Dewdman42 wrote:At some point even an ssd drive has a max thruput, which May or may not exceed the max thruput of the buss its connected to and the motherboard, memory, controllers and cpu also have a max speed they can do, so if you’re already running into that bottleneck then it won’t matter if you have multiple ssd.
Spreading things around to different ssd drives could theoretically provide more max thruput but you’re probably splitting hairs at that point because ssd is very fast to begin with and ssd does not have the same problem as hdd for having to seek the head to a place on the platter. You will gain a lot of system performance by having the os on ssd. If you put samples on that same ssd drive it will be way way way faster then putting them on a separate hdd drive and even faster then an external hdd.
Will it be marginally faster to have two separate ssd drives? I personally don’t think you will notice any difference whatsoever compared to all in one ssd, but it’s possible you could get some slightly better benchmarks by having the load split to two ssd. Two ssd are going to be cheaper then one 4T ssd also, fwiw.
Anything you put external will probably be slower then internal unless you’re using esata or Thunderbolt.
Even with esata and TB there is more latency, no?
The OS issue is a non-issue. The OS does access the 'drive' at points, but these aren't huge, sustained processes. And once apps are launched into ram, they also aren't taking anything from storage. So, all that IOPS is reserved for audio tracks, and sample streaming, which are handled effortlessly.
I doubt anyone would notice any gain from having separate drives, apart from just the organisational bonus of keeping things separate.
I'd be very curious to hear Stefan's explanation