Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Composer 133

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About Composer 133

  • Title
  1. Possibly this one: . Aside from the water cooling stuff, he says: running at too high a temeprature will degrade the SSD over time; running at a median temperature is optimal speed-wise and longevity-wise; and running at too low a temperature is likely to be slow. Just as you'd expect really. Maybe we just need the $7 water-cooler and some hosepipe
  2. For this project, SATA is a non-starter, just too slow. We have to minimise (to an affordable extent) time lost due to inadequate hardware. (It would almost certainly have been better to do this work on PC, but sadly not an option). So we looked to M.2 -- and it turns out some of these do get very hot (a review of Samsung 970 Evo Plus reports 93 degrees at extreme load). And I guess Enterprise U.2 SSDs exist for a reason, no??
  3. Thank you LAwLz, appreciated. It’s not quite like that. In short: we’re populating the tables of a database; there are only 70 tables. The long routines are the process of populating (huge amount of calculation). The smallest table has only c.20,000 records; each table gradually gets bigger until the 70th and largest table which has c.200 million. The records are very small and compact, hence the (estimated) size of the TOTAL DB (all 70 tables together) is ‘only’ 1.2Tb. The tricky bit (and maybe it would be better if it didn’t, but it’s due to the history of the project and it’s hard to change for various complicated reasons…) is that the routine drops chunks of records onto the drive as it goes. The frequency of when this happens is variable depending whichever bit of the math terrain the program is passing thru at the time (hope that metaphor works…). Sometimes it’s very frequent for a longish period, sometimes it's much less frequent. Obviously it’s in the ‘frequent’ sections that we’d worry about overheating. To the last part—we want speed (+reliability) but no overheating. Does this clarify?
  4. Hi Bombastinator. Thanks again for this. Must be a misunderstanding (As I say…) the Total DB (DataBase, ie. all 70 tables, the complete shebang) = 1.2Tb (=estimate) -- not that large. Backup is not an issue at all. The question in a nutshell (and I should have put it like this in the first place, my fault, my brain is fuzzy with it all) is: We need really fast read and write speeds, but we also need the drive not to overheat if left running for very long periods (weeks). Therefore, do we really need to buy an expensive Enterprise U.2 drive, or could we get away with a high-end consumer M.2? And, critically, can anyone recommend a drive that suits? (Ideally, based on what experience?) Thanks for making me clarify!
  5. Two thoughts: 1. Are we kind-of asking an impossible question? Should we just buy the fastest SSD we can find—and try it? We were hoping to avoid that because the project already cost a lot, (it's a private project related to maths and music) and at this late stage in the process, if possible, we really want to avoid expensive mistakes! 2. Is it possible to send the question(s) to Linus's team? Thanks
  6. Thanks ageekhere. Well, in building one table, a subset of the records is generated in RAM (up to a certain number, or time), and is then written to disk, then (all in one continuous routine) another subset is generated, and written, and so on, until the table is complete. Since this Mac Pro could theoretically hold up to 768Gb RAM... maybe we should indeed revisit how this works, but we certainly can't afford quite that much RAM! Ultimately, it is necessary to save the complete table/DB file. It can't just be held in RAM, because (given our reseach questions) it's at that point that the real work starts. Good call, though!
  7. Thanks Bombastinator Luckily the files are not toooo big, and we have a whole bunch of external hard drives for use as back-up. I also send the files to a cloud storage place in the sky. What's irritating is when it's decided we need another field, or the main programmer decides a change in file format would be more efficient... and everything has to be regenerated from scratch. The joys of research. I'm no hardware expert (trying to learn...) but am more or less aware of the other parameters you mention. Regarding 'lag' issues, can you say anything which would help me to understand what they are? I mention the Optane SSD because it seems to have extremely low latency, and am unclear, for example, how in this scenario the Optane would compare, say, to Samsung 970 EVO PLUS. And how much difference this would make over a long period... When generateing the Tables, the application is not writing to the drive all the time, but intermittently adding chunks. The time intervals of when it does this vary hugely depending on the 'math terrain' through which the programme is travelling at a particular time.
  8. Hello Forum Which SSD would you recommend for a math research database application? All suggestions would be very gratefully received. Hardware: · Mac Pro 2019 / 16-core / 192 Gb RAM Database: · Software: XOJO with SQlite (flat tables, non-relational) / 70 tables in all / each table has only 7 columns (fields) · number of records in each table varies from c. 20,000 to 200,000,000 (two hundred million) · the larger tables take weeks/months of non-stop processing to generate · largest single table will be 100Gb (estimate) / total size of DB is 1.2Tb (estimate) · single user application Relative to budget, we need: · extremely fast read/write speeds for table generation/loading (Note: searches, sorting, manipulation occur in RAM) · excellent reliability / zero overheating (to avoid noise, preserve the Mac Pro fans…) Budget: · circa $3,000 / £2,500 (but only if absolutely necessary to get the best... hopefully nothing like this much...) SSDs (& multi SSD PCIe cards) under consideration: · Sonnet M.2 4x4 PCIe Card (Silent) + Samsung 970 EVO Plus M.2 SSD—overheating?? · Sonnet Fusion Dual U2 SSD + some U.2 Enterprise SSDs—more reliable, cooler? · Samsung PM1725B · Intel Optane 905P (not relevant?) · Other Enterprise M.2 or U2 SSDs Questions: · Which SSD do you recommend? Why this one? Will it make much difference compared to other SSDs? · Is a high-end M.2 Consumer SSD sufficient? · Would U.2 Enterprise SSD be better? · Should we wait for next generation SSD? · Am I right that new gen (PCIe Gen 4) SSDs will not be compatible with Mac Pro PCIe slots? Truly knowledgeable advice greatly appreciated. Thank you!
  9. Thanks Nick Name. In Logic and Dorico not all the static bits are black... so I'm guessing not. I wonder how you find out if Burn In is a function of brightness?
  10. Thanks for the reply, Dizmo. No I'm not gaming, just looking for the highest quality I can get, any advantage to be nice to the eyes. Do you think there is zero advantage to be gained from, say, CG437? Various reviews seem to suggest it's a very good all-rounder. The Dell didn't get such good crits. One thing might be useful on the Dell though -- simultaneous inputs, and I can imagine a use for running my Mac laptop into it as well as the Mac Pro. When I contacted Acer about connecting CG437 to the Mac Pro I got a reply saying I'd need a 3rd party adapter, but they didn't say what or why. I've written twice for clarification - no reply.
  11. Hello Forum, New member here. I need to buy a monitor—43” (or a little bigger) and 16:9. I’m a composer writing for orchestra and I want to see the whole score from Flutes to Double Basses without scrolling. The computer is a Mac Pro 2019 with an AMD Radeon Pro W5700X GPU. I use Apple Logic and Steinberg Dorico. Everything else is secondary. I'm in the UK. I want a monitor not a TV. However——I’m 63, I have cataracts and other eye problems which (for various reasons) may never be fixed. I want to take care of my eyes as long as possible… So I’m looking for the monitor with the clearest image; brightness dimmable to comfortable levels; and silent (no fan). Where I live it’s not possible to visit shops to see them in the flesh. I’ve written to the manufacturers, but I’m hardly getting responses, when they do respond it's not very helpful. Which monitor should I buy? I am considering Dell P4317Q / Acer Predator CG437K / Asus PG43 UQ / maybe Philips 558M1RY. Another possibility is Dell Alienware AW5520QF OLED. This would be easiest on my eyes. Initially I dismissed this option because music software has many static elements and normally you’d get ‘burn in’ on an OLED panel. However, I’d never use it at high levels of brightness. Do OLED panels still get burn in if the brightness is never turned up much? Does anyone have any thoughts or recommendations? Please let me know your reasons. Thank you --- any responses would be greatly appreciated!