CS4: Best use of SSD drives?

I'm considering adding an SSD or two to the mix and am wondering where I'll get the best performance bang for the buck in a NLE situation. The current box is Vista, but I may be moving to faster ponies on a 64 bit 7 box soon. Doubt there's a difference in recommendations between the two but thought I'd mention it just in case.
First, a tangent. On my Premiere Pro CS4 discs I don't see any indication of 32 / 64 bit versions, but my understanding is that both are available from the DVDs. Can anyone confirm this?
As to the SSDs, the general wisdom for overal performance is to use them as the boot / system drive to boost app load and boot time. For NLE, there are other drive considerations that come into play - the drive(s) where the source footage to be edited resides and the drive(s) that are used for temporary I/O in rendering, playback, etc. There may be other considerations as well, these are just the ones that immediately come to mind.
I'm less concerned about how long the computer takes to boot (it stays up 24/7) or how long an application takes to load, and more focused on the performance of Premiere and After Effects during eding, playback and rendering.
With that in mind, if I bought only one SSD, where would be the best place for it to serve? And if I threw caution and credit cards to the winds and bought two, where would the second one do me the most good?
As always, thanks for any insights you might offer.
Chris

Hi, Harm.
Reading the disk article as we speak, thanks.
Regarding CS4 being 32 bit, I recall you saying the other day that a minimum realistic system would be 12 gigs fo memory. Given the 4 gig limit in the 32 bit architecture, were you referring to CS5? Not sure how CS4 would benefit from > 4 gigs.

Similar Messages

  • Best use adding SSD to speed up Photoshop?

    This is actually a multiple question post.
    My aim is to try and cut down some time on Photoshop, mainly when using big files (over 2 or 3Gb) not only when reading and saving but most importantly applying adjustments or modifying image.
    Almost every other day my daily working files go to 2 or 3Gb each and its painfully slowing me down the time it takes to sometimes apply some transformations let alone the process of saving as safeguard with regularly over the day.
    Today was working on a 10Gb file and it would take Photoshop close to 15min just to open the file...flattening the image would take around that too and saving a little over 25min.
    I know on Mac's its a pain in the back to move the system swap files to another disk (although theres an app that supposedly does that for you (Xupport).
    I just find it hard to find out what best use I could make for a SSD I would add to my existing configuration that could speed up Photoshop on Mac:
    1. Install system and apps?
    2. Use system swap and leave system+apps in other HDD?
    3. Use for Photoshop scratch disk?
    4. Any of the above in same SSD? 
    Other pertinent data:
    Every project once completed is moved to a backup USB disk so the durability/reliability of SSD isnt really a problem althought I aware SSD has some issues regarding tearing over multiple re-writting over time.
    Mac Pro dual quad-core 2.8 (MacOSX 16.2 + Photoshop CS4)
    8Gb DDR2 Ram (soon to be 12Gb)
    1 SATA  320Gb for data in use + system +apps
    1 SATA 500gb for  general purpose data and backups before going to external HDD plus Photoshop scratch disk
    Ty in advance for any help.

    You have plenty of system to throw at Photoshop. The application ought not to slow down to the point of un-usability but I'm certainly not working with images at that size.
    Here are the techniques I have used to make almost all applications faster:
    Add more RAM. That way, any application you use won't have to be swapped out to disk if you are running lots of applications.
    Move OS X's swap drive to something faster.
    In the case of Photoshop, move Photoshop's swap drive to something faster with lots of space
    Get a hotter graphics card that your applications will take advantage of.
    With respect to #1, Adobe's Photoshop is a 32-bit application. Photoshop will benefit from your Mac not using its swapfile as additional RAM but Photoshop will not see any more than 4GB of RAM and will probably see a lot less than that (most 32-bit applications use something like 2GB).
    With respect to #2, here's how to do this:
    Edit the file com.apple.dynamic_pager.plist, located in /System/Library/LaunchDaemons. Replace the/var/vm path with the full path to your swap partition. In my case, the entire plist ends up looking like this:
    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple Computer//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">
    <plist version="1.0">
    <dict>
                    <key>Label</key>
                    <string>com.apple.dynamic_pager</string>
                    <key>ProgramArguments</key>
                    <array>
                         <string>/sbin/dynamic_pager</string>
                         <string>-F</string>
                         <string>/Volumes/Swap/.vm/swapfile</string>
                    </array>
                    <key>OnDemand</key>
                    <false/>
    </dict>
    </plist>
    Save and reboot, then check your new swap location is being used with this command:
    ps -wax | grep dynamic_pager -m1
    Finally, you probably want to clear out any old swapfiles from /var/vm:
    sudo rm -rf /var/vm/swapfile*
    If you have two SSDs, use one for OS X, the other for Photoshop. And remember, for an 8 GB file, Photoshop will want a lot more than 8GB as its pagefile.
    You will want to experiment to see what methods work best for you.
    Good luck.

  • Anyone useing an SSD Drive in a Mac Pro? Should it be Sata? or pci..can it be bootable?

    The Title says it all!
    But to recap, I would like an SSD boot drive for my 3,1 power Mac.....I can get SSD drives in PCE or SATA configuration, which would work better?
    Thanks for any info
    Jim

    EIDE or PATA hasn't been used and of course is way too slow.
    SSDs today are "too fast" for the SATA II we have so you don't need SATA 3, SATA II is still hitting the wall with an SSD.
    You do know that yours should get 250MB/sec but being small you need to cut down on what you store on your boot drive and use other drives for meda and data.
    SATA 3 SSDs can deliver up to 500MB/sec which again is getting close to the max bandwidth of 700MB/sec that the controller chip used in the Mac Pro is capable of, which is shared by all 4 drive bays.
    Many users stick the SSD in the lower optical drive bay. Very convenient. I can't remember if you have an SATA optical drive though or they still used EIDE.

  • Advice on best use of SSD &HDD?

    Hi - purchased a 27" iMac a month ago - very happy with it - speed, screen et al all good - and it doesnt overheat.
    But, has anyone out there, designers, artists et al, worked out best practice for using SSD and HDD? I use primarily adobe packages - large files et al, need those to operate quickly. The 256 SSD is just about full of my home files. I Have pointed photoshop scratch to HDD, inDesign and illustrator are also process heavy and i use them most. BUT - how well would it work if I just transferred my home folder to the HDD and left the programmes running from SSD?
    any thoughts or advice?
    I'm not a unix whizz, or a coder but pretty familiar with macs - have been using since early 90's.
    please let me know what you use - most appreciated
    cheers -
    telk

    Link,
    I thought that there was a new file management system along with the Fusion Drives.
    I installed a 240GB SSD Mercury Elite 6g into a late 2012 MacMini 2.66GHZ with16GB RAM. After much frustration of trying to get the drives to be seen properly in Recovery Mode I used Internet Recovery Disk Utility and allowed DU to "fix" both drives. I then got a message saying a new "Logical Drive" had been created and DU saw the drive properly.
    In the OS (not recovery) DU the drives were seen as discrete drives and they seemed to respond to operations normally however when I made an iMovie project I got an "unexpected error" and the project didn't save. That is what prompted me to use Recovery to do a Repair Disk where the problem of a "broken fusion drive" was reported by RDU. At first I just tried repairing the drives from Recovery but the folks on telephone support asked me to try Internet Recovery. Didn't really want the Fusion setup but that is the only way the OS would allow the drives to coexist.

  • Re:  Leone's post May 2014 about how to best use an external drive with Aperture

    I am trying to find Leone who had a great post May 2014 to Diane. I posted tho same message as a 'Reply' to the Leone/Diane posts but then was worried it would not show up since that was some time ago so I decided I should post it as new.  Apologies if it comes through twice.   I am having trouble as indicated below:
    I found this response to the question about Aperture and external hard drives from last May.  I bought a WD My Book 4TB and need to back up photos I have in Aperture (many!) to free up space.  I am a photographer and need to be able to plug the external drive in as needed, pull a photo out from the WD and back into Aperture to work on it if needed.
    I read your directions to Diane and have the external drive formatted Mac OS Extended (Journaled).  I read the two ways you suggest to move part or all of my library to an external drive and still be able to use it in Aperture with all the metadata saved, as I need to continue to work with the images.  I am not completely clear about the advantage of the 'referenced' method but decided to go with the Split Library because it sounded like the Referenced method would still keep originals (and take space) in Aperture.  I'm not sure about this, but that was what I chose.
    I have backed up my computer, formatted the drive then went to Aperture to begin.  I do the 'Export' and it shows the external drive it will go to but when I click 'OK', it says "EXPORT LIBRARY FAILED - Library could not be create because the file system of the destination volume is not supported."  I doubled checked to be sure the drive was Journaled which it was.  I did call WD and talk to them but they told me this was outside their area.
    Also, in Aperture, I have my photos in Projects by yymmdd.  Is it possible to transfer Projects into the ext. drive without having to break them out of the Projects?
    Any direction anyone might give would be greatly appreciated, Sandy

    Hi Sandy,
    I suggest taking a week or two to get to know Aperture better before proceeding.  Aperture can do many things, and can do what you want.  It's important to be specific about what you want, however.  From what you've said, it appears that you don't yet know.
    bybeeler wrote:
    [1] I found this response to the question about Aperture and external hard drives from last May.  I bought a WD My Book 4TB and need to back up photos I have in Aperture (many!) to free up space.
    [2] I am a photographer and need to be able to plug the external drive in as needed, pull a photo out from the WD and back into Aperture to work on it if needed.
    [1] A back-up is a copy of digital files stores on a separate device.  A back-up is recommended because drives fail, and humans make mistakes.  A back-up is not used to free up storage space.
    [2] Aperture can be set up in many equally-usable ways.  The program files reside (almost always) on your system drive.  The data files can be anywhere you want them, as long as they are on locally-mounted drive(s).  The main data file is your Library.  The best place for it is on the drive that has the fastest throughput to your logic board.  This is, in nearly 100% of machines, the system drive.  But Aperture functions well with Libraries of secondary drives — internal or external — with sufficient throughput.  USB-3 and Thunderbolt I (& II) provide sufficient throughput for using an Aperture Library on a secondary drive.
    Nearly all photographers will fill whatever storage space is available (making data is what photographers do).  The question is: what do you do when your Library no longer fits on your system drive?  (And remember, you should leave at least 10% (I recommend 20% for heavy users of Aperture) of your system drive free.)  The answer depends, primarily, on whether your computer is portable or fixed in location. 
    If fixed, just buy a more-than-large-enough secondary drive of USB-3 or faster throughput, mount it permanently, and move (using Finder) your Library to it.
    If your computer is portable (and you can't increase the on-board storage), you have to select the best from several confusing alternatives:
    • Put your Library on an external drive with throughput at least as fast as USB-3
    — Pros:  Easy to maintain and back-up.
    — Cons:  Must have drive with you in order to use your Library.
    • Leave your Library on your system drive, but relocate your Images' Originals to an external drive.
    — Pros:  You can work on your Library without having the external drive available.
    — Cons:  You can't export (except Previews), Print, or make adjustments until your external drive is mounted.  Significantly more difficult to administer, especially importing and backing-up.
    • Leave your Library and and _some_ of your Images' Originals on your system drive, and relocate most of your Image's Originals to an external drive.
    — Pros: You can do any work on those Images whose Originals are stored in the Library regardless of where the external drive is.
    — Cons: Yet another level more difficult to administer.
    If you are comfortable with the administrative overhead, the third set-up will be the most rewarding.  Keep all _current_ Images Originals inside your Library, and routinely relocate the Originals of Images no longer current to the external drive.
    In no case is it recommended that you at any time remove from your Library an Image (not the Original — the Image in Aperture) that you expect to ever use again.
    HTH,
    —Kirby.

  • Best use of disk drives for data transfer

    I have three different data "disk" drives on my system and I timed transferring 13 GB of data between. The drives are a standard 7500 RPM disk, a pair of 7500 RPM disks in RAID 0, and a solid state flash drive. The times in minutes and and seconds were as follows:
    To:| Standard | RAID 0 | Flash
    From: | | |
    Standard | 6:39 | 2:43 | 3:22
    RAID 0 | 2:46 | 4:41 | 3:33
    Flash | 2:41 | 1:51 | 16:58
    The first thing to notice is that if the source and destination drives are the same then times are much longer. The Flash drive was particularly bad.
    The best time was from Flash to RAID 0, but in the reverse direction the time was poorer than a standard disk, suggesting that the flash has a fast read but a slow write.
    Conclusion: for disk bound operations, such as transferring DV AVI files with little or no processing use different drives if practicable. In other words, set the scratch files drive to be other than the drive with the source files on it. If possible, put your source files on a flash drive and your scratch files on a RAID 0 drive.
    Edit: Sorry for the poor table layout. Two or more consecutive spaces get converted into a single space for some reason.

