SSD raid 0 block size?

I just installed two OCZ Vertex 2 60Gb SSD into my Mac Pro and I'm about to set them up into a Raid 0 array but I'm wondering what's the best setting for "block size" on these? The volume will be used as system/apps/lightroom-catalog primarily. Thanks!

I've seen this same question here a few times, and the answer is almost always "leave it at the default".
From what I've read, nobody could ever notice the difference between the different sizes.
I have a RAID 0 with 2 WD Black drives (1TB each) and the standard block size (think its 32000 or something along those lines, maybe just 32, i can't remember how it's measured) and i use it for PS, Aperture etc etc, and It is lightening fast.
Regards

Similar Messages

  • Best Raid Block Size for video editing

    I cannot seem to get my head round about which Raid Block Size I should set my Striped Raid 50 configuration to.
    There seems to be very little info about this, but what info there is seems to imply that it could seriously affect the performace of the Raid.
    I have initialized two Raid array's to Raid 5 and was about to stripe them together using Disk Utility, when I decided to click on options in the bottom left of the Disk Utility window. This is where you can set the Raid Block Size.
    The default is 32K, but it states that there could be 'performance benefits' if this setting is changed to better match my configuration.
    What exactly does this mean?
    I want do read multiple dv streams from my Raid 50 - Any ideas which Block Size I should allocate??
    Should I just leave it as the default 32K??
    Any help will be appreciated
    Cheers
    Adam

    My main concern is really to have as many editors as possible reading DV footage from the Raid simultaneously (up to 5 at once).
    I understand that we may struggle at times, but Xsan isn't an option and I just need to get the best out of a limited budget!
    Chers
    Adam

  • What should the "raid block size" be

    I just installed 3, 750 sata barracuda's in my 1 hour old 8 core mac. I am stripping them together with the OS to raid o.
    It is asking me what "raid block size" to use:
    16k
    32k
    64k
    128k
    256k
    The help menu suggests that for the most thruput, a higher number might be best...
    I will be using this raid for DV & HD video with Final cut studio 2 & AFX cs3.
    Not sure which value to use.
    Thanks,
    Steve

    I would not include the OS with your HD & DV storage RAID.
    And Apple RAID keeps improving so that you can use smaller default for non-video or audio applications as in CS3 scratch disks.
    Booting from RAID has limitations and problems, and I would prefer a dedicated fast drive instead, and isolate the system activity as well which also helps.

  • Raid block size ?

    i just purchased two firewire 800
    500gb external hard drives.
    i want to use them as a raid set up for recording audio, (vocals,guitars etc)
    or keeping my komplete ultimate 9 sound library on it.
    either way, i have no idea what raid block size to use ?
    hope everyone is having a great new year ;-)

    Hello d rock,
    When creating a RAID array, you'll typically want your block size to match (as closely as reasonable) the size of the files being stored on the array.
    ...specify an optimal storage block size for the data stored on the set. Set the block size to match the size of data stored on the set. For example, a database might store small units of data, so a small block size might be best. A video processing application might require fast throughput of large amounts of data, so a larger block size might be best.
    Disk Utility 12.x: Create a RAID set
    http://support.apple.com/kb/PH5834
    Cheers,
    Allen

  • Mac Pro RAID block size recommendations for working with audio in Logic Pro

    I have recently ordered a Mac Pro and plan to do a RAID configuration across 3 HDD's
    The RAID type i am going to do is a RAID 0 striped.
    The computer is going to be used primarily for audio post production and working with 20+ 24-Bit audio files at any one time within a Logic project.
    I want to know what is the best block size i should use when configuring the RAID.
    I understand that using a higher block size is best for working with large files but do i need to do this in my case or will the default 32k block size be enough?
    Thanks in advance

    Use 64k. Things like databases like having 32k blocks because of all the small files. Audio files are pretty small even at 24-bit 192KHz. Go to 128k if all you are doing is streaming and no samples. But 20+ 24-bit is really not too large anyway considering most modern HDD's can stream 100MB/s off one spindle. You'll probably be fine regardless of the block size you choose. But most audio pro's choose 64k.

  • RAID block size for final cut pro x

    Just got one of the new late 2012 27" iMacs and a 6 TB LaCie Thunderbolt drive. Can finally edit the video I took last spring. I'll be using Final Cut Pro X, and doing a lot of multicam stuff with 4 or 5 views and a separate audio track. The LaCie came formatted as a mirrored RAID. I'm going to change that to 0 (Striped RAID set), but am wondering what block size to set. The default is 32k, but I have read that this ought to be increased to the max (256k) for video editing. I have also read it should NOT be increased. And the posts I have read have all been at least 3 years old. So let me ask you all--what block size would you recommend for my situation?
    Thanks in advance!

    Hi Eddie...
    This depends on what kind of source footage you are editing....
    For compressed Video, Audio and Uncompressed audio 128k
    I have only had BAD results with 256k. 64 is also weird. Whereas 32 is fine.
    All my RAIDs have 128k for audio/video editing
    you can go further if you editing Image Sequences.. but according to my own findings and I have been dealing with raid since years.... 128k does the job the best.
    Rule of thumb.... The smaller the file sizes you are putting the RAID the smaller the block size. And vice versa.
    I.e. You would cripple the raid performance if storing a database on it, having a block size of 256. In case of servers and OS 32k would be a good choice, perhaps even 16k if supported.

  • Best RAID block size for media drive?

    What block size give you best performance when it comes to pushing data?
    For a striped RAID setup.
    32 is standard but since most of the media files are big and consistent would a higher value like 128 or even 256 KB be better?

    "fools step in where angels fear to tred"
    Well I'm not volunteering to be one of those.
    Jerry, if your fiber channel raid is giving you the throughput that you need, don't be concerned.
    (I had a quick look through your manual and I'm also confused. But I can't afford that kind of setup so...?)
    I have a simple two 250GB LaCie d2 raid 0 set via SoftRaid and firewire 800 using the G5 port and a LaCie card firewire 800 for dual channel setup.
    This houses my media for FCP.
    My stripe size is set to 128K simply because that's what the SoftRaid manual recommended for video applications.
    This two drive setup is fine for multiple SD streams of DV, but can only manage a single 8 bit uncompressed HD 1080i stream without dropped frames.

  • RAID Block size for video

    Can anyone share their experience on what block size in a RAID tends to be better for video, or what size you are using?  (i.e. 128K, 256K, 512K)

    Thanks for the reply Harm. I later noticed that the Areca Controller grays out the block size if RAID 3 is selected.

  • HT2559 Help with setting raid block size after the fact

    I screwed up and created my raid 1 with block size set at 32. I need 256....it won't let me change it? What do I do?  Do I delete and re-configure it?

    thanks for the reply.  I am editing huge photo files (HDR Pano's) off the drive.  Doesn't that mean I need 256?  Anyway, when I go to erase it, it says "Deleting a mirrored RAID set changes each of its slices into a partition that contains a complete copy of the data from the deleted RAID set".   Is that a problem?

  • SSD erase block size

    I've just had a new T410 delivered with a 128Gb solid state drive. Linux reports the drive model as a "SAMSUNG MMCRE28G". Can someone tell me what the erase block size is, please, so I can get things aligned properly? I can't find any mention of this drive at all, let alone specs, on Samsung's rather useless website. It's easy enough to align the partitions on multiples of 1Mb to be safe, but I'm not sure what "stripe-width" to use to tell the ext4 filesystem to align files appropriately. It's too bad this basic information seems not to be published anywhere...
    Thanks!
    James.

    Did you read the section immediately after the one you linked? https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pa … ng_tools_2
    In past, proper alignment required manual calculation and intervention when partitioning. Many of the common partition tools now handle partition alignment automatically:
    To verify a partition is aligned, query it using /usr/bin/blockdev as shown below, if a '0' is returned, the partition is aligned
    Is that not sufficient for your purposes?
    Last edited by 2ManyDogs (2014-11-04 18:55:37)

  • RAID: striping and block size

    I just finished the setup of a RAID striped array of 2 500MB disks, my question is about the RAID block size, is there a noticeable difference in performance by choosing a larger block size than the 32KB default?, I chose 64kb but will 128kb make any noticeable difference?

