HDD Setup for Recording 1440p 60fps

I3reeze

Reputable
Jan 23, 2015
70
0
4,630
0
First off, I'll state that my current setup - whether it be due to my selected Dxtory codec or HDD speeds - does not record at a steady 60fps. I've got a thread on this (http://www.tomsguide.com/answers/id-3125888/recording-70fps.html#18301049 if that helps), but I'm creating this thread to focus more on this topic.

Here's my whole build: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/I3reeze/saved/vwpWGX

Currently, I'm using a 1440p monitor and using Dxtory to record a down-scaling resolution of 1080p 60fps in order to record at decently high framerate (hovers around 45-62fps).

I've read that recording at native resolution should be more efficient than down-scaling, which is why I'm looking into solutions for 1440p recording. If I am mistaken, and it would be much easier for me to record 1080p with a small change (rather than buying 1 or 2 other HDDs - see below), please let me know.

I'm writing this recorded .avi file to a single HDD, my E: which I have essentially dedicated to hold recordings and renders. According to Dxtory's built in benchmark test, this HDD (E: ) writes at about 100MBsec, and, as stated above, struggles to maintain a steady 60fps.

I've tried writing to my C: drive and although an SSD can probably do what I need, it seems like there are better options out there, particularly an HDD RAID setup.

I am thinking the solution would be using an HDD which is better designed for continuous uninterrupted writing. Furthermore, I'm thinking a RAID0 setup would do me well. When originally building this PC, I didn't know there were HDDs designed for specific tasks.
I stole this line from a thread I found during research: "the WD Black you have picked is focused more on low seek/access times/latencies than on sequential throughput, which is fantastic for an OS drive, but pretty much the opposite of what you want for "Media" drives (which is what a gameplay-recording drive/array is)."

I've done a fair amount of research and learned about "Short Stroking," but I don't really want to partition my HDD, as I find it annoying as time goes on.

Essentially, I think my options come down to these:

  • ■ Stick with my current HDD setup because it should be able to do the trick and there's something else wrong with my setup
    --Use a different codec
    --The HDD may be failing
    --Bottlenecking somewhere
    --Other issue I haven't considered
    ■ Get another HDD, same/similar to current E: drive, and set up a RAID-0 to achieve solid 60+ fps at 1440p
    ■ Get a single new HDD designed for "sequential throughput" and dedicate it to recording
    ■ Get two new HDDs designed for "sequential throughput" and use those in RAID-0 for recording
    ■ Get a large Short Stroked HDD and deal with the partition, perhaps render to the slower partition.
If you have any opinions or advice, I'd appreciate hearing them.
Thank you.

EDIT: SSHDD is not "Short Stroked Hard Drive Disk" (whoops)
 
What about an additional SSD just for recording. Once recording is done, copy off to HDD.

" Get a large SSHDD and deal with the partition, perhaps render to the slower partition." ???
What partition? A SSHDD has a small ssd to cache the data going in and out of the HDD. There's no configuration of it, it just does it - not ideal for recording or streaming large amounts of data.
 


FYI, that is NOT how an SSHD works.

There is a small 16MB or similar fast cache for the entire drive. There may be 8GB of SSD memory, however the SSHD controller decides where the data is written. Usually the memory is copied from HDD to SSD later as the controller keeps track of how often certain files are used, thus moving frequently used files from HDD to SSD.

If it's a boot drive, then boot files or other critical Windows files are moved to the SSD area by default.

That aside, there is no point in using this as a recording drive because you'll be writing to the HDD section anyway.

Other:
Short stroking simply blocks off the inner portion of the drive to prevent writing to the slower portion. I'm not sure how that is "annoying as time goes on" though. Regardless, doing so increases the cost per GB obviously so it's just best to get an SSD as I mention in the other, same POST (based on typical file size) then copied to HDD later.
 

I3reeze

Reputable
Jan 23, 2015
70
0
4,630
0
My appologies, the other thread has been closed. Just as I posted my response to photonboy, too. Bummer.
Essentially my response came down to:
I'd prefer to use an HDD setup of some sort since transferring from an SSD seems to be as slow as the HDD read-speed. I've recorded to my SSD and transferred to my HDD but it took far too long to make a habit out of. Also, a lot of my "afk time" is due to rendering or uploading, and adding transferring to that downtime when other people have systems which don't require it makes me want to find a different fix.


And I've edited my OP; I thought SSHDD was a Short Stroked HDD. Thanks for the clarification though!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS