ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images



Just thought I would add that on single user systems dedicating memory slightly 
greater than scan size to file cache will give as near instant write response 
as your software and processor is capable of achieving  (even non-raid). In 
fact during write opertions raid 0 on a memory handicapped machine will be 
slower than a single drive machine with loads of memory. Read operations will 
be quicker with raid 0 unless the data you're loading is still in file cache.

Adding memory is much cheaper than raid drive systems as 256MB of top quality 
SDRAM/DDR ram available for less than £30. 

If you have a smart raid 1 solution (stripes when reading) and lots of 
available memory for disk cache then performance for a single user doing 
scanning/PS will be indistinguishable from raid 0. But you do lose disk space 
in exchange for reliability. 

Steve


_______________________________________________________________________
Never pay another Internet phone bill!
Freeserve AnyTime, for all the Internet access you want, day and night, only 
£12.99 per month.
Sign-up at http://www.freeserve.com/time/anytime





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.