Discussion in 'Dell' started by Will, Feb 22, 2004.

  1. Will

    Leythos Guest

    Just so that you know, the ASUS PC-DL Deluxe motherboard is the only
    Dual Xeon board on the market that let you use normal RAM. It does not
    require registered ECC ram - makes buying RAM a lot easier.

    Leythos, Feb 24, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Well, you can even take this further and assure that the swap
    partition is on the *outer tracks* of another physical HD because
    the outer tracks hold more information than inner tracks, and
    therefore more data can be transferred per platter revolution.
    Don't ask me whether the outer tracks are in the "first" partition
    or "last" partition, though. If anyone knows whether partition
    numbering works from outside to inside or vice versa, please
    tell me.

    Timothy Daniels, Feb 24, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sorry, keyboard dyslexia struck. Too much time going from Macs to PC's
    :) It can be a useful site.
    Thomas M. Goethe, Feb 25, 2004
  4. Will

    Miro Guest

    There is evidence to show that RAID is slower not faster on some key I/O
    functions. Where most manufacturers or affordable raid systems fall over is
    the fact that commands are not adequately stored in a buffer.
    Miro, Feb 25, 2004
  5. Will

    Leythos Guest

    Complete and utter BS. If the commands were not properly stored in the
    buffer there would be instant data corruption!

    RAID, all levels, has different performance characteristics, and they
    are well documented, you should study RAID before you post more BS.
    Leythos, Feb 25, 2004
  6. Will

    Miro Guest

    I cite Promise and Adaptec raid cards as my direct proof that you have no
    field experience.

    Any idiot can read the Whitepaper by Berkeley University and proclaim me a
    fool - try doing the data recovery you jerk.
    Miro, Feb 25, 2004
  7. Will

    Leythos Guest

    I don't know what world you work in, but I can assure you that RAID
    (almost every vendors cards) works well in the real world. I've used and
    maintained servers / workstations with everything from $5700 cards to
    the free controllers built into the motherboards with no ram. I based
    this on experience with several hundreds controllers and servers and can
    assure you that it's BS.

    What exact "cite" are you talking about for Promise and Adaptec? Maybe
    you just didn't understand what they wrote.

    Promise, while they have had problems, does make several very nice RAID
    cards for IDE that work exceptionally well. Adaptec makes great cards.

    Adequate storage (buffering) of commands is based on how much memory the
    controller has - if you buy a card with 0 ram you already understood you
    were not getting a 512MB buffer, so the card DOES adequately buffer
    commands for the type of card that was purchased. It's not like the
    commands go off into void land, they are held until the previous command
    is processed.

    On the last part, I also have to recover failed servers - and buffering
    of commands has nothing to do with recovery.
    Leythos, Feb 25, 2004
  8. Will

    Scott Coutts Guest

    It's not the 3D part that accelerates functions in photoshop. All video
    cards have acceleration, and many of them (including nVidias, which I
    use) have hardware support for nearly the entire GDI and directdraw. If
    you had an unaccelerated card, you'd certainly know about it! It would
    draw so slowly it'd be a nightmare.

    It's like your comparison of NTFS and FAT - why do so many people think
    that the only acceleration comes from 3D hardware? Even the famed Matrox
    cards are full of hardware acceleration circuitry!

    Scott Coutts, Feb 25, 2004
  9. Will

    Scott Coutts Guest

    But it is still true that they can be slower... especially IDE raid setups.

    Scott Coutts, Feb 25, 2004
  10. Will

    Leythos Guest

    I can show you a $600 IDE RAID controller with 64MB of RAM with 6 200GB
    IDE drives that will outperform an basic SCSI RAID Controller with 6 x
    10K RPM drives.

    IDE is making great inroads in the RAID market, in a lot of cases you
    won't notice the difference except on heavily loaded systems. On
    personal computers or high-end workstations you will not see the
    Leythos, Feb 25, 2004
  11. Will

    Miro Guest

    I think we all know the certainty of sweeping statements.
    Miro, Feb 26, 2004
  12. Will

    Miro Guest

    So why are the SCSI drives slower ?
    Miro, Feb 26, 2004
  13. Will

    Leythos Guest

    It's all based on the algorithm used in the card. In this case the IDE
    controller is a real nice card with high-end firmware. The SCSI card was
    a low end one. While the SCSI drives are faster the IDE system performed
    better due to the code on the IDE RAID Card and the faster RAM in the
    IDE controller.
    Leythos, Feb 26, 2004
  14. Will

    Leythos Guest

    The same could be said about the statements before mine too.

    My statement was that MOST vendors cards designed for RAID work quite
    well in the real world and that most RAID systems perform flawlessly.
    Nothing sweeping about it, just fact.

    In the case of a machine used for Photo Shop, even a simple non-caching
    IDE RAID controller would show an increase in drive performance over
    single drives or over OS level RAID.

    How many RAID controllers have you worked with?
    Leythos, Feb 26, 2004
  15. Will

    Miro Guest

    I think your proof speaks loud enough. I havent worked with any RAID cards,
    I generally work with people.
    Miro, Feb 26, 2004
  16. Will

    Miro Guest

    Excuse me, *cough-cough-bullshit-cough*
    Miro, Feb 26, 2004
  17. Will

    Henrik Guest

    I don't mean to stir up the pot here but what ide raid controller would work
    better then a similar scsi controller?

    I have currently two Adaptec AHA-2400A with 4 JB drive each and 32mb cache,
    and while they are no speed hogs, they are reasonable controllers for their
    time. However, if I had the cash I would swap these in a heart-beat to a
    SCSI setup up.

    from what I know, the newer SATA controllers do a fine job and with the
    intro of 1ok rpm drives like the raptor (got one of those as well) they are
    certainly giving SCSI a run for their money and in some setups they are
    performing faster, I think has some articles regarding
    this but don't quote me.

    anyway I would be more then interested in hearing more. I grant that Raid is
    not always the one and only way and are in some cases slower the a single
    drive for certain tasks.

    I guess my original question was more aimed at would Photoshop gain from a
    raid setup? and where and how should it be inplemented, thanks


    PS: don't want to start a dog fight :)
    Henrik, Feb 26, 2004
  18. Will

    Scott Coutts Guest

    Yeah, sure. I dont doubt that it can be faster. But it's also true that
    they can be slower... when all the motherboards started coming out a
    while back with built in RAID controllers, people were going out and
    setting up their RAID arrays and thinking how much faster it would be...
    but those setups often just dont cut it :) They're OK for backup
    purposes I guess.

    Scott Coutts, Feb 26, 2004
  19. Will

    Rob Guest

    RAID 1 generally offers higher performance than a single drive with
    twice the risk of failure.

    Rob, Feb 26, 2004
  20. Will

    Leythos Guest

    Henrik, take a look at this IDE based 6 drive RAID controller:
    I had posted many things that RAID can do earlier in this thread, but
    here are a few:

    Increase READ performance.
    Redundancy in data - Mirror / Raid 5

    A typical PS configuration would consist of one drive set for the OS and
    applications, one drive set for the data, and one drive set for the
    swap, temp, etc... files

    If you don't have three drive sets, then two drive sets would work like
    this in most cases:

    1 drive set for OS, Applications, Data
    1 drive set for swap, temp, etc

    Additionally, a second CPU in any OS that supports them, will actually
    get you more than the RAID or a second drive in most real-world examples
    - even if the app is not multi-cpu aware. The reason for this is that
    the OS and other things running in the background while using the app
    are aware of the second CPU and can process without taking time away
    from the app. You can, on some OS's specify which CPU a single CPU app
    is to use.
    Leythos, Feb 26, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.