You fail to understand what the word "they" was referring to. You think it was servers. It wasn't. It was NAS devices. Understanding failure. I point it to you. And yet, you keep not wanting to re-read or even accept there could have been a confusion.
So you called two machine with Xeon processors, ECC RAM, Pro GPUs, PCIe SSDs, and TB “toys.”
I knew you would bite. Just because you put over expensive CPUs or RAM in a computer doesn't automatically makes it good for all types of work. For professional video editing, you often need multiple drives. You don't need to save a little bit on space on your desktop by using an all-in-one computer. And no, you don't absolutely need ECC for that work, and it's probably a waste. So are single-socket Xeons over regular Core-i7/i9/Whatever.
As I said, I agree some video editors use iMacs or Mac Pro. Or even Mac laptops or the very non-Pro Mac Mini. Why would they use such mortal hardware? The same as grandmothers? Because well, first, they like OS X and/or FinalCut. And there is no mid-tower Mac available. So they settle down for what is available, since their dream computer doesn't exist.
But I've never met a video editor who prefer PCs over Macs AND chose an All-In-One PC or a small form factor with no drive expansion such as the Mac Pro. They are just not worth it. For the same amount of money, or even less, you can get the expansion bays. So why not?
for this mess. Seriously, they thought they could leave the EU, keep the current state (no border) between the republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and remain out of the EU customs union and single market. I am quite surprised 52% of the voters bought that BS.
Failed understanding skills until the end. I was not talking about a server (full fledged computer), but a NAS device. A NAS is indeed a dumb, or stripped down, computer. Since that computer is not portable or battery powered and doesn't have a display, I call it a desktop but we could call it a server just as well if you prefer.
At no point are these Macs limited to SATA at 6 Gbps internally
Oh I get that. They are only limited by the 6 Gbps SATA externally. Because SATA is used in the NAS or the TB box.
Internally, the Mac Pro 2013 and the iMac Pro do not use SATA to connect to internal drives.
My point is that the NAS or TB box can only be slower than if the drives were attached directly, with a SATA cable, to the motherboard of the desktop computer. Obviously it rules out any computer which doesn't have any SATA connector.
When I’m talking about TB as an external connector and you champion SATA, what the hell are you talking about?
What kind of connection is used inside your TB box to connect hard drives? That's right, SATA. Just because you put the hard drive in an external TB enclosure will not make it any faster compared to inside your desktop. After all this discussion, you are a loss cause if you still don't get that.
And yet you keep championing SATA over TB.
If you still think these two technologies compete you are a loss cause. The choice is not SATA or TB. The choice is either SATA + TB or SATA only. You are arguing that the first must be faster because TB is faster than SATA. I hope you finally get how stupid it is.
Unless you started out with a desktop that had 4 or more drive bays, enough drive connectors, etc.
It should be the case for any "pro" desktop. I have more than that in my "mid tower" non-pro desktop. 6x SATA is quite a common number for a plain home/office/gaming desktop.
Wait didn’t you just admit the term “specialized” applies then?
They may be specialized, but you said "highly specialized". This is not rocket science. They are running plain Linux/BSD.
While your CPU isn’t fully taxed, your SATA connection is maxed, your Ethernet is maxed. Good luck saving anything or using the Internet.
You understand that transfering a 100 GB file over gigE won't tax your CPU at all and won't saturate your SATA link, right? You likely won't notice any difference while browsing the web but if you do, just use a second gigE interface.
but if you upload it to the NAS, it has redundancy unlike your desktop.
Wrong. You can do RAID in your desktop just as well as in your NAS.
So I have to have a RAID on my desktop because . . . you don’t want a RAID on the NAS server. As well as every other video editor has to have a RAID. Because . ..?
You don't have too. But it's a good idea if you want redundancy. Or perhaps to increase speed. You are going to need so much storage that you need multiple drives anyways so why not use RAID?
Bahahahaha. Video editing software doesn’t really care what storage is used. None of them
Nobody ever claimed the opposite. Your understanding skills fail again. At least it makes you laugh.
You advocate getting a desktop with multiple drive bays because you use RAID on your desktop using 6Gbps SATA III.
I also said you can use NVMe SSD if you need more speed. But storage will be limited.
When someone wants your original or edited files, you can’t save or use the Internet and vice versa.
Why not?
Backup strategy means each and every desktop RAID has to be backed up.
The total amount of data to backup will be the same, and the backup speed should be the same or faster.
Every editor doesn’t have multiple bays but uses NVMe which is significantly faster.
You can have multiple NVMe slots/bays. I never argued for SATA over NVMe. Only, good luck buying these 8TB SSDs.
Dude you are the one advocating using SATA instead of TB, not me.
No I am not. What I am saying, is that your shinny TB box may be using SATA internally to connect hard drives. Either that, or NVMe/PCIe to connect faster SSDs. There is no such thing as a TB drive. If your TB box has 4x SATA ports, then it can only be slower (or equal) than if you connected those same 4 drives directly inside your desktop using 4x SATA cables. Nobody ever talked about sharing a single SATA cable for more than one drive except you. I wouldn't even know how to do that.
Is it obviously even slower if you connect to a gigabit Ethernet NAS. By the way, the Mac Pro doesn't have 10 Gbps Ethernet. The average NAS is gigabit at best.
Your math is terrible. Once again, a single SATA III cable has a max of 6Gpbs. A single TB2 cable can handle 20Gbps or 3.5 x SATA.
Your understanding is terrible. I never said the opposite.
To use multiple drives in a RAID you have to have the space which neither the Mac Pro 2013 nor iMac Pro had for 2 disks much less 3 or more.
That's why it would be a much better idea to use a real desktop instead of these toys. A real professional video editing machine have multiple drive bays.
Dude you seriously need to brush up on your IT. A NAS isn’t a just a desktop that shares its drive. These are highly specialized and optimized machines with hardware and software for this purpose.
They are not highly specialized. Especially not the cheap ones. They are running some sort of embedded Linux or BSD. You can use FreeNAS to make your own NAS. They just use a cheaper CPU, no GPU, no audio or other useless peripherals, and less RAM than a regular desktop. So yeah, they are cheap desktop computers, dumbed down. The good ones might have a good hardware RAID controller but that's pretty much it.
While you can convert a desktop to be a NAS, you shouldn’t be using it simultaneously as as desktop. This is as idiotic as using your desktop as the company’s web server at the same time while editing video..
Then don't call it a NAS. Call it a network file server. Again, the reason for not running the web server on your desktop is availability. And in this case maybe also security. You don't want to take the web site down while you are rebooting your PC because of an update. However, your coworker who wants to transfer a video file you've just worked on can wait 2 minutes. And he's not even really waiting because you are saving on the transfer time from your PC to the NAS on that gigabit Ethernet. Basically, instead of transferring the file twice, from your PC to the NAS, and then from the NAS to you coworker's PC, you are transferring the file directly from one PC to the other. It should take half the time on average. You save on costs (not having to buy a NAS) and you save on transfer time. Win-win.
Do you work in professional video editing
No, and never pretended to.
Using your desktop as a single point of failure isn’t done by professionals for a multitude of reasons.
Again, you can have multiple drives on your PC. No reason to have a single copy of a video file just because you are not using a NAS.
If you tried to tell these pros that they should just use someone’s desktop, they’d laugh at you.
They may be good video editors, but that would not give them good knowledge of computer solutions. It's possible some video editors like OS X and/or FinalCut, and accept the disadvantage of being stuck with external drive solutions because Apple doesn't provide a real, expandable, desktop computer.
Also we have gotten far away from original point: why would you advocate fo
First, you can't do RAID on a single SATA cable since you need at least 2 drives, which will use at least 2 SATA cables, duh. So how exactly are you supposed to be limited by the 6 Gbps of SATA when using more than one drive?
Then you can do RAID just as well within a desktop as within a NAS (which is nothing more than a dedicated networked computer with drive bays running a dumbed down operating system). So NAS is no more redundant.
Finally a desktop CPU is so fast, especially compared to a NAS CPU, that gigabit network transfers won't affect it that much (say, 10% of one core).
Yes we are. The OP said: "SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro." It is the literal title of this entire thread.
But that's not why I replied to your first post. I could have changed the title from there.
Besides the 5K display and 4 TB connectors, there's no advantage?
I was talking about the form factor. You don't need an all-in-one to get 4 TB connectors. Also you wouldn't need any TB connectors to begin with if you had room for internal storage.
You do understand that at 2 X 20Gbps, a TB2 bridge isn't a bottle neck to SATA drive which maxes out at 6Gbps right? So when you say the TB2 bridge makes it go slower, I have to wonder about your math
The math is simple. The TB bridge can't make the drive go faster. It can only make it slower. It's an additional middle man, which hopefully delivers close to 100% of the speed.
. Many of the TB2 enclosures support multiple drive RAID which can increase speed.
It doesn't increase the drive speed. Bandwidth isn't shared between multiple SATA ports in a desktop computer either. You could be doing RAID within your desktop computer instead. Using either SATA or PCIe/NVMe.
The primary use case is that multiple users can access the same drives.
You can share your local drive on the network and get the same effect. The main advantage of a NAS over this solution is to offer continued availability even when you are rebooting your computer. The disadvantage is cost, and performance (for the local user at least, remote users get similar performance of course).
You do understand that for high performance workloads like editing professional video (which is a primary market of a Mac Pro), PCIe SSDs have a huge advantage over SATA SSDs?
Yes. By the way. we are not talking about the Mac Pro. The iMac is definitely not a professional video editing machine, with no room for multiple drives, and a form factor which offer no advantage to begin with.
For external storage I have rarely seen where these pros are using external SATA drives preferring TB drives
Again, you understand there is no such thing as a TB drive, right? There are SATA and NVMe/PCIe drives, connected to a TB bridge. The TB bridge can only make the drive go slower. It can't make it go any faster. Therefore you are always better with internally connected drives, saving a lot of money compared to that ugly TB enclosure.
in the case of a few users to dedicated NAS servers for many users.
I'd prefer a drive maxing the SATA cable over a 10 gigabit Ethernet NAS. I believe it is faster for most use cases (especially latency), despite the fact that the theoretical bandwidth of Ethernet is a little faster.
I hope these "professionals" are not using gigabit...
Probably because it is too small for a hard drive, even a 2.5" one. Given it's Apple, I wouldn't even be surprised they soldered it so that you can't upgrade or repair it yourself.
You understand that there is no such thing as a thunderbolt SSD. They are either SATA or NVME internally, along with a TB bridge, generally within an (overpriced) external drive enclosure.
If you need a 4 drive external enclosure, chances are you should have chosen a desktop computer instead of an all-in-one with no room for expansion.
trying to punish the customer for buying cheap hardware.
That's the whole point. They charge $240 CAD to upgrade the 1TB 5400 RPM drive to a 256 GB SSD. If it came with the base model, they would lose this profit.
The USB-C might be not so useful though. If you can't connect a mouse, a USB drive, a printer who gives a shit then?
The main advantage of standard connectors is to be able to use the same cable to charge different devices. You can charge a Macbook, an iPad Pro, an Android cell phone over USB-C but for some lame excuses, you need another cable to charge your new iPad.
Because it is anti-competitive behavior and basically means that any day Apple can lock your device and choose that you will only be able to install Apple applications.
Again there is nothing preventing that from being done at the OS level, but of course, it's not Scrivener developers who are going to do it. Also they could put all their directory in a single archive much like Word is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't. Thanks to competitors such as Disney, Amazon, Apple... you know, all those you just criticized for trying to compete with Netflix.
A NAS is a server. But a server is not necessarily a NAS.
wait, you actually prefer giving Netflix a monopoly on content so that they can jack the prices to cable co levels or even higher?
You fail to understand what the word "they" was referring to. You think it was servers. It wasn't. It was NAS devices.
Understanding failure. I point it to you. And yet, you keep not wanting to re-read or even accept there could have been a confusion.
So you called two machine with Xeon processors, ECC RAM, Pro GPUs, PCIe SSDs, and TB “toys.”
I knew you would bite. Just because you put over expensive CPUs or RAM in a computer doesn't automatically makes it good for all types of work.
For professional video editing, you often need multiple drives. You don't need to save a little bit on space on your desktop by using an all-in-one computer. And no, you don't absolutely need ECC for that work, and it's probably a waste. So are single-socket Xeons over regular Core-i7/i9/Whatever.
As I said, I agree some video editors use iMacs or Mac Pro. Or even Mac laptops or the very non-Pro Mac Mini. Why would they use such mortal hardware? The same as grandmothers? Because well, first, they like OS X and/or FinalCut. And there is no mid-tower Mac available. So they settle down for what is available, since their dream computer doesn't exist.
But I've never met a video editor who prefer PCs over Macs AND chose an All-In-One PC or a small form factor with no drive expansion such as the Mac Pro. They are just not worth it. For the same amount of money, or even less, you can get the expansion bays. So why not?
You called a server a “desktop, dumbed down”.
No I didn't. You fail to understand basic sentences again.
You don’t know at a NAS is.
Of course I do.
for this mess.
Seriously, they thought they could leave the EU, keep the current state (no border) between the republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and remain out of the EU customs union and single market. I am quite surprised 52% of the voters bought that BS.
Failed understanding skills until the end. I was not talking about a server (full fledged computer), but a NAS device. A NAS is indeed a dumb, or stripped down, computer. Since that computer is not portable or battery powered and doesn't have a display, I call it a desktop but we could call it a server just as well if you prefer.
At no point are these Macs limited to SATA at 6 Gbps internally
Oh I get that. They are only limited by the 6 Gbps SATA externally. Because SATA is used in the NAS or the TB box.
Internally, the Mac Pro 2013 and the iMac Pro do not use SATA to connect to internal drives.
My point is that the NAS or TB box can only be slower than if the drives were attached directly, with a SATA cable, to the motherboard of the desktop computer. Obviously it rules out any computer which doesn't have any SATA connector.
When I’m talking about TB as an external connector and you champion SATA, what the hell are you talking about?
What kind of connection is used inside your TB box to connect hard drives? That's right, SATA. Just because you put the hard drive in an external TB enclosure will not make it any faster compared to inside your desktop. After all this discussion, you are a loss cause if you still don't get that.
And yet you keep championing SATA over TB.
If you still think these two technologies compete you are a loss cause.
The choice is not SATA or TB. The choice is either SATA + TB or SATA only. You are arguing that the first must be faster because TB is faster than SATA. I hope you finally get how stupid it is.
Unless you started out with a desktop that had 4 or more drive bays, enough drive connectors, etc.
It should be the case for any "pro" desktop. I have more than that in my "mid tower" non-pro desktop. 6x SATA is quite a common number for a plain home/office/gaming desktop.
Wait didn’t you just admit the term “specialized” applies then?
They may be specialized, but you said "highly specialized". This is not rocket science. They are running plain Linux/BSD.
While your CPU isn’t fully taxed, your SATA connection is maxed, your Ethernet is maxed. Good luck saving anything or using the Internet.
You understand that transfering a 100 GB file over gigE won't tax your CPU at all and won't saturate your SATA link, right? You likely won't notice any difference while browsing the web but if you do, just use a second gigE interface.
but if you upload it to the NAS, it has redundancy unlike your desktop.
Wrong. You can do RAID in your desktop just as well as in your NAS.
So I have to have a RAID on my desktop because . . . you don’t want a RAID on the NAS server. As well as every other video editor has to have a RAID. Because . . .?
You don't have too. But it's a good idea if you want redundancy. Or perhaps to increase speed. You are going to need so much storage that you need multiple drives anyways so why not use RAID?
Bahahahaha. Video editing software doesn’t really care what storage is used. None of them
Nobody ever claimed the opposite. Your understanding skills fail again. At least it makes you laugh.
You advocate getting a desktop with multiple drive bays because you use RAID on your desktop using 6Gbps SATA III.
I also said you can use NVMe SSD if you need more speed. But storage will be limited.
When someone wants your original or edited files, you can’t save or use the Internet and vice versa.
