Login

Nebula libraries installed on separate SSD?

Tips & tricks, working results, technical support

Nebula libraries installed on separate SSD?

Postby jrasia » Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:06 am

Does anyone know if there would be any performance improvement having Nebula and/or its libraries installed on a separate SSD drive from the OS and recording drive?

Just curious as the speed and bandwidth on SSDs are drastically faster than traditional HDDs.

Thanks
jrasia
User Level II
User Level II
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:39 am

Re: Nebula libraries installed on separate SSD?

Postby richie43 » Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:34 am

I think that there is a very noticeable performance increase installing the Nebula libraries on ANY dedicated HD (I have a dedicated sample HD), so it should be even better on a SSD.
The Sounds of the Hear and Now
http://soundyaudio.com/
richie43
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:47 pm
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: Nebula libraries installed on separate SSD?

Postby Definity » Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:53 am

here is a good scoring external SSD drive

http://www.techradar.com/news/computing ... ?artc_pg=2

but i would only bother getting it if you have USB 3 or the new firewire, if that is still about!!!!
http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-enyo-u ... drive.html

and here is another link you will find intresting,

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/usb ... ,2583.html

it basicaly compares USB3 and SATA2 which USB3 is 4.8Gbps and SATA2 is 6Gbps (giga bits per second)(not bytes) which is /8 to get bytes, not bits.

there are 8 bits in a byte so 16 bits will be 2 bytes, if you get my drift. and bytes are used for space where as bits are used for speed. hence why Gbps(Giga Bits Per Seconds) and GB (Gigga Bytes)are diffrent as can be seen here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_rate_ ... per_second

so basicaly in laymans terms saying that your downloading at 2 giga bytes is wrong, (like if you driving a car) it means (in an hour) how fast you driving and you just say 20 miles, when infact you mean 20 MPH or 32.3 KMP (for our USA friends :)) or vice versa saying what speed did you drive and you say, well i driven at 20 MPH when you means you drove at 20 miles. This might be a bit long winded but i hope you get my drift, im an IT guy and i get alot of customers confused about the whole Gbps and GB thing (one is distance one is speed, like Miles Per Hour MPH or just Miles, ones distance ones is speed) so dont think im assulting you inteligence i just want to make it so your understand what your buying! i see alot of people getting ripped offf (as you can imagine in IT)

so i hope i set you off with the knowledge to look for what you want, rather than just an item that some ones says that you think you want! but look at them links and you will gewt a good disivons to deise for you self, but like what what posted on the link above, SATA2 is quicker than USB3 so if possible i would get a Sata Drive rather than SSD.

P.S im only assuming you want a external Drive if note here is a quote.

"the 256GB M4 drive averaged sequential read speeds of 416MB/sec and write speeds of 257MB/sec."

Which TBH is limited by SATA2 speeds, so if i was you i would just get a small SSD for now dont spalsh out for a big espensive one, becuase the tech aint there just yet! i hope this helped!
Definity
Member
Member
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:54 am

Re: Nebula libraries installed on separate SSD?

Postby musicgreator » Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:43 am

i've tried it and was disappointed. The loading time didn't decrease significantly enough.
musicgreator
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:16 pm

Re: Nebula libraries installed on separate SSD?

Postby Vernon » Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:50 am

musicgreator wrote:i've tried it and was disappointed. The loading time didn't decrease significantly enough.

Same experience for me.

Vernon
Vernon
User Level III
User Level III
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:27 pm
Location: Torino - Italy

Re: Nebula libraries installed on separate SSD?

Postby richie43 » Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:32 pm

But have you tried it as an internal drive? Because that makes a difference.
The Sounds of the Hear and Now
http://soundyaudio.com/
richie43
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:47 pm
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: Nebula libraries installed on separate SSD?

Postby Vernon » Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:54 pm

richie43 wrote:But have you tried it as an internal drive? Because that makes a difference.

Yes, it's internal, the same of (Windows 7) operating system. I appreciated the noticeable W7 reactivity but not the Nebula loading time.

Vernon
Vernon
User Level III
User Level III
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:27 pm
Location: Torino - Italy

Re: Nebula libraries installed on separate SSD?

Postby richie43 » Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:54 pm

What I mean is that you should notice a performance boost IF it is an internal drive AND a drive different from the OS drive.
The Sounds of the Hear and Now
http://soundyaudio.com/
richie43
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:47 pm
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: Nebula libraries installed on separate SSD?

Postby jrasia » Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:41 pm

How bout this for a optimized configuration?

c: = OS + DAW
d: = nebula, nebula libraries, vst plugins
e: = recording drive
jrasia
User Level II
User Level II
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:39 am

Re: Nebula libraries installed on separate SSD?

Postby richie43 » Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:19 pm

That's basically my config as well, and it works great!
The Sounds of the Hear and Now
http://soundyaudio.com/
richie43
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:47 pm
Location: Minnesota, USA

Next

Return to Working with Nebula

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests