I guess music sounds best with a 64GB partition

[plissken]

From Positively Delusion, er I mean Positive Feedback:

 

 

That said, he laid out a plan on this current thread involving the Samsung EVO M2 as follows: create a new partition for a 64GB additional drive from the 250GB boot drive. Less than 100GB (out of 250GB) was currently being used for the OS and programs, so it was no sweat to allocate the needed space for the 64GB drive for music files. I renamed the new drive Samsung 960 EVO Music and assigned the drive letter "M" to reduce any confusion.

 

Dalibor's claim for success was based on the following: the Samsung M2, which is currently considered the gold standard among SSDs (thanks, MicroCenter guy, for not letting me buy anything else!), is the fastest SSD that exists. The Kingston drive that is also internal to my laptop only reads (only!) at about 580 gbps, so it's still significantly slower than the Samsung. The Samsung is also rocket-fast when compared to any kind of card, like an SD. And the real icing is that the new 64GB drive is essentially internal to the existing 250GB Samsung, so there's no connection transition. They're perfectly linked to each other.

[wgscott]

I wonder what filesystem sounds best?  Perhaps different 64 GB partitions could be created with HFS+, APFS, EXT3, NTFS, FAT, etc.

[Ralf11]

128 GB partitions sound twice as good

[wgscott]

Shouldn't each track have its own partition to avoid fragmentation of the audio, and bitwise bleed-through?

[mansr]

I remember reading somewhere that music files should be stored as close to the root directory as possible.

[plissken]

How do you partition your RAM to make sure it doesn't go across chips...

[wgscott]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

I remember reading somewhere that music files should be stored as close to the root directory as possible.

 

I find that the sound quality really improves if you move the library to /dev/null

 

 

[sandyk]

17 hours ago, plissken said:

From Positively Delusion, er I mean Positive Feedback:

 

 

That said, he laid out a plan on this current thread involving the Samsung EVO M2 as follows: create a new partition for a 64GB additional drive from the 250GB boot drive. Less than 100GB (out of 250GB) was currently being used for the OS and programs, so it was no sweat to allocate the needed space for the 64GB drive for music files. I renamed the new drive Samsung 960 EVO Music and assigned the drive letter "M" to reduce any confusion.

 

Dalibor's claim for success was based on the following: the Samsung M2, which is currently considered the gold standard among SSDs (thanks, MicroCenter guy, for not letting me buy anything else!), is the fastest SSD that exists. The Kingston drive that is also internal to my laptop only reads (only!) at about 580 gbps, so it's still significantly slower than the Samsung. The Samsung is also rocket-fast when compared to any kind of card, like an SD. And the real icing is that the new 64GB drive is essentially internal to the existing 250GB Samsung, so there's no connection transition. They're perfectly linked to each other.

Plissken

 Yes, a Samsung 250GB SSD, 960 EVO Series, M.2 (PCIE), Read up to 3200MB/s, Write up to 1500MB/s, Type 2280 would be great for the OS and a limited number of music files. It's a shame though that it's not possible to power the device with a quieter power supply, such as a voltage regulated supply from the main +12V rail, as these very fast SSDs have much greater PSU current demands, which MAY generate much higher RF/EMI ?

 

Does using one of these markedly reduce Video processing times ?

 

Alex

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Does using one of these markedly reduce Video processing times ?

Any I/O-bound workload will benefit from a faster storage device. I use an NVMe SSD for large build jobs. Makes a huge difference.

[plissken]

12 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Plissken

 Yes, a Samsung 250GB SSD, 960 EVO Series, M.2 (PCIE), Read up to 3200MB/s, Write up to 1500MB/s, Type 2280 would be great for the OS and a limited number of music files. It's a shame though that it's not possible to power the device with a quieter power supply, such as a voltage regulated supply from the main +12V rail, as these very fast SSDs have much greater PSU current demands, which MAY generate much higher RF/EMI ?

 

Does using one of these markedly reduce Video processing times ?

 

Alex

 

Here's the thing with SSD @ ~ 550/450MBs R-W vs NVME. Us end users will be hard pressed to tell what's in the system. 

 

Any competent DAC, some even low as $79, are going to be immune to any thing going on the the motherboard in well engineered computers. 

 

NVME is really designed around IOPS performance. Very transaction or heavy file copy oriented. 

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Any I/O-bound workload will benefit from a faster storage device. I use an NVMe SSD for large build jobs. Makes a huge difference.

