A video editor's desktop currently uses a single 3.5-inch 7200 RPM SATA hard drive for all media. The editor reports long import and render times when working with 4 K files. Budget permits adding exactly one drive, and the editor still requires several terabytes of fast local storage for active projects. Which upgrade will deliver the greatest overall performance gain while satisfying these constraints?
Replace the current drive with a 15 000 RPM 2.5-inch SAS hard drive
Add a 2 TB NVMe M.2 SSD and move the 4 K footage to it
Install a 4 TB SATA III solid-state drive for project work and keep the existing hard drive for archives
Create a three-disk RAID 0 by adding two more identical 7200 RPM drives
Solid-state drives offer order-of-magnitude lower seek latency and several-times higher sustained transfer rates than mechanical hard disks, so moving project files to an SSD greatly accelerates large-file workflows. A 4 TB SATA III SSD supplies both the needed capacity (multiple terabytes) and the performance boost, while the existing 7200 RPM HDD can still be used for long-term archival storage.
A 15 000 RPM SAS drive improves performance over 7200 RPM but remains far slower than an SSD and usually tops out at smaller capacities (600 GB-900 GB). A 2 TB NVMe M.2 SSD is faster than SATA SSDs but cannot by itself satisfy the multi-terabyte requirement. Adding two more HDDs in RAID 0 increases sequential throughput but leaves latency unchanged and introduces a higher failure risk; it also violates the single-drive budget constraint because it needs two additional drives.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
Why are solid-state drives (SSDs) faster than traditional hard drives (HDDs)?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is SATA III and how does it compare to NVMe in terms of speed?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the trade-offs of using RAID 0 for storage in video editing workflows?