| Here, Adobe Premiere Pro 2 is tested. FX74 consists of two dual core Socket 1207
| AMD processors running at 3GHz (in an ASUS L1N64-SLI WS). The QX6700 isn't even
| the fastest processor in the Intel lineup. The QX6850, for example, runs at 3GHz
| (as does Xeon 5365, which is still not listed on the Intel site, but is available
| in Apple MacPro).
Turns out Adobe Premiere CS 3 (the current product) is a 32-bit app
and runs in 32-bit mode even if a 64-bit OS is used. It cannot access
more than 3GB of memory even if the machine is populated with 64GB
(which 64-bit Windows could support).
So it looks like 4GB of RAM is the max (and even then XP will not
use more than 3.?? GB of it due to the need for memory holes when
in 32-bit mode).
| Now, the next question, would be the memory thing. Does the editing
| environment actually suck 16GB of HD content into memory and work
| on it ? Is the excess RAM being used as a RAM disk ? Again, I would
Apparently not.
| have to see a benchmark, where 1GB, 2GB, 4GB, 8GB... were tried and
| the improvements in performance noted, before I would go there. The
| thing is, some motherboard and platform choices, allow a higher
| memory bandwidth system to be built, so there has to be a good
| reason to use a slower, larger memory array. (For example, DDR3-1333
| is available for desktop systems.)
Given the discovered 3GB limit (4GB practical limit in terms of
what to physically put in), I might guess a focus memory speed
would help. And I have not seen DD3 in ECC, yet.
| On a motherboard with FBDIMMs, there could be four memory channels.
| In that case, you'd want to put at least one DIMM per channel, to
| give the best memory bandwidth. That would suggest a minimum memory
| size for that architecture. Similarly, if you have a multi-socket
| AMD system, you'd want to install at least two DIMMs per socket,
| so that every memory controller runs in dual channel mode.
I've been looking at the Tyan S2927 board. Any better suggestion?
| Then, you study what happens as more memory is added. On an FBDIMM
| system, the second DIMM installed in a channel, sees longer latency,
| due to the serial interconnect of devices in the channel. The FBDIMM
| channel is bidirectional, which means more than one transaction
| can be in flight at a time, but the speed might not be the same as
| a more "raw" format such as DDR2 unbuffered or DDR3 unbuffered.
Unfortunately, I don't have the study opportunity. I need to pick
the right parts and then that is what we are stuck with.
| A video editing system, uses disk arrays to hold the content which
| does not fit into memory. A hardware RAID gives the best possible
| performance, by not burdening the processor with data movement.
| (Data is DMA transferred directly into memory.) If the hardware
| RAID can't meet the performance of the processor (or accelerator)
| based video processing, then the system will suffer because of it.
Modern SATA hard drives do DMA transfers at full speed, anyway.
RAID is still apparently a complication for Adobe's activation
software that profiles the system via hard drive serial numbers.
It used to not even work at all.
Additionally, given high volumes of data movement, any burst speed
capability in the short term may have little or no effect since
many times RAM size will be moving around. The need will be more
for aggregate total throughput (as long as there is no blockage in
processing the video).
| This card, for example, takes (16) SATA disks, connected to four
| adapter cables inside the PC case. You could build two eight drive
| RAID-0 arrays, each would have a bandwidth of more than 480MB/sec.
| The PCI Express x8 connector has a 2GB/sec per direction bandwidth, so
| the bus is no longer a bottleneck. You buy a motherboard with
| two large PCI Express connectors (i.e. video card slots), one takes
| the video card and the other takes the Areca. Note *very carefully*
| OS support driver wise, as not every OS may be supported well. Also
| note that it says this card supports arrays larger than 2TB - with
| today's disks this is an important factor. One way to beat the 2TB
| limit on some OSes, is to declare the sector size to be larger than
| 512 bytes. You may want to consult a downloadable manual, if you can
| find one, as to exactly how the Areca product does this. Some arrays
| rely on Windows "dynamic disk" to beat the limit.
The SATA controller is on the motherboard I am looking at (Tyan S2927).
Hopefully that will be sufficient speed. If not, I know of a PCIex16
SATA controller with 8 ports.
| If you use RAID 0, this should put a light load on the onboard IOP on the
| Areca card, and you don't want the IOP to mess up the peak performance.
| If you set the thing up for RAID5, that would spoil it.
|
| Areca ARC-1261ML-KIT PCI-Express x8 SATA II Controller Card w/Cables RAID level 0... $1070
|
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816151015
|
| At the end of every work day, you transfer the work in progress, off
| the RAID0 arrays, and onto a set of backup 1TB disks. RAID 0 is
| not a reliable RAID type, and is built for speed. So backup the
| data frequently, like once a day.
I agree, RAID0 is the way to go. This isn't soem database that has to
sit on the same data for days, weeks, months, and years. Video is
data that gets shuffled around ... so shuffling it off to external
backup storage is smart.
| This forum is a good place to go, for experiences with large or
| fast arrays.
|
|
http://www.2cpu.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=82932
|
| To search the forum, if you are a non-member like I am,
| use this search engine, set the domain to "2cpu.com" and
| enter your search terms at the top.
|
|
http://www.altavista.com/web/adv
|
| Somehow, you have to gather information, about what the Adobe application
| will use of the hardware, whether it is gobs of memory, perhaps
| using programmable shaders in the GPU for render acceleration, or
| whatever. Without a finely detailed understanding of what is going on,
| you end up being nothing more than "an assembler with a screwdriver",
| with a more expensive end product than is necessary. The reason
| I'm talking this way, is I've seen one too many web sites today,
| selling "big" hardware to video editing punters, with no other
| objective than to milk the purchaser. A lot like selling you a
| Cadillac, when all you wanted was "a ride".
|
| Good luck,
| Paul
