|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
GUID vs. APM partition scheme question
I'm gonna be working on a G5 system and bringing hard drives with me. Is it correct that only APM partitioned drives will record with a G5 and GUID formatted drives will fail?
OK, if so, is there any downside when bringing an APM partitioned drive to an Intel mac? Am I better off formatting the drive GUID and simply use it as a transfer drive (no recording to the drive)? THIS DRIVE WILL NEVER be a boot drive, NEVER have an operating system on it. Data only. Is there a BENEFIT to having the drive as GUID? Is there a down side to having the drive as APM (working on intel) ? Does it matter -- should I just cover my ass and format as APM and keep working? Never really thought about this before -- since I never tried to record to an external drive.... Thx in advance for the guidance. J
__________________
--Jeremy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: GUID vs. APM partition scheme question
APM is the way to go, work on both, PPC an Intel.
Quote:
JC |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: GUID vs. APM partition scheme question
Quote:
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: GUID vs. APM partition scheme question
Still confused.
I see my options as: 1. make the drive GUID. ONLY use it as a transfer drive. Period. 2. make the drive APM. If I have to record to it on PPC, it will work great, but may have record issues on Intel - but works great for transfer on both platforms. What would you do -- My HD rig is G5. Outside studio is Intel. We plan on tracking to their internal drives, and these external drives will only be for transfer. That's the plan right now. SO -- maybe #2 is my better choice? IF we wanted to record to this on my G5 rig, we could, but it will definitely work for transfer, yes? Thanks for your guidance. I have also discovered other threads around the net on this, and there are usually circumstances specific to each person's workflow. Thanks to all for sharing. J
__________________
--Jeremy |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: GUID vs. APM partition scheme question
Yes I think APM is the way to go in your scenario. You shouldn't have any problems using it as a transfer drive.
I've got a number of old APM partitioned firewire drives which I've never updated to GUID and have even recorded them a few times without errors - it's just not recommended by AVID. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: GUID vs. APM partition scheme question
Hi Jeremy,
Since it is so easy today to format drives, and drives and enclosures themselves are so cheap, I'd just create an APM drive, do what needs doing on it and then just reformat it GUID (or preserve it for times when G5s are being used) - after xfering the data, of course. At the school where I work as a Mac Tech, we service over 100 macs iMacs and Mac Pros with PT on them, and for quick re-formats and xfers we use several of these http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Newer...ard_Drive_Dock (we have the Voyager Q's) and keep stacks of raw drives of various formats. I've even been known to use the bay itself as the main connection point for record drives on my rig at home. No glitches, no problems. We've found these enclosures to be really stable, and can even be used to externally boot machines without issue. Just my 2¢! Best Nathan
__________________
Studio: Mac Mini 2.6 GHz i7 16GB RAM PT 2019 and 10.14 UA Apollo Quad Outboard: 2 x Summit Audio 2BA-221>TLA 50>EQF-100 2 x dbx 165a 4 x Shadow Hills GAMAhttp://humpbackmedia.net[/SIZE] Last edited by humpback; 11-04-2010 at 07:53 AM. Reason: Grammar - yes, I check it! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: GUID vs. APM partition scheme question
Hi Nathan,
Yes, I have a couple of docks... but for transfer, I prefer to use the AWC Mercury Elite AL Pro case, since they have a quad interface, and are pretty much the sure-thing. We also have to deliver the production drives to the label when we're done (by contract) and I don't want any FUps for a few $ saved. I think these drives will be APM. Thanks for all the guidance on this.
__________________
--Jeremy |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: GUID vs. APM partition scheme question
Quote:
Best Nathan
__________________
Studio: Mac Mini 2.6 GHz i7 16GB RAM PT 2019 and 10.14 UA Apollo Quad Outboard: 2 x Summit Audio 2BA-221>TLA 50>EQF-100 2 x dbx 165a 4 x Shadow Hills GAMAhttp://humpbackmedia.net[/SIZE] |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: GUID vs. APM partition scheme question
Quote:
best, rich
__________________
http://www.richbreen.com ---------------------------------------- Mac Studio / Ventura, PT 2023.12.HDX, Avid HD I/Os and Metric Halo ULN8, 3xS1/Dock Also running a Mac Studio Ultra / Ventura / HDX / MTRX / S6 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: GUID vs. APM partition scheme question
Just got done pulling my hair out over an upgrade to our 8 drive fibre channel raid. We had been using this raid with a G5 HD system for 4 years and a year ago moved to an Intel machine. It was APM and had no problems. Worked fine on both. HOWEVER, drive size vs the number of partitions can be a tricky variable which I found out the hard way. When we replaced the old drives with larger ones things got bad. What I found works is that you don't want to partition a large drive into more than 3 partitions. When you hit 4 or more all hell can break loose in both GUID and APM setups. We're currently GUID and it works fine on our intel. But we can work off an APM drive as well. Just be careful if you partition.
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GUID Partition vs Apple Partition | Mount Royal | Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) | 2 | 08-18-2010 07:20 AM |
Apple Partition, Master Boot, GUID?????? | whitelabellt | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 8 | 10-01-2009 12:34 AM |
Partition question | neatguys | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 3 | 03-16-2004 11:38 AM |
To partition or not to partition, that is the question | bzldzl | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 8 | 03-27-2003 06:59 AM |
To partition or not to partition, that is the question. | DTJ | Digidesign Hardware & Software | 2 | 11-14-2000 10:51 PM |