>I'm getting a system with 1.5 GB of RAM and 2 80MB 7200
> drives (CPU: Athlon 1800+). Aside from possible
> video-editing, would there be a reason to set the drives up
> as RAID-0 (which is supported on the motherboard I'm using
> so doesn't add to the cost).
If I am not mistaken, I believe that the RAID that your motherboard supports
in its hardware and BIOS is an EIDE RAID - not a SCSI RAID - and your drives
are EIDE drives. EIDE drives - as far as I know - have not reached speads
beyond 7200rpm yet; Hence, some of what is being said about 15000rpm SCSI
drives and RAID arrays may not be applicable. The increase in drive
performance produced by stripped EIDE RAID arrays is questionable with
respect to if it is significantly improved or not. One can only try it with
one's uses and see for one's self.
>Opening and saving 128MB files
> might be faster but would PS in general be faster given that
> I assume there would be little need to go to the scratch
> disk with that much RAM.
Not really since much of the time consumption involves the CPU processing
and not accessing scratch disks or RAM, unless one is using very slow hard
drives and hard drive controllers. Once again it is more a question of the
significance of the increase in performance and not if one exists. That is
something you will have to determine yourself for your application.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of John Matturri
> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 12:07 PM
> To: laurie@advancenet.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Re:Computer size: RAID
>
>
> > > To carry disk performance to the max, go with
> > > a striped SCSI array of 15000 RPM drives!
> >
> > Very expensive, though. Also, one thing tends to lead to
> another: If you
> > use 15000 RPM drives, you soon have to start worrying about
> keeping the
> > whole machine from melting down in its own heat.
> >
>
> I'm getting a system with 1.5 GB of RAM and 2 80MB 7200
> drives (CPU: Athlon 1800+). Aside from possible
> video-editing, would there be a reason to set the drives up
> as RAID-0 (which is supported on the motherboard I'm using
> so doesn't add to the cost). Opening and saving 128MB files
> might be faster but would PS in general be faster given that
> I assume there would be little need to go to the scratch
> disk with that much RAM. Trying to figure out whether any
> increased performance would be worth the loss of data if one
> of the drives goes. On my current system I use the second
> disk for daily incremental back-ups (without full mirroring)
> which would be useless with the level 0 RAID. How, also,
> does RAID interact with PS's desire for partitions?
>
> As for any future large video editing project it might just
> be better to dedicate a couple of drives in RAID to the
> editing at that point.
>
> Comments on my reasoning on this (or lack of it)?
>
> --
> John Matturri
> words and images:
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with
> 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the
> message title or body
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