    Are you in the right place? The reason I ask is that you can only ever have one disk inside an MBP.
    However, if you're talking about an external drive(s) then it would depend on what you are doing with the drive. For a boot/Photoshop/general drive I would recommedn 32K else a maximum 64K. Otherwise, if you are doing large sequential transfers such as video then a larger block size will help.

  • Best Block Size in Raid for Photo files

    I am setting up my two drive striped RAID 0 and came to a screeching halt at the raid block size.
    This RASID is strictly for photo scans and PS CS2 photo files, mostly high res, some medium JPEGs.
    Adobe says PS CS2's default block size in 64K, if I can believe the technical support guy, who said it off the top of his head, after not understanding what I was talking about.
    Apple Tech support first knew nothing about it. Then, after checking all over for quite some time, said 32K is adequate for what I am doing but 64K is alright. In other words, he said nothing.
    What would be the best block size for my purpose and why.
    One scan file size that I just checked is 135.2MB, another 134.6 MB and that is typical. JPEGs are, of course, smaller, ca 284 KB. Photos with the Canon EOS-1Ds Mk II run 9mb up to 200mb after processing. No other tyhpes of files will be on this drive.
    What would be the ideal block size and why?
    Thanks much,
    Mark

    The default 32K is for small random I/O pattern of a server. Use 128/256K for audio and video files. And 64K for workstation use.
    the larger block size gives the best performance for sequential I/O. Someone mentioned an AMUG review of CS2 tests that showed that 64K.
    Because this is probably a scratch volume, you could always test for yourself, and rebuild the RAID later and try a different scheme. Sometimes that is the best way to match your drives, your workflow, and system. There are a couple CS2 scripts and benchmark utilities to help get an idea of how long each step or operation takes.

  • SSD RAID 0

    Hello,
    I recently purchased two Intel X-25M 160GB SSDs. I put them in RAID 0 via Disk Utility. However, I was wondering what the best block size would be for my boot drives. I currently have it in 128k blocks, and it is very slow compared to my MacBook with one SSD and no RAID. Is there any way to improve the performance? Would it be better to just use one SSD in the Mac Pro? Would setting the block size to a different setting improve the boot volume?
    Thanks!