Why not?
Backup strategy means each and every desktop RAID has to be backed up.
The total amount of data to backup will be the same, and the backup speed should be the same or faster.
Every editor doesn’t have multiple bays but uses NVMe which is significantly faster.
You can have multiple NVMe slots/bays. I never argued for SATA over NVMe. Only, good luck buying these 8TB SSDs.
And guess what, you can hav
Dude you are the one advocating using SATA instead of TB, not me.
No I am not. What I am saying, is that your shinny TB box may be using SATA internally to connect hard drives. Either that, or NVMe/PCIe to connect faster SSDs. There is no such thing as a TB drive.
If your TB box has 4x SATA ports, then it can only be slower (or equal) than if you connected those same 4 drives directly inside your desktop using 4x SATA cables. Nobody ever talked about sharing a single SATA cable for more than one drive except you. I wouldn't even know how to do that.
Is it obviously even slower if you connect to a gigabit Ethernet NAS. By the way, the Mac Pro doesn't have 10 Gbps Ethernet. The average NAS is gigabit at best.
Your math is terrible. Once again, a single SATA III cable has a max of 6Gpbs. A single TB2 cable can handle 20Gbps or 3.5 x SATA.
Your understanding is terrible. I never said the opposite.
To use multiple drives in a RAID you have to have the space which neither the Mac Pro 2013 nor iMac Pro had for 2 disks much less 3 or more.
That's why it would be a much better idea to use a real desktop instead of these toys. A real professional video editing machine have multiple drive bays.
Dude you seriously need to brush up on your IT. A NAS isn’t a just a desktop that shares its drive. These are highly specialized and optimized machines with hardware and software for this purpose.
They are not highly specialized. Especially not the cheap ones. They are running some sort of embedded Linux or BSD. You can use FreeNAS to make your own NAS. They just use a cheaper CPU, no GPU, no audio or other useless peripherals, and less RAM than a regular desktop. So yeah, they are cheap desktop computers, dumbed down. The good ones might have a good hardware RAID controller but that's pretty much it.
While you can convert a desktop to be a NAS, you shouldn’t be using it simultaneously as as desktop. This is as idiotic as using your desktop as the company’s web server at the same time while editing video..
Then don't call it a NAS. Call it a network file server.
Again, the reason for not running the web server on your desktop is availability. And in this case maybe also security. You don't want to take the web site down while you are rebooting your PC because of an update. However, your coworker who wants to transfer a video file you've just worked on can wait 2 minutes. And he's not even really waiting because you are saving on the transfer time from your PC to the NAS on that gigabit Ethernet. Basically, instead of transferring the file twice, from your PC to the NAS, and then from the NAS to you coworker's PC, you are transferring the file directly from one PC to the other. It should take half the time on average. You save on costs (not having to buy a NAS) and you save on transfer time. Win-win.
Do you work in professional video editing
No, and never pretended to.
Using your desktop as a single point of failure isn’t done by professionals for a multitude of reasons.
Again, you can have multiple drives on your PC. No reason to have a single copy of a video file just because you are not using a NAS.
If you tried to tell these pros that they should just use someone’s desktop, they’d laugh at you.
They may be good video editors, but that would not give them good knowledge of computer solutions.
It's possible some video editors like OS X and/or FinalCut, and accept the disadvantage of being stuck with external drive solutions because Apple doesn't provide a real, expandable, desktop computer.
Also we have gotten far away from original point: why would you advocate fo
First, you can't do RAID on a single SATA cable since you need at least 2 drives, which will use at least 2 SATA cables, duh. So how exactly are you supposed to be limited by the 6 Gbps of SATA when using more than one drive?
Then you can do RAID just as well within a desktop as within a NAS (which is nothing more than a dedicated networked computer with drive bays running a dumbed down operating system). So NAS is no more redundant.
Finally a desktop CPU is so fast, especially compared to a NAS CPU, that gigabit network transfers won't affect it that much (say, 10% of one core).
underfund it and you will see it will shuts down (at least in part) quickly. The same can be said of recycling.
If the state ever gets rid of these ridiculous deposit prices, you can pretty much kiss recycling goodbye.