    You can use the error-cluster to detect the end of your queue. The erroroutput of the shared variable will return a -2220 Warning, if it reads a value it has read already before. I attached a modified example and saved it for 8.2 I hope you can open it.
    Attachments:
    readbuffered82.zip ‏51 KB

  • Anyone Using An SSD Drive for Audio Yet?

    Been thinking about one of these for my record drive, since a very small one would work for me (as I'm only working on a few songs at any given moment and have plenty of other space to store things). It's between this and getting a V Raptor drive but I love the idea of no moving parts...
    Any input appreciated..
    TH

    Mike Connelly wrote:
    For audio recording, the concern is that SSDs have a lower number of write cycles than traditional hard drives. It's hard to know with such a new category of product, but they may fail faster in a situation where they are being written over and over very often.
    This is a much bigger issue for system disks than for audio recording. Audio deals with relatively large files, and once they're written, they generally stay there until the project is dumped off-disk.
    The system, on the other hand, constantly reads/writes/re-writes tiny blocks of data all over the place - which is also why random read/write rates are EVERYTHING in performance, and sequential read/write speeds, while certainly impressive, are pretty much irrelevant in actual use.
    Also, all SSDs use a kind of "load balancing" to make sure that writes are evenly distributed across the entire memory, resulting in lifespans far beyond anything you'd reasonably expect off a mechanical hard drive.
    Further reading (everything you need to know):
    http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531
    http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3631
    Message was edited by: spheric

  • Best use of hard drive space

    Hello - I have my itunes library on my main iMac's internal drive. I use a Raid 1 external drive for backing up everything via Time Machine. Everything works fine. I'm starting to run low on internal HD space. Here is the question:
    If I adjust my Time Machine settings to NOT include iTunes and I then transfer my iTunes library folder to this external drive (which would still be used for Time Machine) is that a better use of disk space? This drive even when taking Time Machine out of the equation has double reduncancy as it has two drives which duplicate each other. The largest portion of data that Time Machine currently backs up is my iTunes library which is heavy on both audio and movies. Thanks.
    Steve

    Steve,
    Got similar issues here, too. I keep hitting my head on the HD ceiling because my iTunes folder takes up 50% of the space, even after I've thinned it down.
    As long as you have some sort of back-up, be it a CD, DVD or another HD, what you're proposing sounds like it will work. I'd probably take it one step further and make some additional backups on DVDs (just to be sure). Eh, stick 'em in a box and pray you never have to use 'em!
    Kim

  • Zero Out Data on a SSD drive: Are my findings correct?

    "Note: With OS X Lion and an SSD drive, Secure Erase and Erasing Free Space are not available in Disk Utility. These options are not needed for an SSD drive because a standard erase makes it difficult to recover data from an SSD. For more security, consider turning on FileVault 2 encryption when you start using the SSD drive."
    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3680
    Seems to hard to believe, as I've seen some of the top participants here clearly say that first your set a new partition, then erase Macintosh HD, then zero out data?

