On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 00:46 +0200, Hartmut Noack wrote: > Am 05.04.2013 03:10, schrieb Ralf Mardorf: > > I don't think that this usually is needed, using one drive with one > > partition IMO usually isn't a bottleneck. > > This may be true in 99.9 out of 100 minutes of recording until that > statistically unlikely event happens, that some operation is keen to > load a lib from the disk while another important operation wants to load > another 20 seconds 96/32 audio data for 32 tracks from the very same disk. > > While I agree, that Linux in pretty good in using RAM for caching and we > live in times where a complete 4-min track on 20+ tracks fits into a > RAM-disk I would not take chances. > > I have a SSD for all the software and the OS and a conventional drive > for the audio/video data plus 8Gig RAM and so I do not need to even > think about, whether bad side-effects could occure or not. Not that > expensive and good for my nerves... ;-) I've got two drives installed and an external drive, so usually I use two, but not three drives. Since I'm just playing at the moment, no serious work, I only use one drive for everything. Not a good test set up right now, since only one sequencer and 2 soft synth are running ;), it might become more complex. FWIW 4 GiB - framebuffer here. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