And you just explained why they put this fee structure to begin with.
Yes we are. The OP said: "SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro." It is the literal title of this entire thread.
But that's not why I replied to your first post. I could have changed the title from there.
Besides the 5K display and 4 TB connectors, there's no advantage?
I was talking about the form factor. You don't need an all-in-one to get 4 TB connectors. Also you wouldn't need any TB connectors to begin with if you had room for internal storage.
You do understand that at 2 X 20Gbps, a TB2 bridge isn't a bottle neck to SATA drive which maxes out at 6Gbps right? So when you say the TB2 bridge makes it go slower, I have to wonder about your math
The math is simple. The TB bridge can't make the drive go faster. It can only make it slower. It's an additional middle man, which hopefully delivers close to 100% of the speed.
. Many of the TB2 enclosures support multiple drive RAID which can increase speed.
It doesn't increase the drive speed. Bandwidth isn't shared between multiple SATA ports in a desktop computer either. You could be doing RAID within your desktop computer instead. Using either SATA or PCIe/NVMe.
The primary use case is that multiple users can access the same drives.
You can share your local drive on the network and get the same effect. The main advantage of a NAS over this solution is to offer continued availability even when you are rebooting your computer. The disadvantage is cost, and performance (for the local user at least, remote users get similar performance of course).
Apple still using HDDs in the iMacs in 2019 is just a cash grab
I agree, and the reason they are not doing it on the mac mini is because there is no room.
and did the base model came with a SSD back then?
You do understand that for high performance workloads like editing professional video (which is a primary market of a Mac Pro), PCIe SSDs have a huge advantage over SATA SSDs?
Yes.
By the way. we are not talking about the Mac Pro. The iMac is definitely not a professional video editing machine, with no room for multiple drives, and a form factor which offer no advantage to begin with.
For external storage I have rarely seen where these pros are using external SATA drives preferring TB drives
Again, you understand there is no such thing as a TB drive, right? There are SATA and NVMe/PCIe drives, connected to a TB bridge. The TB bridge can only make the drive go slower. It can't make it go any faster. Therefore you are always better with internally connected drives, saving a lot of money compared to that ugly TB enclosure.
in the case of a few users to dedicated NAS servers for many users.
I'd prefer a drive maxing the SATA cable over a 10 gigabit Ethernet NAS. I believe it is faster for most use cases (especially latency), despite the fact that the theoretical bandwidth of Ethernet is a little faster.
I hope these "professionals" are not using gigabit...
A SSD doesn't only improve boot time.
The casual iMac user would be much better off with a slower CPU but a SSD.
Probably because it is too small for a hard drive, even a 2.5" one.
Given it's Apple, I wouldn't even be surprised they soldered it so that you can't upgrade or repair it yourself.
You understand that there is no such thing as a thunderbolt SSD. They are either SATA or NVME internally, along with a TB bridge, generally within an (overpriced) external drive enclosure.
If you need a 4 drive external enclosure, chances are you should have chosen a desktop computer instead of an all-in-one with no room for expansion.
trying to punish the customer for buying cheap hardware.
That's the whole point. They charge $240 CAD to upgrade the 1TB 5400 RPM drive to a 256 GB SSD.
If it came with the base model, they would lose this profit.
It's Apple's "budget" desktop computer. What did you expect?
Most people buying an iMac would be better off with a regular (non all-in-one) desktop, or a laptop with external monitor, keyboard and mouse.
The USB-C might be not so useful though. If you can't connect a mouse, a USB drive, a printer who gives a shit then?
The main advantage of standard connectors is to be able to use the same cable to charge different devices. You can charge a Macbook, an iPad Pro, an Android cell phone over USB-C but for some lame excuses, you need another cable to charge your new iPad.
are they still stuck with a proprietary charging port or they moved on to USB-C ?
Because it is anti-competitive behavior and basically means that any day Apple can lock your device and choose that you will only be able to install Apple applications.
Again there is nothing preventing that from being done at the OS level, but of course, it's not Scrivener developers who are going to do it.
Also they could put all their directory in a single archive much like Word is doing.