Green Hills

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Green Hills

  • Rank
  1. Green Hills

    Best drive setup?

    Perhaps, assuming the 150 doesn't exhibit the otherwise annoying seek noise charcteristic of the 74. I couldn't imaging running two of the 74's in a RAID setup unless one wears headphones all the time!
  2. Green Hills

    Western Digital Raptor WD1500

    Though the WD1500 remains a speedy unit when NCQ is enabled, we recommend disabling NCQ in non-server settings to obtain the best possible performance. Ok, how is this done (and more importantly to me - how is TCQ disabled on the WD740GD)?
  3. Green Hills

    Sustained Transfer Rates and RAID 0

    <Having a dedicated disk for scratch would be a good start in itself. OS/Apps, pagefile, scratch, source and destination disks for media editing, separating all these things can help. > I'm currently running OS and app's on a Raptor. Can't say enough about excellent performance coupled with 3.2 P4 running on 875P chipset at 800 Mhz FSB! Data and scratch disk are set up on separate partitions on an older IDE Seagate drive so "normal" editing operations and so forth move right along although the transfer rate of the Seagate dogs when batch processing large numbers of layered files, especially scanned files. <But given a sensibly configured system already, going to RAID 0 for the scratch disk could provide a significant boost, especially if you already know you're hitting the scratch disk hard, and you can't reduce the number of layers/undos etc. to reduce dependence on scratch.> This is what I've suspected. Batch processing to flatten layers in numerous large scanned files in particular is in itself one of those things that often causes scratch disk to be used. The hidden price of automation, I suppose! <For most single user tasks, RAID 0 isn't worth it. But there are still a few things that do benefit from the better STR. As long as you've already separated your concurrently accessed datasets, then RAID 0 can provide an additional benefit when working with very large files (hundreds of MB).> Will give it a try. Now if those SCSI controllers weren't so darn expensive...
  4. Green Hills

    Sustained Transfer Rates and RAID 0

    + $649 for each 4 GB of RAM, + $799 - $1299 for Cinema Display, etc...I'd switch in a heartbeat if high gas prices weren't eating all my disposable income! The existing mobo has two on-board RAID controllers - one being a Promise PDC20378 which will support two Raptors @ $160 apiece. For now the choice is obvious but I gather from your response that the low level suite tests are indicative of what to expect from scratch disk performance and yes RAID 0 will improve scratch disk perfromance considerably depending on configuration? Seems like an increase in transfer rate from 75 - 150 Mb/sec should be noticeable. Thanks for the benchmark data, very helpful!
  5. Green Hills

    Sustained Transfer Rates and RAID 0

    I, too, have plenty of RAM installed in the ol' box and day to day performance in general is excellent. But I would like to batch process a large number of (large) files with automated tasks. The demands far exceed any RAM I can install, which is currently limited to 4 GB. The application I am using is further limited to accessing 3 GB. In other words, I will have to use scratch disks to accomplish the work I need to do regardless of RAM considerations. I'd like to know exactly what the STR Low Level Suite is measuring as far as internal vs. external drive transfer rates in particular. My guess is that a RAID 0 will perhpas nearly double those rates with two drives in the array but it is just a guess at this point. For example, two Raptors set as RAID 0 might achieve close to the theoretical maximum external transfer rate of 150 Mb/s? Perhpas 4 of the newer SATA II drives might achieve the theoretical 300 Mb/s maximum? Surely, someone has experience with this scenario?
  6. I'm still trying to asses the benefits of an independent RAID 0 stetup for use as a dedicated paging file and/or scratch disk(s). Having read the performance data base I have a few questions in this regard. First, do the Low Level Suite tests reflect actual transfer rates vs. the theoretical 150 MB/S for most SATA drives? I am assuming transfer rates are the primary factor to consider when evaluating drive(s) for use as scratch/paging disks. Second, having read the SR article on RAID, it appears that while single user performance isn't affected all that much, sequential transfer rates can actually double when using RAID 0. Is this the same type of transfer rate being evaluated by the Low Level Suite? And is this the primary consideration when assesing page file perfromance? If the answers to the above questions are yes then one might reasonably hypothesize that RAID 0 could significantly increase (double) page/scratch disk performance when dedicated solely for such purposes. Maybe? Has anyone tried this?
  7. Green Hills

