Fasttrak TX2000 released

[Dr Mordrid]

http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31181

Dr. Mordrid

[IM_Riktar]

Must,,,, resist,,, keep wallet,,, in hip pocket,,, must,,, fight,,, "upgraditis,,,"

Ok all kidding aside, what are the benefits from a ATA133 solution over the present TX2/TX4 models? While the spec is 133 aren't we talking burst rate here? Is there any advantage in sustained transfer over the TX2/4? Are system resources improved by a noticeable margin?

I could see the possible benefit in a system setup that puts the operating system on the controller with 2 striped (RAID0) drives. But what of simple RAID0 storage for video files?

Most likely I am missing something here (Wouldn't be the first time) but for the life of me I can't see what it is.

[Dr Mordrid]

1. the ATA100 models cannot use the full capacity drives over 128 gigs. This is what the BigDrive support is all about.

2. the ATA100 models are not as fast as the ATA133's. This is what the FastDrive support is about.

As far as a recommendation goes, here's where I stand on it;

for a 2 drive array, a pair of 2 drive arrays or RAID 0/1 (mirrored array) I'd go with the TX2000, especially if you're wanting to use the new drives of over 128 gigs in size.

for a 3 or 4 drive array using <128 gig drives then the TX4 is your better bet. This because it has 4 master channels vs. the TX2000's 2 masters and 2 slaves.

Dr. Mordrid

[JerryH]

Does ATA133 require special cables, or does it use the same one that ATA100 uses?

Also, could you set up two case, one for your computer, the other for RAID and run ATA100 or ATA133 between them?

Lastly, do round IDE cables give any kind of performance gain, or is it simply for space-savings?

[wkulecz]

If all you are doing is DV, I'm happy with the software RAID-0 built into W2K. I've two 60GB IBM drives on ATA-33 ports in my P2B-D (dual PIII-500) and 4 40GB Maxtors using ATA-66 on my PIII-800 CuBX.

No problems, outputting or inputting DV. Actually a 7200RPM drive on the ATA33 port also seems to have no trouble with DV.

I wouldn't waste time and money on raid unless you are doing uncompressed analog captures or mutli-input realtime hardware assisted stuff.

W2K software raid is very useful to make 4-40 GB drives look like one 160GB drive.

"Big Drive" support is somthing I'll ignore until the cost/GB of the >128GB drives becomes compelling. Given that I picked up a 120GB 7200RPM WD for $190 at Fry's last week, this may take a while. Combine these $1.60/GB drives with a $15 removable carrier in a $25 adaptor installed to a $100 1394 external enclosure and my storage problems are pretty much solved for the forseeable future.

--wally.

[IM_Riktar]

1. the ATA100 models cannot use the full capacity drives over 128 gigs. This is what the BigDrive support is all about.

Didn't realize that. See? I told you it probably wouldn't be the first time I missed something.

2. the ATA100 models are not as fast as the ATA133's. This is what the FastDrive support is about.

This is where my question should have been put a little better. If I can capture uncompressed (29 - 30 megs/sec) without breaking a sweat on my TX2 I can't see a reason to get an even faster controller. Assuming of course that I don't want to use drives greater than 128gig.

Now if we would be talking increased system speed with the operating system installed on one Raid set that would be different. A prior thought of mine (How scary) had the idea of placing the operating system on a RAID0 stripe. But alas, the deal for the TX4 Fasttrak fell through.

Thanks for the recomendations Doc.

[Dr Mordrid]

30 mb/s is only the beginning my friend. With software realtime becoming an issue that also brings up system performance. Basically software realtime is limited by only 3 things;

1. how many layers the program allows in a stack. MSPro, for example, would allow 102 video layers (99 V1...V99, 1 Fx and the two A/B streams) and 101 audio layers.

2. the speed of the CPU. AMD and Intel seem to have this covered, especially with the Hammers coming out later this year.

3. the speed of the video drive subsystem. This is where the RAID comes into play.

Even with DV just two streams, 1 effect and 1 filter you're already at 13 mb/s....and that's using just a 3.5 mb/s bitrate. For every extra effects layer you need about the same as another A/B layer plus about 3-5 mb/s for overhead. If that layer is something like a Boris effect it could even be more.

Pretty soon that 30 mb/s looks pretty slow.

Now....when working in uncompressed files the above basic stack would require 60+ mb/s of throughput to do in realtime. Even in HuffYUV it would be 30 mb/s +/-.

Add more layers and.....you get the idea.

And you wondered why I was so hot to get the TX4's 90+ mb/s capabilitiy.

I've already started hitting up Promise about a SerialATA RAID

Dr. Mordrid

[wkulecz]

Yes the PCI bus will be (or already is) your real bottleneck.

--wally.

[IM_Riktar]

DAMN! Just when I thought it was safe to stay in the water!

Thanks Doc. I have something to think about.

On a side note: Does it ever end?

[Dr Mordrid]

Nope.

They have stuff in the works (that's under NDA, of course) that'll curl your hair, if you have any left after the wife hears about you wanting more hardware

As for the PCI bus being a bottleneck, yes if you're talking about PCI/33 (max: 133 mb/s throughput). The thing is that PCI/66 busses (250 mb/s throughput) will be very common within the next few months.

Then consider that these slots will, in many systems, be connected to the system using AMD's HyperTransport (375 mb/s) and the bottleneck is to be much reduced rather soon. Great for when those 64 bit Hammers start coming out.

Dr. Mordrid