    Retired Engineer, do you have any references?  What I have read says otherwise. 
    Drive Wear & Tear
    What is your estimation of wear and tear on the flash by writing to 0's.  What percentage of the drives total usage has been "wasted"?  I thought even consumer drives where capable of 1000 - 10000 rewrites per cell, whereas enterprise SSDs are capable of over 100,000: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9112065/Solid_state_disk_lackluster_for_l aptops_PCs?taxonomyId=19&pageNumber=1&taxonomyName=Storage.
    "For one thing, it matters whether the SSD drive uses SLC or MLC memory. SLC generally endures up to 100,000 write cycles or writes per cell, while MLC can endure anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 writes before it begins to fail, according to Fujitsu's Hagberg. For its part, Western Digital's laptop hard-disk drive boasts up to 600,000 write cycles."
    That's an old artcile too.  Slightly newer, in late 2008 Micron/Sun achieved SLC NAND chips capable of over 1,000,000 write cycles: http://investors.micron.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=440650 .  I imagine things have gotten slightly better in the last 4 years.
    Data Wiping
    This paper (http://static.usenix.org/events/fast11/tech/full_papers/Wei.pdf) states, "In most cases, overwriting the entire disk twice was sufficient to sanitize the disk, regardless of the previous state of the drive."
    Going on however, "Overall, the results for overwriting are poor: while overwriting appears to be effective in some cases across a wide range of drives, it is clearly not universally reliable. It seems unlikely that an individual or organization expending the effort to sanitize a device would be satisfied with this level of performance."
    The best method I have found for wiping an SSD on a Mac is the (SAFE) Scramble and Finally Erase process as described in this UC San Diego research paper: http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/swanson/papers/TR-cs2011-0963-Safe.pdf.
    According to their paper, the effectiveness of the procedure is equiavlent to degaussing a magentic drive. Another tidbit, the SAFE technique is replicated by Sandforce controller when someone reformats the drive (as mentioned by Linc Davis above, however, I believe this is specific only to Sandforce controllers).
    References:
    http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/03/erasing_data_fr.html
    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9211519/Can_data_stored_on_an_SSD_be_secu red_
    http://arstechnica.com/security/2011/03/ask-ars-how-can-i-safely-erase-the-data- from-my-ssd-drive/
    http://static.usenix.org/events/fast11/tech/full_papers/Wei.pdf
    http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/swanson/papers/TR-cs2011-0963-Safe.pdf

  • Is there a way to retrofit thunderbolt to a late 2009/early 2010 27" iMac. Alternatively, can a SSD drive be installed in place of the standard HD

    My internal macintosh HD died and I want to use an SSD drive if possible. I either want to replace the internal HD or boot to an external SSD drive if possible. I would have to connect with FW800 since I am lacking thunderbolt on my iMac. Would FW800 allow my the benefits of an external SSD?
    Thanks
    Jim

    No, on both counts. FW800 will not support the speed of SSDs. It barely supports the speed of very fast hard drives. But it beats USB 2.0.

  • Should I get an SSD drive?

    Hello.
    I'm thinking of buying a new MacBook for school. I've come to the conclusion that I should get either the MacBook Air 13" or Retina MacBook Pro 13".
    In either case I definitely want the specs to be: 8GB Ram and 256 GB SSD Drive.
    However:
    During my research I've come across a lot of articles saying that you should be aware of 'how to use' a SSD drive in order to 'make it last as long as possible', and that you should write as little data as possible to it.
    How big of a deal is this really?
    Since I'll be using my MacBook for school I obviously need to do a lot(!) of text editing, which means a lot of writting to the disk (since I'll be opening the same document several times and edit it). I'll be using it for light video (iMovie) and audio (GarageBand) editing as well.
    After reading all these articles on the SSD Drive I'm thinking if it's better to just stick with a HDD Drive (the non-Retina MBP)?
    Please help me out here guys.
    Thanks.

    With all of the estimated "mean time before failure" tests I've seen regarding SSDs, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out - after SSDs have been installed in consumer computers for a longer period - if SSDs didn't come out on top versus the short lifespan of hard disk drives.
    So if I were you, realizing that you're going to upgrade your computer within the next 7-10 years, I wouldn't worry about the read/write figures that you see with SSDs. My oldest SSD is 3 years old and it's still going strong. The current SSDs that I have are less than 4 months old, tops. I've yet to have a problem with an SSD (although all four of mine have been manufactured by Crucial).
    I don't think you've anything to worry about - the SSD will long outlast the computer, I'm certain.
    Clinton
    MacBook Pro (15-inch Late 2011), OS Mavericks 10.9.4, 16GB Crucial RAM, Crucial M500 960GB SSD, 27” Apple Thunderbolt Display

  • Any need for inactive memory with latest SSD drives?