    Photshop Scratch Disc

    Interesting. I agree with your assesment of the Raptor. My red apple (or is at a green apple?) opens CS2 with "launch bridge" enabled in 7 -10 seconds. I can't explain the variability (just another Windows "thing") but am very pleased with performance in general. I supect the Intel 875P chipset is a good traffic controller for the most part. The Raptor is a good partner indeed.
  8. Green Hills

    Photshop Scratch Disc

    Thanks so much. I'll try using my existing 740GD Raptor partitioned for a PS scratch disk and adddtional data/backups. Looks like I'll pursue a new "boot drive" instead. The Samsung P120 looks enticing given I am not a gamer and primarily using high end stuff along with the typical office programs. The price and low noise factors along with near (non TCQ) Raptor like performance specs on the Office and High End Drivemarks seem to justify the P120 quite nicely. Platter density looks good, too! Also, if seek noise ceases to be an issue with the Raptor when used for a sratch disk it would make sense to eventually by another 740GD and set up as RAID. I'll report back on how this works out.
  9. Green Hills

    Photshop Scratch Disc

    No but thanks for your technical expertise. I think I follow what you were saying in your previous post and can safely infer that large platter density is a primary consideration. In other words, for a given GB capacity (say 160 GB) a single platter drive at a (theoretical) 160 GB density would outperform a drive with two 80 GB platters or three at 53 1/3 (if there were such a thing!). Maybe? What performance benchmark(s) in the SR datbase would best reflect a drives' capabilities in this regard? I'll likely go for a single drive as you suggest and perhaps consider a RAID setup later if need be. I see several potetnial 250 GB candidates at about the same price as the little Raptors I first posted about. But this raises the question of whether they would ultimately be as fast or faster on a RAID controller than a single 400 or 500GB "flagship" model given similar platter densities (of course number of platters would be different). I am having difficulty weighing all of this in terms of SR performance indicators in the database.
  10. Green Hills

    Hard drive buying advice needed…

    I recently contacted WD tech. support and asked about seek noise in the two drives you are considering. They were kind enough to let me know the noise would be similar to the Raptor in the KD or YR drives but considerabley less so on the KS. Hope this helps.
  11. Green Hills

    Photshop Scratch Disc

    Thanks for the input. It would be nice to see some comparisons with the new Seagate drives (7200.9) of smaller capacity than the 500GB drive reviewed on SR. The 80 and 160GB versions are quite reasonbly priced but perhaps there are other options, as well?
  12. Green Hills

    Photshop Scratch Disc

    Having read Eugene's excellent FAQ regarding RAID vs. SATA, I am wondering if it is worthwhile to set up a dedicated RAID 0 array for Photoshop's "Scratch Dsc". Such a disc is roughly equivalent to Window's Virtual Memory. Adobe recommends that (ideally) a dedicated hard drive be used for this purpose and they also suggest selecting a disc based primarily upon consideration of fast transfer rates. Obviously, the purpose of the scratch setup is to substitute for RAM when available memory is used up. PS is currently limited to using 2 GB of RAM in 32 bit versions of Windows so large scanned files in particular can utilize considerable scratch disc resources, especially when editing with many layers and so forth. Based upon my understanding of SR's review of RAID 0 it appears that sequential transfer rates can theoretically be doubled, which sounds like it could help reduce the slowdown incurred when relying on a scratch disc for memory needs. I am thinking of utilizing my system's exisitng RAID capabilities and installing two 36 GB Raptors for this purpose. My system is otherwise reasonably fast utulizing Intel's 875 chipset and P4 processor @ 3.2 ghz with 800mhz fsb. 2 GB of DDR RAM is also installed. OS is XP pro. Boot drive is a 74 gig Raptor and a vintage IDE drive serves as data storage and backup. I would like to know if pursuing this strategy is worth the albeit minimal cost given the potetnial for improving performance when relying on scratch disc for supplemental memory. I am also unsure if the use of a paging file is equivalent to sequential rates referred to in the article. This may not be at typical use for RAID but given Eugene's findings I would like to know if this is an instance whereby RAID could provide a significant perfomance boost. I am also wondering if seek noise would be an issue when using addtional Raptors for this purpose.