 Looks like I may need to save up for a 250GB version to replace the existing Samsung EVO 850 OS SSD, as 4K video processing to 1920 x 1080 is frustratingly slow, especially when you use a few filters.

[plissken]

Just now, sandyk said:

 Looks like I may need to save up for a 250GB version to replace the existing Samsung EVO 850 OS SSD, as 4K video processing to 1920 x 1080 is frustratingly slow.

 

What's your current processing rig? Having a software that supports nVidia CUDA and a good CPU is key.

 

I picked up an HP Z420 with 6 core Xeon 1650v2, tossed in 64GB of DDR ECC Registered DDR3 and SSD. Using an nVidia 1060GTX 6GB card and it's killing it for 4k processing. 

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Looks like I may need to save up for a 250GB version to replace the existing Samsung EVO 850 OS SSD, as 4K video processing to 1920 x 1080 is frustratingly slow.

First make sure that the SSD is the bottleneck. This is easy. If your CPU load is less that 100% (for however many cores the job is using), storage is the problem. If the CPU is at 100%, the storage is already able to keep up. If you're using GPU offload, look at its load.

[Ralf11]

15 hours ago, wgscott said:

Shouldn't each track have its own partition to avoid fragmentation of the audio, and bitwise bleed-through?

 

The fetch times due to fragmentation can definitely cause problems if the sectors are far enough apart.

 

[Ralf11]

Like say in different galactic sectors

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

First make sure that the SSD is the bottleneck. This is easy. If your CPU load is less that 100% (for however many cores the job is using), storage is the problem. If the CPU is at 100%, the storage is already able to keep up. If you're using GPU offload, look at its load.

 

 Thanks, Shall do.

[sandyk]

54 minutes ago, mansr said:

First make sure that the SSD is the bottleneck. This is easy. If your CPU load is less that 100% (for however many cores the job is using), storage is the problem. If the CPU is at 100%, the storage is already able to keep up. If you're using GPU offload, look at its load.

 CPU peaks at 69% occasionally with 4K to 1080 conversion

[plissken]

List out your rig. Looks like your software also supports CUDA. What's your video card? 

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, plissken said:

List out your rig. Looks like your software also supports CUDA. What's your video card? 

 

The NVidia card does support CUDA, but unlike with the previous card using the same program , you now have to DL special CUDA Developers s/w  etc. and it just became too much hassle to keep trying to get it to work.

It's no longer straight forward like it used to be.

[davide256]

17 hours ago, plissken said:

 

Here's the thing with SSD @ ~ 550/450MBs R-W vs NVME. Us end users will be hard pressed to tell what's in the system. 

 

Any competent DAC, some even low as $79, are going to be immune to any thing going on the the motherboard in well engineered computers. 

 

NVME is really designed around IOPS performance. Very transaction or heavy file copy oriented. 

I'd call BS on the 64 gb partition... he never compared to using the drive as a single partition. I can believe the faster drive helps reduce I/O problems with USB audio

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, davide256 said:

I'd call BS on the 64 gb partition... he never compared to using the drive as a single partition. I can believe the faster drive helps reduce I/O problems with USB audio

What problems? My spinning disks deliver over 300 MB/s. That's more than 100x the rate of stereo DSD256.

[plissken]

16 minutes ago, davide256 said:

I'd call BS on the 64 gb partition... he never compared to using the drive as a single partition. I can believe the faster drive helps reduce I/O problems with USB audio

 

Can you better define what you mean? 24/192 only needs ~900Kbyte/second. Even a 5400 RPM spinner can deliver that 100 times over again. 

[davide256]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

What problems? My spinning disks deliver over 300 MB/s. That's more than 100x the rate of stereo DSD256.

Since you don't publicly share the system you use, who knows what matters to you? But for those of us who work with less than perfect systems, faster hard drives mean less opportunity for the OS to screw up playback.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, davide256 said:

Since you don't publicly share the system you use, who knows what matters to you? But for those of us who work with less than perfect systems, faster hard drives mean less opportunity for the OS to screw up playback.

Up to a point, yes. We reached that point in 1995 or so.

[AMP]

7 hours ago, mansr said:

What problems? My spinning disks deliver over 300 MB/s. That's more than 100x the rate of stereo DSD256.

 

 

7 hours ago, plissken said:

Can you better define what you mean? 24/192 only needs ~900Kbyte/second. Even a 5400 RPM spinner can deliver that 100 times over again. 

 

 

How dare you two bring math into a discussion about audio