@noldar12 said:

Cyril, not so... I am well aware of what ADK, and StudioCat (both major DAW builders in the US) have said and the computer configurations they strongly suggest for most users.

And I will stand by what I wrote... yes RAID will be faster, but it is not needed for basic audio sample streaming, and that is what I was trying to say.  When starting out, there is, in most cases, no compelling reason to go that direction.

If the OP was seeking to go 7.1, use every VSL library that has been produced with massive layering, all at once, the answer could be different.  The key is to try to determine what solution best fits what a person is actually seeking to do, and to make suggestions to help that person spend their money wisely to do what they want to do.  There are some super power users that can benefit from RAID, but that is not the majority of users.

Think what you want !

Why do you speak of things you have not try ! this is blablabla !

I went down form 40 to 5 minutes loading my VSL template using a raid of 2 x 256 GB SSD !

With your lib on a SSD and/or Raid 0 of SSD you can reduce the pre-load buffer size loading much more samples in memory ! and of cours less drop out (samples not load in time)

More samples you have in memory less risk you have to swap out samples of memory ! do you know what is "swap out and In" ?

If you just play a quator you may not need a ssd !

Cyril, please remember that you know nothing about how things work in Windows. Your results are only valid for OSX, which has its own problems. It is also very discourteous to sepak to a fellow VSL user in such a snide tone of voice. I'm assuming that it is just a language problem, and as I'm not a moderator I'm not giving you a slapping, but noldar12 has been very polite and I think he deserves the same respect from you.

DG

Hi DG

Sorry for my english I was not thinking it was insulting !

Are you saying that Windows does not know how to deal with a Raid 0 ! that using a Raid of SSD does not allow dividing the loading time by 10 and does not allow to reduce pre-load buffer size !

Best

Cyril

Ondine, an i3 definitely will not be sufficient for full orchestra.  The specs for full VSL use - with MIR Pro - would be at least an i7.  Real world performance will vary from individual to individual based on workflow, but for most, an i7 4930k or the older 3930k i7 will be more than sufficient.  Dietz has remarked that in the case of his own specific workflow (and this is a specific example - not a general one), on his i7 3930k he is able to get around 100 VSL instrument tracks in MIR Pro.  

Using SSDs, with their reduced required loading buffer for VSL samples, 32 gigs of RAM will likely be enough.  If you use a lot of sample libraries by other developers, there may still be a potential need for 64 gigs, but I cannot directly speak to that, as for what I write and do, I more or less live in VSL land.  What I can say is that in my existing system (an i7 930 with 24 gigs of RAM), is that more than 24 gigs would be helpful.  Note also that I currently have only one small SSD drive so not that many of the loading buffers can be reduced.

Also, the VSL developers have stated several times their libraries perform better on the Windows platform than on Mac.  The DAW builder I am most familiar with also confirms better overall DAW performance on Windows over Mac, and for quite awhile that company (ADK) tested and sold both PCs and Macs.  Windows certainly can handle RAID, but unless you intend to be very high-end, streaming from SSD's without RAID is enough.

@Another User said:

Are you saying that Windows does not know how to deal with a Raid 0 ! that using a Raid of SSD does not allow dividing the loading time by 10 and does not allow to reduce pre-load buffer size !

No, I'm saying that you don't need RAID, becuase it works very well using SSD without RAID, and you also don't have to worry about swap (page file), becuase it is not an issue in Windows.

DG

And Cyril, I agree with DG, your English is much better than my French (had two years of French decades ago in high school, but was horrible at it.[:)]

@DG said:

No, I'm saying that you don't need RAID, becuase it works very well using SSD without RAID, and you also don't have to worry about swap (page file), becuase it is not an issue in Windows.

DG

If you use a Raid 0, you will load even faster and you will reduce more the preload buffer size

With 4 x 256 GB you should be able to tripple the I/O (if your PC is able to handle such fast I/O)

With a raid 0 , you multiply by 1.5 the I/O per disk

Windows does not swap ? when it need more memory  ?

@Cyril said:

Windows does not swap ? when it need more memory  ?

1. With Windows you can use more of the installed RAM before you get into problems. OSX is less forgiving.
2. You would never allow the page file to be used for something such as sample streaming, as that would degrade perfornnace.

DG

@Cyril said:

Windows does not swap ? when it need more memory  ?

1. With Windows you can use more of the installed RAM before you get into problems. OSX is less forgiving.

@Cyril said:

Windows does not swap ? when it need more memory  ?

1. With Windows you can use more of the installed RAM before you get into problems. OSX is less forgiving.

Interesting. I've alway been told that when you get close to the installed RAM limit (and this happens in OSX before it would in Windows)) the sawp file is used and you can't stop that from happening. Is that not the case any more?

DG

 Cyril, DG,

Related to this question - thanks for that info on the other thread.  I am going to get at least 500 GB of SSD space.  I am wondering if that should be a single larger SSd or deliberately use several smaller ones.   If using the smaller ones perhaps with samples the Raid is not needed as the samples each come from a discrete source on the separate drives and are not spread across drives?   I'm not saying that, just asking - is there are specific reason for any one of these configurations?  Thanks for your help!  I greatly appreciate hearing from expert users. 

Hi William,

From what I know, (I may be wrong) VSL is loading the samples in serial.

So putting you lib on different small ssd will no improve the loading time.

With a raid 0, a sample is cut into segments and is spread accross the disks of the raid

So when the cpu ask for a sample the controler is reading your sample in parrallel gaining 1.5 per sdd/disk ; this is limited by the I/O speed of the channel.

If you want to know more about raid : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID