Better speeds using 2 hard drives?

[kelemvor]

Howdy,

I normally use DVDShrink but sometimes use Decryptor first if I have trouble. Anyway, I'm just wondering if, in theory, there would be a speed benefit to having Decryptor save the file to one hard drive and then having Shrink work on the file saving it to a different hard drive (on IDE2)?

I'm not sure if it's more the processor that causes the slowdown and not the hard drive or if that would actually give for soem speed improvement.

Just thought I'd get opinions before I dig out my spare hard drives and waste time testing if I won't get any better results.

Thanks.

[edDV]

Minimal if any affect for a modern computer. 2x HDD is important for capture* but only the highest end equipment would see any effect for encoding.

Encoding is limited first by CPU speed. HDD's run much faster.

* capture is a realtime process. As such any lag in the computer affects drops in the captured file.

Encoding is a non-realtime process. If the encoder slows for calculation, then the disks are paused until the files are ready.

If you have a CPU that is fast enough that the HDD can't keep up with encoding, then these concerns become a problem. It is sort of a rich man's problem that affects only highest end pro users.

[deadrats]

Howdy,

I normally use DVDShrink but sometimes use Decryptor first if I have trouble. Anyway, I'm just wondering if, in theory, there would be a speed benefit to having Decryptor save the file to one hard drive and then having Shrink work on the file saving it to a different hard drive (on IDE2)?

I'm not sure if it's more the processor that causes the slowdown and not the hard drive or if that would actually give for soem speed improvement.

Just thought I'd get opinions before I dig out my spare hard drives and waste time testing if I won't get any better results.

Thanks.

absolutely. it never even occured to me that someone may think of running dvd shrink on a dvd in an optical drive.

if you were encoding video or transcoding from one format to another, then the ideal setup would be a processor with a fast fsb and the fastest hdd you have to read and write to (i.e. source file reside on a 10k raptor and target file on a different 10k raptor).

but dvd shrink simply takes an mpeg-2 file and transcodes it to an mpeg-2 file with a lower bitrate, as such the more limiting factor is I/O speed, i.e. hdd performance.

what you may consider doing is buying 4 cheap 5400 rpm hdd's, say 40gigs each and a $30 hardware RAID add-in card and create 2 RAID 0's, one for reading from and for writing to.

i recently did this exact same thing for a buddy of mine and the results proved to be so good, that i picked up the neccassary hardware to do the same for myself (though i haven't have the chance).

[SingSing]

Answer is yes. If you DVDshrink from one HD to another HD, the job will get done in half the time.

[lenti_75]

by the time you save it on hdd, then shirink it on hdd...you better just shrink it from dvd-rom.

now, if you encode it on the same drive or from 1 hdd to another, the speed is the same, you;re processor can't keep up, the drive is fast.

do a test, and see for yourself, anyone here have different oppinions, based on what they think is right.

[edDV]

Howdy,

I normally use DVDShrink but sometimes use Decryptor first if I have trouble. Anyway, I'm just wondering if, in theory, there would be a speed benefit to having Decryptor save the file to one hard drive and then having Shrink work on the file saving it to a different hard drive (on IDE2)?

I'm not sure if it's more the processor that causes the slowdown and not the hard drive or if that would actually give for soem speed improvement.

Just thought I'd get opinions before I dig out my spare hard drives and waste time testing if I won't get any better results.

Thanks.

absolutely. it never even occured to me that someone may think of running dvd shrink on a dvd in an optical drive.

if you were encoding video or transcoding from one format to another, then the ideal setup would be a processor with a fast fsb and the fastest hdd you have to read and write to (i.e. source file reside on a 10k raptor and target file on a different 10k raptor).

OK take me through this process. kelemvor wasn't using a optical drive as a source was he? I thought it was on a HDD already. When did he say that? If he was you need to add the DVD-ROM to HDD copy time to the total.

A normal HDD can copy in the 30-55MB/s range to another similar HDD (~. Raptors can do 50-80MB/s). So a simple file copy would take 4350/50 or 87 seconds for a normal drive (4350/70 for Raptor or 62 seconds).

So, you say you have a CPU that will go that fast?

It is possible but you are into Guiness rates there. Explain your process.

Or am I having calulator user failure?

[kelemvor]

OK, I'll clarify..

*Most* of the time I use DVDShrink straight from the DVD (IDE2). Have it save it to it's Temp folder on the HDD (IDE1). THen it writes it back to the DVD Drive (IDE2).

But every so often DVDShrink has issues reading a DVD so I use DVD Decrypter to read the filesfrom the DVD (IDE2) down to my HDD (IDE1) , then Shrink it to the same HDD (IDE1) and then write it back to the DVD Drive (IDE2).

I only have one HDD right now but have a couple laying around.

So the main question is, if I have to use Decryptor to read it because Shrink has a problem, then when I do use Shrink, would adding that second HDD in there make any difference assuming it goes on IDE2...

I'll do some tests if I can free up a few hours but until then, I guess we'll jsut all theorize together. heh heh.

Oh, I'm on a P4 1.8...

[edDV]

First, you should use a second HDD for any capture. Otherwise you risk lost frames when the OS decides to take control of the 1st HDD.

Your OS is bogging down the first drive. Limit background processes. DVD decryption or transcoding will be ~10x or more slower than your HDD speed. Unless you are doing other processes that keep the 1st drive busy, don't expect more than a 5-10% speedup by using other drives. You are processor bound not disk speed bound.

If you have extra HD drives you might as well use them.

[lordsmurf]

Yes, using a different drive for the temp folder (writes) will be faster than trying to write on the same drive as the source (reads). Partitions do not count. Best performance is gained when drives are on opposite IDE channels.

Basic computer knowledge.

[kelemvor]

Yes, using a different drive for the temp folder (writes) will be faster than trying to write on the same drive as the source (reads). Partitions do not count. Best performance is gained when drives are on opposite IDE channels.

Basic computer knowledge.

Well yes, that's basic knowledge but when you take into consideration that the processor has to do a lot with the data before it's ready to write it, it could be the processor is the weakest link and the hard drive really doesn't make any difference in this case because the processor isn't ready to write as fast as the HDD can go.

That's the whole point of this thread is conbining the obvious fact that writing to a different IDE channel is faster with the computing power to encode the data before it can be written anyway...

[CrayonEater]

Two drives running on separate controllers provides a performance boost on virtually any system, as drives on separate controllers can be accessed simultaneously. In particular, using a second (without the Operating System) drive for work will allow that drive to be read or written to without interference from the OS. OS' - particularly Windows - are constantly accessing the HDD, particularly the boot drive. As everyone seems to be saying though, drive performance is not your limiting factor in encoding or transcoding, but you will get somewhat less latency. Moreover, if you need to be able to use your machine while encoding, that second drive will help. With large EIDE and SATA drives running around $50, a second drive isn't exactly a major investment for most people - certainly not nearly as much as upgrading your CPU and mobo.

[crazydrve]

Hey guys i would like to continue discussion on this topic.

here is the situation:

my friend and I both upgrade to intel core 2 duos.

he went with the 6300 @2.8 (from 1.86) on intel chipset motherboard. he doesnt have a raptor
he is running xp 32bit only 2gigs of ram.

i went with 6600 @3.6(from 2.4) on nvidia 680i sli board. i also have a raptor drive.
(i also have 4 gigs of ram running xp 64bit)

now for some reason he is able to dvd shrink a movie on hd and get speeds of 35,000
but for me i only get 25,000 - 30,000

i have tried every combo i can think of to get this faster.

does anyone know or can think of what could be the bottleneck. theoretically i would be faster.
as far as i know his ram is not overclocked either just FSB

thanks for any help is appreciated.

[budz]

maybe the intel chipset is the difference on your friends mobo.

[edDV]

For comparison, I've just made a 7.9GB Video_TS folder intended for a DVD-9 dual layer.

I ran it through DVD Shrink to DVD-5 size.

Drive A to Drive B: 22-28,000 KB/s
Drive A to Drive A: 13-20,000 KB/s
Optical to Drive A: ~11,000 KB/s

Both drives were 500GB Maxtor 7200RPM SATA 300 (running @ 150)
Processor was a stock E6300 Core2Duo (no overclock)

So to answer your original question, two hard drives can be faster for DVD shrink by about 40%.

For a second test I used a more compressed source and saw almost no advantage for two drives. Both ran around 13-18,000 KB/s

Encoding is more CPU intensive I'll test a DV to DVD-5 encode and report back.

Result: 54 min DV encoded to MPeg2 (Vegas @ 6Mb/s vbr)

Drive A to Drive A - 28:06
Drive A to Drive B - 27:47 or ~1% advantage

[crazydrve]

ok guys i think i found the bottleneck

i had my os drive partitioned so i could run xp 32bit and xp64bit.

either way i encoded a movie at a constant 35000+ and took 3.5 min
movie was night at the museum full movie from dvd9 - dvd5

but i thought because i have the raptor drive it would be faster

and i am running at 3.6(?) compared to his 2.8

[redwudz]

You can also run a benchmarking program like Sandra to check different parts of your system, drive speed, etc: http://www.sisoftware.net/ The XI.SP2 Lite is the latest freeware version. If you make comparisons with other computers, they have to use the same program version.

[edDV]

ok guys i think i found the bottleneck

i had my os drive partitioned so i could run xp 32bit and xp64bit.

either way i encoded a movie at a constant 35000+ and took 3.5 min
movie was night at the museum full movie from dvd9 - dvd5

but i thought because i have the raptor drive it would be faster

and i am running at 3.6(?) compared to his 2.8

I'm not following. You were using the Raptor as the OS drive and using it for video source not as a separate video drive? That causes wild head seeks to satisfy the OS demands.

The placement of the partition is also important. The end of the drive runs slower than the start. A RAID alternates inner sectors to outer sectors to get even performance accross the RAID set.

[crazydrve]

now here is my setup.


intel core 2 duo e6600 running @3.6
OS is raptor drive - 74gig raptor - C
data is on separate sata drive - 500gig sata - D
nvidia 680i sli board
4gigs ddr2 800

source on D and output goes to C

now 1 question i do have is would be intel chipset make a difference.

my friend has e6300 @2.8 with 3 sata drives. C, D, E. no raptor
intel chipset and 8gig ddr2 800

for some reason my friend is able to dvd shrink a movie @ 35000
now i finally got it to do that also but theoretically i should be faster with raptor drive right?


does anybody have any suggestions on using intel chipset or nvidia
with this issue.


thanks

[overloaded_ide]

Yours 4gigs ddr2 800
His 8gig ddr2 800
Yours e6600 running @3.6
His e6300 @2.8

So, do I basically have this correct, Your CPU is a tiny e0300 larger running 0.8 faster than his, but he has a whooping 4gigs more ram?

I could be wrong, but if his system is making full use of that 8gigs of ram where you only have 4 gigs then perhaps that's why your not beating him on time.

2 options to test.
This is allot to do just for checking if 4 gigs of ram is the difference. He could first just take a 9gig dvd and shrink it to 4.5 gig using 8gigs ram and mark the time, then take out 4 gigs from his system and do the exact same shrink again and see if it takes much longer on his when only 4 gig ram is used. That would be the easiest and best first test to do, see if or how much longer it takes him with only 4gigs compared to 8gigs. Also compare your time to his for the exact same shrink, you should beat him when he has only 4 gigs perhaps. And you both will know rather the extra 4 gig is making enough difference to bother having it when it comes to shrinking a DVD.

Also
Both of you take the exact same 10gig file or folder, transfer it from one drive to another drive doing nothing but a cut and paste or copy and paste. See who wins for fastest time. THEN delete it from the original drive (if you used copy) and transfer it from the drive you moved it to back to the drive it was first on, see who wins for time again. This is just a file transfer time test.

NOW take the file on his 8gig ram system and compress it down to 4.5gig with shrink and mark the time, now borrow 4 gigs of ram from him, or better yet all 8 gigs and remove yours, now you do the same exact shrink with your system and mark the time, with both of you having 8gigs ram who won? Being ram differs so many ways it would be best if you could install all 8 gigs of his into your system for the test.
Could go a step further and you both use only 4 gigs ram and compress the same files again to the exact same and see if it takes you both longer with only 4 gigs of of ram or if either or both of you were faster when using 8 gigs of ram.

Probably some bench test stuff you could do easier, but that's like MPG testing a car, you seldom get the same results in real life use as in lab testing.


Also you could shrink it once with your 4 gigs, he take out 4gigs so he matches you 4 gigs then shrink exactly the same as you did.

I am really thinking that since he has enough ram to nearly hold a full DVD in memory and you have only enough to hold half the DVD in memory that that is where your bottle kneck is that your not beating his time.

ADD to that ram, or rather take away from it the amount used by the system itself. So make it easy here, say you both have an exact 2 gig over head running the system, that leaves you with 2gig to use and leaves him with 6 gigs to use so basically he would have 3 times the ram available.
I geuss your not using a full 2gig ram for overhead, but even 1 gig, then you have 3 gig and he has 7 gig so still more than 2x the ram available if all else is equal and if all the ram is actaully in use.

[mikel]

I did a test last winter. I thought drive-to-drive "shrinking" would save time.
I tried Shrinking from "system drive' C: (PATA) folder, to another folder on the desktop.
...then again from same desktop folder, to my newer, SATA drive.
The "shrink" times were virtually the same. ( to within seconds)

My experience has shown that "shrink" times seems to depend more on the original.
...some 3hr disks process a lot quicker than other 3hr disks. go figure.

...run a test ....YMMV

[lacywest]

Answer is yes. If you DVDshrink from one HD to another HD, the job will get done in half the time.

That is a very bold statement ... " in half the time " .

At work ... where I have alot of spare extra time doing nothing ... I use my Dell Inspiron 5150 Laptop [ P4 2.8 GHZ 768 megs of ram] but I recently bought on Ebay another Dell Inspiron 5150 with a P4 3.06 GHZ with 1GB of ram.

For DVD processing with my laptops at work ... I always use an external harddrive and if I feel the need ... I connect another external harddrive ... I've had five harddrives connected all at one time to a Dynex 7 Port USB2 Router. Bestbuy stop carrying the Dynex USB2 Router I use ... works good ... for every usb connection a green led light glows. I bought 4 extra ones on Ebay when Bestbuy stopped selling them.

DVDshrink ... does take awhile to process a DVD ... I use CloneDVD first to rip what I want to keep and then let DVDshrink to the processing ... If I'm in a hurry ... I let CloneDVD do the ripping and the shrinking.

[crazydrve]

sorry mistyped. he only has 2gigs compared to my 4 gigs.
and i am starting to wonder its the chipset.

intel core 2 duo e6600 running @3.6
OS is raptor drive - 74gig raptor - C
data is on separate sata drive - 500gig sata - D - 80gig sata added - E
nvidia 680i sli board
4gigs ddr2 800

source on D and output goes to E

now 1 question i do have is would be intel chipset make a difference.

my friend has e6300 @2.8 with 3 sata drives. C, D, E. no raptor
intel chipset and 2gig ddr2 800

i have done a fresh install and still no luck.
i dont knwo whats going on. i know for most people this is not a problem its more of annoyance for me.
i spend the money for the better equipment and i thought i would be at least equal or faster.

[overloaded_ide]

My experience has shown that "shrink" times seems to depend more on the original.
...some 3hr disks process a lot quicker than other 3hr disks. go figure.

Really the time of the disk has little to do with anything, it's the size of the files. Not all commercail disks are equal it seems in the way they are created. I have had smaller DVDs that had longer movie run times, and larger DVDs that had shorter run times. I never tried to look at what they used for bit rates or other settings, but they're not always the same it seems.

As far as Homemade, well just forget it, I have 3 hrs on a DVD5 size disk
See my post from years ago about capturing a 2 VHS Titanic movie set and shrinking it to one disk

Maybe out of context in meaning, but you don't lose frames while shrinking if drives or stuff slow, but you can when capturing from VHS or TV etc... But that's capturing incomming data, not processing already stored data.

As far as time for shrinking from DVD drive or from Hard drive. Well, you have to get that DVD off the disk to begin with at some time
I have found that in general it is faster to shrink right from the DVD
to the hard drive than it is to copy a full DVD to the hard drive and then shrink it.
A direct shrink is one copy,
A copy to Hard Drive then shrink it to another is 2 copies and both take time!
Much depends on the system, DVD drive rip speed, etc... but I prefer to shrink and rip direct from DVD in one shot when I can unless I plan to make changes which require the DVD be on the drive to edit it.