    Congrats on entering the world of SSD!!! You should keep in mind that not all SSD are created equally. Intel SSD are usually a little slower than some other brands but have a longer lifespan. SSD technology suffers from a limited amount of writes to each cell before the cell fails. If your MacBook SSD is SandForce based you will likely see better performance than the two Intel units, even in a stripe.
    When purchasing an SSD do the research on who makes the controller, this is the most important aspect of current SSD based drives. The list of will include Intel, Toshiba (think MBA, Kingston ssdNow series), Indilinx (OCZ Agility), SandForce (OCZ Agility 2, OCZ Vertex 2, OCZ RevoDrive, Corsair F Series, OWC Mercury series), Marvell (Micron/Crucial C300)
    As for the block sizes, I would pick a smaller size than 128k for SSD as they really shine in small random access workloads.
    I boot my MacPro (1,1 , 2.66ghz) from a Kingston 64 gig SSD. This model is a Toshiba based unit. It performs nicely as a boot device.
    I have 2 x 1 TB Western Digital Caviar Black drives in a stripe to hold video and "slower need" data.
    I have 2 x 240 GB OCZ RevoDrive (first model, not the updated X2 series) to hold Aperture Libraries. These drives have an onboard stripe which I disabled on a PC during post. Each RevoDrive exposes 2 x 120 GB drives to OS X. I take the "4" drives and stripe them in disk utility using 32K Raid Block Size.
    I have a 2 TB Western Digital Caviar Green for Time Machine
    I use diglloyd DiskTester for benchmarking. Please note that if you get this tool DO NOT use his Recondition SSD feature as it is only useful on early SSD technology. It slowed my Crucial C300 to the point where I had to re-flash the firmware (which does a low level format)
    Results are from Sequential Test command in DiskTester
    *Kingston -- (Avg / Fastest / Slowest) -- MB / Sec*
    Write - 158 / 176 / 149
    Read - 238 / 242 / 232
    *WD Caviar Black Stripe*
    Write - 186 / 191 / 175
    Read - 191 / 202 / 166
    *OCZ RevoDrive (Stripe of 4 SandForce based "drives", 2 from each RevoDrive, 32K Block)*
    Write - 704 / 717 / 699
    Read - 936 / 958 / 865
    *OCZ RevoDrive (Stripe of 4 SandForce based "drives", 2 from each RevoDrive, 16K Block)*
    Write - 689 / 701 / 655
    Read - 943 / 950 / 920
    *OCZ RevoDrive (Stripe of 4 SandForce based "drives", 2 from each RevoDrive, 256K Block)*
    Write - 696 / 702 / 685
    Read - 904 / 916 / 882
    *OCZ RevoDrive Single Drive* +(I copied my data off the "Stripe" and tested a single drive, this should be on par with what you can expect from a single SandForce based unit such as a Cosair F series, OCZ Vertex 2, etc)+
    Write - 221 / 223 / 217
    Read - 266 / 268 / 260
    For Comparison I will also post results from my MacBookPro (6,1 , i7 2.66)
    *This drive is a Crucial C300*, 256 GB, boot. This drive has been installed for about 5 or 6 months.
    Write - 213 / 223 / 209
    Read - 280 / 281 / 278
    I hope this gives you a better idea of various SSD technologies. As you can see there a great variation in speed when you compare the Kingston (toshiba based controller) to the Crucial (Marvell based controller). The C300 is on par with the Single SandForce Based Unit.
    I will add that I have 2 more SSD in non Mac systems. A Corsair F60 and F120. Both are in Dell Laptops and they perform on par with the single SandForce results from above. Also note that the C300 is a Sata3 (6 Gbit) drive that is running on Sata2 (3Gbit) connection. Most online reviews claim that the drive performs better on the higher speed bus, but I cannot confirm.

  • SSD Raid and other comments

    I spent the time to test a few situations for myself because there is no real life data that I can find on the internet which pertains to a real Mac user environment. These are only my finding and observations so I can finally stop ripping into my 2008 Mac Pro and changing things around constantly. Its not very scientific but to me I don't mind since the Mac user environment is judged upon feel as a large consideration. Also I'm not a high end power user to work with expensive software solutions. Just an average Mac user since '86, interested in speed and feel for speed.
    First: I wanted to utilize my 6 sata ports for hard drives because one, I test and need the extra hard drives and two, I was thinking of Raid 0 with SSD. So I researched and found nothing about using a sata optical connected to the ide controller in top compartment of the Mac Pro. So I decided to try anyway and purchased a Manhattan Sata 300 to ide converter. The only reason I bought this item is their web site said Windows, Mac and Linux compatible. I set J3 to cable select and connected the provided y-type power connector to the tiny controller card and the optical. I tried an LG CH08LS10 BD reader/DVD burner and a Samsung SH-B083. Without going into lots of detail everything I threw at the opticals worked. ASP shows ata connected device and of course nothing under sata.
    Second: I have read all there is to read about raid 0 and SSD for the boot drive.I have also tried every combination of SSD raid 0 and concluded only based upon observation and feel concerning speed that it made no sense to raid 0 SSD and lose a good sata port. Yes it does have an improvement on write speed but I don't store large files to write. I use a conventional scratch disk 7200 rpm or a 300 gig velociraptor. I'm believe one should match up the SSD to all other devices it will eventually interact. So I don't have enough room to raid conventional hard drives nor do I want to purchase a third party pci card. For those of you suggesting otherwise, I'm spending my time towards myself and the normal casual user. Here's some points to consider:
    1) I wanted to stop watch test only those real events I was familiar, finding that kind of data on the internet is basically nonexistent.
    2) finding optimal raid block size is highly important, yet difficult to find. Probably because to test all the sizes would be a huge PITA. So my test is simple. Make the raid0, choose the block size, install the OS and test. Open DMG files off a second hard drive I used Seagate 7200 rpm and feel the time it takes to open the dmg and mount on the desktop. With a single SSD its quite fast, usually 1 second. In raid zero if the block size is chosen incorrectly then the time will become quite long, being obviously slower. I'm not the expert so I wouldn't recommend the correct size but I think 16k is good. 32K becomes slow.
    3) Here are some stop watch times:
    warm restart: single SSD 39.1 secs raid 0 47.6 sec (not worth the loss of one sata port)
    install itunes 10.1.2 since this dmg does take a longish time: single SSD 1:47.0 min raid 0 1:27.6 (hardly worth the loss of one sata port)
    use itunes to add to a very large music library including artwork: single SSD 1:44.1 min raid 0 1:44.1 min
    using itunes to change equalizer to rock for the entire library: single SSD 1:17.9 min raid 0 1:16.8
    How to make itunes numbers faster , instead of placing the music folder on a conventional hard drive, I used a 300 gig Velociraptor ; place the music file on the SSD then itunes will really fly faster BUT what's the sense for a one time shot. Why use up the SSD space for a couple extra seconds.
    Lastly, I think raid 0 for conventional hard drives would be beneficial but once user gets into SSD the entire story changes. So I'm providing my experiences as a community service. I'm not looking for answer. I feel satisfied that I'm not going to raid my boot drive, a single SSD is fast enough to boot and launch applications. I'll store my data files on a scratch drive, a fast 7200 rpm hard drive wich matches up to my SSD drive. My SSD drives are X25M intel and they match well with fast hard drives. I don't need to raid hard drives because they'll write faster than the intel can do. 105 M/sec is good enough for me, the normal casual user.
    My boot drive is 19 gigs used. I have the normal amount of Applications installed . My music, downloads and movies are on a 7200 rpm scratch drive. Attaching my firewire externals matches up with my internals for speed within reason. Someone write something positive so I can close this post out.

