the case here. Mine is within less than 5% out, and it's possible larger drops would be caused by bad sata drive controllers/chipset implementations, not the hard drives.
60% down would be just ridiculous.

Again, they never claim throughout the disk surface, they just say "UP TO ### MB/s", just like your ISP says you have up to 100 mbps internet download speed or whatever speed they advertise.

Either way, it's totally pointless to brag about the maximum speed, because once you get multiple i/o on the disk, the transfer speeds go down.
Luckily, when doing video encoding, most stuff is sequential, so as long as you read from one drive and save to other, you can get high speeds, high enough it doesn't matter what drive you use (unless you work with lossless hd or --- damn i just can't remember the term now and I work with this stuff at least once a week --- pre- bluray mastering stuff, 200-500mbps content, RED/10bit h264 lossless etc)

[Monkeh]

10-15% lower at 144 MB/s would be 115-120MB/s which obviously isn't the case here. Mine is within less than 5% out, and it's possible larger drops would be caused by bad sata drive controllers/chipset implementations, not the hard drives.

No stupid nVidia or VIA controllers here, so you can rule that out..

60% down would be just ridiculous.

So is 85% failure rate for different drives from different batches, in different locations on different power supplies, with different usage patterns, but that's Seagate for you. Everything from 7200.9 to 7200.12 was a complete farce. As for newer drives, not out of my wallet or reputation.

[T4P]

Bull... Barracuda Green 2 TB/s ...  (datasheet here):

I think that's the max speed of your HDDs ... My hdds are on SATA2 and i'm pulling 200mbps 

The most important thing that makes SSDs infinitely better is access time and random r/w speed.. They are a hella lot better 
Windows bootup speed : None of the sequential r/w matters, only access time (DLLs) and random r/w (BIG DLLs)
Normal usage just access time ... Harddisks are fast enough to pull 150mbps average

10-15% lower at 144 MB/s would be 115-120MB/s which obviously isn't the case here. Mine is within less than 5% out, and it's possible larger drops would be caused by bad sata drive controllers/chipset implementations, not the hard drives.

No stupid nVidia or VIA controllers here, so you can rule that out..

60% down would be just ridiculous.

So is 85% failure rate for different drives from different batches, in different locations on different power supplies, with different usage patterns, but that's Seagate for you. Everything from 7200.9 to 7200.12 was a complete farce. As for newer drives, not out of my wallet or reputation.

I guess so ... Yes. Seagate = constantly failing garbage. OCN people hugs seagate like no tomorrow 
I purposely bought a few 2 years ago and they all failed 2 months ago ... only 2 year warranties. SHIT DRIVES!

[westfw]

Well, apple has pre-announced their new Mac Pro.  http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/
It sounds nice and zippy, and looks pretty, but...  IMO it's not a good "desktop" machine - no internal expandability at all.  More like a super-fast Mac Mini than an adequate replacement for the Mac Pro.

Damn.

Apple has always been sort of wishy-washy on the upgrade-ability of their high-end systems, but there's been a pretty long string of pretty nice systems.  And yes, I've got all four slots of my existing Mac Pro full of disks, and no, I don't think an external disk box is a good replacement.

[M. András]

hehh it states up to 60gb of system ram, 2 ati 6970 gpu a 12 core xeon. what do you want to expand from this? 4 thunderbolt port you can hook gpu anytime to that port

[ve7xen]

Apple has always been sort of wishy-washy on the upgrade-ability of their high-end systems, but there's been a pretty long string of pretty nice systems.  And yes, I've got all four slots of my existing Mac Pro full of disks, and no, I don't think an external disk box is a good replacement.

I've thought that they've always been totally opposed to the idea of customization, expandability and repairability. To them a computer is an appliance, you should neither need nor be able to modify its internals. As a bonus for them, that makes them cheaper to manufacture and easier to sell and support.

Which is why I'm kind of amused that their solution to the real needs people have is external dongles. This is like the antithesis of their minimalist design philosophy.

hehh it states up to 60gb of system ram, 2 ati 6970 gpu a 12 core xeon. what do you want to expand from this? 4 thunderbolt port you can hook gpu anytime to that port

Some decent storage or RAID? More RAM (most real workstations these days can support 512GB of RAM)? FibreChannel or 10GbE? One (or many) GPGPU boards? Hell even 12 core is not that impressive, you can get 16 core machines today, and once these 12 core CPUs launch, I'm sure you'll see 24 core ones too.

This device is clearly targeted at the design/photography/3D fields, though for plenty of those users I'm sure the 2xFirePros will be like $1000 down the toilet.

I guess it's good that the writing is on the wall now. People who need real workstations won't be waiting for the Mac Pro refresh any longer, they'll just buy something else.

Can't forget support either. Is Apple still not offering any onsite support options? Pretty much a showstopper for any sort of mission critical usage I'd say, unless you have a spare sitting around.

[M. András]

yeah but not in that form factor apart from that i agree with you. i do not know too much apple product that can be upgraded easly