    I have an iMac with a combo drive with 24 gb of RAM. At times my inactive memory exceeds 10 gb and my available memory goes to zero. And Mavericks is slow to give the memory back.  Given the efficiency and speed of the latest SSD drives, does earmaking memory to an inactive state serve any useful purpose when using a SSD drive?.

    I believe there is, as RAM speed is still much better than SSD speed. Most inactive RAM queries stem from the fact that "inactive RAM" is a misnomer. For a pretty full explanation, have a look at my second-last reply at the bottom of page 3 of this discussion:
    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6058988?start=30&tstart=0
    Hope it helps

  • How to Upgrade Qosmio F50 with SSD-drive

    I want to upgrade my Toshiba F-50 with an SSD-Drive 80 GB (Intel).
    Can anyone recommend an SSD drive, I would like to use Intel 80 GB.
    Do I need any Firmware Upgrade or Upgrade for VISTA ?
    Thanks for help

    Hi
    Since Qosmio F50 support an SATA HDD controller you should use an SSD drive which supports an SATA interface
    But the SSD drive is not many different from a common HDD and therefore it should not be needed to update any firmware.
    Usually you would need to install just an SATA driver in order to recognize the SSD drive.
    Greets

  • Upgrade Ideapad S10-2 with SSD-drive

    I am wondering if it is possible to use one of the Mini PCI Express Card slots for a SSD drive and if there exists a compatible product in the marketplace. It would be great to use a SSD-drive as boot-drive and the harddisk for data. Does anybody know a solution? Thanks in advance

    Hi and welcome to lenovo forum...
    unfortunatly , even when you found a minipci-e SSD ... there is no option to boot from minipci-e ...
    and only a few minipci-e cards will work at all ...if its not on the whitelist they wont work...
    and SSD in 2,5" Sata-HDD form is faster, "cheeper" yes it is  and could replaced the HDD without  trouble like above..  
    Minipci-e Cards
    sincerely KalvinKlein
    Thinkies 2x X200s/X301 8GB 256GB SSD @ Win 7 64
    Ideas Centre A520 ,Yoga 2 256GB SSD,Yoga 2 tablet @ Win 8.1

  • Toshiba Satelite C75D-A7370 Cannot Recognize Crucial M500 SSD drive

    Goal:
    I got a Toshiba Satelite C75D-A7370 laptop and I upgraded from the internal HDD to an internal SSD drive.
    It is a Crucial M500 with 240GB SSD drive. Crucial says it is compatible with the Satelite model.
    Problem:
    When I enter the BIOS, Main-->HDD/SSD does not detect the connected SSD.  Any help?
    Troubleshoot:
    In the BIOS, I did the following:
    Turn off Secure Boot
    Advanced System Configuration: Switch Boot Mode from UEFI Boot to CSM Boot
    Advanced System Configuration: SATA Controller Mode is set to AHCI
    The laptop already has the latest version of BIOS:
    InsydeH2O Rev. 3.7
    System BIOS Version 1.4
    EC Version 1.20
    If I put the SSD drive in an external case with USB, Windows 8.1 can use the SSD drive as a USB drive. So I know the drive is working.
    Thanks in advance for your help.

    So close. But I spoke too soon.
    Check disk won't work. I tried scheduling it from the My Computer window or through an elevated command prompt (chkdsk /f /r).  No luck.  I've got the error message. I can post that later.  The very last line is this...
    766f6c756d652e63 3f1
    Did chkdsk /f /r from the rescue disk command line.  No change. 
    It counts down 10 seconds and starts to check disk. It errors out right away.
    From the rescue disk, startup repair.  That was fine, but didn't change the check disk results.
    The Microsoft Fixit I found earlier didn't do anything. I think it only checked for updates. 
    Could be Norton Internet Security, although I doubt it.
    When I put the Crucial SSD in I did a quick ntfs format and named that volume C.  In diskpart, I noticed the system reserved 100MB partition was letter C.  I think the main hard partition was D.  I switched the system 100MB to T and made the main partition C.  Within Windows, the servered reserved partition didn't have any letter -- except I did put a letter on it in diskpart from the rescue disk. 
    I just tried within Windows, making 100MB T.  And then I removed it. That was someone's solution online.

Maybe you are looking for