    Another thought then I'm done with this thread.
    I posted a topic about the Radeon 5770 or 5870 working in the 2008 Mac Pro. I read all the stuff on the internet that it is doable. Although it is there was not ANY comments about what if a person clean installs with that card installed prior to. I did that test and was not totally satisfied that its bullet proof.
    I think that too many comments about things that supposedly work but will be unsupported needs to have more justification.
    Except if you think about it, each time I post some simplistic real world test and make comments to how I'm satisfied with performance there are only a small less than handful of people who bother to return a reply. A conclusion then follows that what ever one digests out there on the internet needs to be looked at in depth with some thought. Not just acceptance that the data is all inclusive. I'd never post any data where I thought it was 100% correct when in fact there is variability.
    A simple example would be do some research and try to find out exactly what programs use how many cores. There's some data but not enough to cover the large quantity of programs which exist for the Mac using either Snow Leopard or Leopard.
    One of my pet peeves is to do research and go to some forum, out of this one and read all the responses to some persons query. Its ridiculous the amount of band width wasted with replies that don't come close to answering the initial question.

  • RAID blocking issues with the new d2 quadra

    I just bought 2 of the newest 500GB d2 quadras and I attempted to set up a level 1 RAID with them daisy chained to my imac via firewire 800 and using disk utility. When I went to set the RAID Block size to 256k and create the RAID I got the screen of death. I then restarted and it did it again on start up. I unplugged the drives and started the computer back up and tested each one individually. I reformatted and tried again, same thing happened.
    I took them into the apple store and it happened again on their computers. We tested other Block configurations (32k, 64k, 128k) and they all worked except 256k. The genius's didn't know what the problem could be. A Leopard issue, hard drive issue, or what else.....
    Is anyone else having this issue? Should I be worried that there is an issue with one of the drives I am trying to RAID and return and get a new drive, or should I just set the block to 128k and not worry. I am pro photographer and am going to be storing and accessing RAW files in large amounts on these drives. What are the benefits and drawbacks for 128k formatting and 256k formatting?
    Any advice would be great! Thanks!

    marisaholmes, welcome to the Apple Boards,
    This board is for the discussion of a specific piece of Apple Hardware called the Xserve RAID. I think there is probably a more appropriate board for this question where you are more likely to find an answer.
    Sorry, hope this helps,
    =Tod

Maybe you are looking for