SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
7 GB is MORE than enough page file. if i was fiddling with it... i'd drop mine to 2048 (2 GB). having too big of a page file means that your encouraging your system to not utilize the 32 GB of RAM... fuk that, RAM is faster... use it.
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
I know RAM is faster, I'm just not sure about the peculiarities of Windows and how some programs respond to what etc.
But I will heed your advice and drop it to 2GB.
Cheers
But I will heed your advice and drop it to 2GB.
Cheers
-
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:56 am
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
I just increased my RAM input ( ) and reduced the PF to 2gb, no issues on that side and programs are opening faster but i have been getting disk overload messages in Live since i did it.
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
bump it up to 4096 (4 GB).
XOXO
XOXO
-
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:56 am
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
I've got 12gb of ram (admittedly the other 4gb is slower but it's compatible) but i though that'd be plenty but i'll see how it goes.H20nly wrote:bump it up to 4096 (4 GB).
XOXO
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
the error could be the way Live tries to use the resources... page file is used to shelve data for quick retrieval that cannot be stored in RAM due to size or time (recently referenced but not currently in use) limitations... it could also be a way for Live to cheat the 4GB RAM barrier in 32 bit system; since page file size recommendations are around 50%-150% of the available RAM.
still, there is a limit to how much data you want shelved. as you witnessed by lowering the buffer, a lower buffer setting forces the system to use RAM which is faster than reading from the disk. Windows drops the recommendation for a page file after a certain point in 64 bit systems.
Since you said you have 12 GB of RAM, then i have to assume you have a 64 bit OS. since we're talking about page file, then i have to assume you have a Windows OS... so, check this out for more clarification:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/889654
NOTE - the article is old and doesn't apply to Windows Vista, 7, & 8... i found that this makes it more relevant in some regards. also, it's not meant to be a tutorial or a to do... only a point of reference regarding whether to use a page file at all on systems with high amounts of RAM. - in other words; it's old news. First few paragraphs tell you most of what you need to glean.
one last thought... i'm hoping your rebooted after changing the page file size, but just in case... i'm mentioning it now. you have to reboot.
still, there is a limit to how much data you want shelved. as you witnessed by lowering the buffer, a lower buffer setting forces the system to use RAM which is faster than reading from the disk. Windows drops the recommendation for a page file after a certain point in 64 bit systems.
Since you said you have 12 GB of RAM, then i have to assume you have a 64 bit OS. since we're talking about page file, then i have to assume you have a Windows OS... so, check this out for more clarification:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/889654
NOTE - the article is old and doesn't apply to Windows Vista, 7, & 8... i found that this makes it more relevant in some regards. also, it's not meant to be a tutorial or a to do... only a point of reference regarding whether to use a page file at all on systems with high amounts of RAM. - in other words; it's old news. First few paragraphs tell you most of what you need to glean.
one last thought... i'm hoping your rebooted after changing the page file size, but just in case... i'm mentioning it now. you have to reboot.
-
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:56 am
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
Thanks H2Only! I recently got an SSD and moved the PF to it's own partition on another drive, left it fixed at 2gb i think.
Very fast system now but the overload issue seems to have resolved itself, wasn't recurring anyway, just under heavy load. Cheers!
Ended up getting the Evo 850 anyway, plan is to get a 1tb hybrid SSD for all the sample libraries and consign the current drives to backup. So nice to have track freeze only take a few seconds, i know keep the current project on the SSD and life is so much better!
Very fast system now but the overload issue seems to have resolved itself, wasn't recurring anyway, just under heavy load. Cheers!
Ended up getting the Evo 850 anyway, plan is to get a 1tb hybrid SSD for all the sample libraries and consign the current drives to backup. So nice to have track freeze only take a few seconds, i know keep the current project on the SSD and life is so much better!
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
musikmachine wrote:Thanks H2Only! I recently got an SSD and moved the PF to it's own partition on another drive, left it fixed at 2gb i think.
Very fast system now but the overload issue seems to have resolved itself, wasn't recurring anyway, just under heavy load. Cheers!
Ended up getting the Evo 850 anyway, plan is to get a 1tb hybrid SSD for all the sample libraries and consign the current drives to backup. So nice to have track freeze only take a few seconds, i know keep the current project on the SSD and life is so much better!
Hey, just wanted to see how your Evo 850 in your setup help up after a few years. I should be installing one today on my ancient, early 2008 Mac Pro. I’m installing it with the OWC Accelsior S PCIe Adapter which apparently boosts the speed even more compared to using my internal SATA ports.
My main decision now is to decide whether I should run OS X on the Evo with 500GB, or on my Crucial SSD w/ 240GB.
Should my system drive have the extra space or should my Live projects have the extra SSD space with growth allowance.
MacBookPro11,2 15” mid 2014
Intel Core i7 Processor Speed: 2.5 GHz
4 Core, 16 GB
Intel Core i7 Processor Speed: 2.5 GHz
4 Core, 16 GB
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
i can't speak to his SSD, but now that a few years have gone by... the EVOs are still getting really good reviews and seem to work well.
i would use the smaller drive for your OS and applications... but make sure you specify that you want your libraries on the larger drive during installs (using advanced/custom install options).
PCIe is faster than SATA, but given the speed of SSDs in general, i wouldn't worry yourself about the connectors too much. just use what the old Macbook has to offer.
If you have to use an adapter you are meeting a bottleneck where that adapter is connected. the transfer rate will be the same speed (or lower) than the lowest speed. AFAIK there is no adapter that will increase bus speeds on old hardware.
so for example; if you have a port that transfers at 500 MB/s and you have have another port that can transfer at 1000 MB/s and you are transferring between them you will only get 500 MB/s transfer rates. there is not an adapter that is going to convince the 500 MB/s bus that it really is faster.
i would use the smaller drive for your OS and applications... but make sure you specify that you want your libraries on the larger drive during installs (using advanced/custom install options).
PCIe is faster than SATA, but given the speed of SSDs in general, i wouldn't worry yourself about the connectors too much. just use what the old Macbook has to offer.
If you have to use an adapter you are meeting a bottleneck where that adapter is connected. the transfer rate will be the same speed (or lower) than the lowest speed. AFAIK there is no adapter that will increase bus speeds on old hardware.
so for example; if you have a port that transfers at 500 MB/s and you have have another port that can transfer at 1000 MB/s and you are transferring between them you will only get 500 MB/s transfer rates. there is not an adapter that is going to convince the 500 MB/s bus that it really is faster.
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
Thanks H20nly! I did end up going with the EVO for my Mac Pro, and while it did test faster, I think I still have issues with folder management having 4 internal drives with old and new Live 7-10 sets. Its pain staking, but maybe i’ll eventually organize them right.
In the meantime, I snagged a used MBP mid 2014, hopefully I can start managing it right with fresh drives. Wish me luck
In the meantime, I snagged a used MBP mid 2014, hopefully I can start managing it right with fresh drives. Wish me luck
MacBookPro11,2 15” mid 2014
Intel Core i7 Processor Speed: 2.5 GHz
4 Core, 16 GB
Intel Core i7 Processor Speed: 2.5 GHz
4 Core, 16 GB
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
good luck!!kites wrote:Thanks H20nly! I did end up going with the EVO for my Mac Pro, and while it did test faster, I think I still have issues with folder management having 4 internal drives with old and new Live 7-10 sets. Its pain staking, but maybe i’ll eventually organize them right.
In the meantime, I snagged a used MBP mid 2014, hopefully I can start managing it right with fresh drives. Wish me luck
and i feel your pain. my 2008-ish self felt that having different drives for different purposes was going to be a better model. i've since found that it only really is if you keep it simple. most of what we would want to move or quarantine can be adequately handled with a sub folder. in my 2018 mindset, anything over 2 or 3 drives just becomes an additional point of failure and/or maintenance.
congrats on your purchase. be careful which version of OS X you put on it. i'm thinking High Sierra might not be a good idea.
-
- Posts: 4478
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:50 am
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
yeah, lots of drives becomes a PITA to manage. i still have a lot of different backup drives. one day i'm going to set up a big NAS and consolidate them down to one place. makes keeping a rotating offsite backup much easier too.H20nly wrote:good luck!!kites wrote:Thanks H20nly! I did end up going with the EVO for my Mac Pro, and while it did test faster, I think I still have issues with folder management having 4 internal drives with old and new Live 7-10 sets. Its pain staking, but maybe i’ll eventually organize them right.
In the meantime, I snagged a used MBP mid 2014, hopefully I can start managing it right with fresh drives. Wish me luck
and i feel your pain. my 2008-ish self felt that having different drives for different purposes was going to be a better model. i've since found that it only really is if you keep it simple. most of what we would want to move or quarantine can be adequately handled with a sub folder. in my 2018 mindset, anything over 2 or 3 drives just becomes an additional point of failure and/or maintenance.
congrats on your purchase. be careful which version of OS X you put on it. i'm thinking High Sierra might not be a good idea.
High Sierra is a good idea, i've been running it on a mid-2014 MBP for a while now. the new AFPS file system in particular is snappy.
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
fishmonkey wrote:yeah, lots of drives becomes a PITA to manage. i still have a lot of different backup drives. one day i'm going to set up a big NAS and consolidate them down to one place. makes keeping a rotating offsite backup much easier too.H20nly wrote:good luck!!kites wrote:Thanks H20nly! I did end up going with the EVO for my Mac Pro, and while it did test faster, I think I still have issues with folder management having 4 internal drives with old and new Live 7-10 sets. Its pain staking, but maybe i’ll eventually organize them right.
In the meantime, I snagged a used MBP mid 2014, hopefully I can start managing it right with fresh drives. Wish me luck
and i feel your pain. my 2008-ish self felt that having different drives for different purposes was going to be a better model. i've since found that it only really is if you keep it simple. most of what we would want to move or quarantine can be adequately handled with a sub folder. in my 2018 mindset, anything over 2 or 3 drives just becomes an additional point of failure and/or maintenance.
congrats on your purchase. be careful which version of OS X you put on it. i'm thinking High Sierra might not be a good idea.
High Sierra is a good idea, i've been running it on a mid-2014 MBP for a while now. the new AFPS file system in particular is snappy.
Ya High Sierra is fine with me atm, but haven’t had much time with Live 10 yet. Fishmonkey what’s a NAS?
Anyone see these nifty Transcend 825/820 drives? https://www.transcend-info.com/Products/No-850 The kit comes with an Thunderbolt 2 enclosure to swap out your OS from your original, while allowing to use it as an external Thunderbolt drive afterwards.
Aside from the 825/820 kits they just announced a faster kit with their 855/850 https://www.transcend-info.com/Products/No-957 last month.
I’m about to pick up a 825/820 480gb kit kit on Amazon now.
P.s. Prime Day, has nothing I want! How about you guys?
MacBookPro11,2 15” mid 2014
Intel Core i7 Processor Speed: 2.5 GHz
4 Core, 16 GB
Intel Core i7 Processor Speed: 2.5 GHz
4 Core, 16 GB
-
- Posts: 19072
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:46 pm
- Location: Ableton Forum Administrator
- Contact:
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
Nada, and I'd even get my wife's employee discount on top of Prime deals. Oh well not too far away from Black Friday.
(and yes, APFS file transfers are crazy fast in High Sierra. Multiple GB files in just a couple seconds, scary).
(and yes, APFS file transfers are crazy fast in High Sierra. Multiple GB files in just a couple seconds, scary).
-
- Posts: 7033
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:34 am
Re: SSDs, HDDs, and lots of conflicting info
Cross disks?Tarekith wrote: (and yes, APFS file transfers are crazy fast in High Sierra. Multiple GB files in just a couple seconds, scary).
Make some music!