>I am running three IDE drives striped using Windows 2000 striping and I get
>close to triple transfer speed.
I am unfamiliar with Win 2000; but with Windows XP, the striping is done in
the motherboard BIOS if the RAID is built into the mother board. I am not
sure but I would think that external third party RAID cards would have their
own BIOS or other software to set up the RAID array for the hardrives being
arrayed. As for transfer rates, they would be dependent on both the make
and model of the harddrives used for starters. External third party RAID
cards tend to be in many cases faster than those built into the motherboards
(I am speaking here only of EIDE RAID arrays).
>The perfromance bargain right now seems to be the Western Digital WD1200JB,
>with performance benchmarks close to the 10K SCSI drives. Yes, SCSI drives
>are faster, but cost many times more for the same storage.
I have no argument with your last sentence. As for the first, from what I
read in the reviews you cite, they may have additional performace; but given
the projected estimated prices of $379US, I would hardly call it a bargin -
especially if it bested only the 10K ATA drives but not the 10K SCSI drives.
The reviews implied that they were comparing to ATA drives which are EIDE
drives and make no explicit mention of SCSI drives.
-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of
ake.vinberg@home.se
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 3:10 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Re:Computer size: RAID
I am running three IDE drives striped using Windows 2000 striping and I get
close to triple transfer speed.
If you want to read drive reviews look at these two sites:
The perfromance bargain right now seems to be the Western Digital WD1200JB,
with performance benchmarks close to the 10K SCSI drives. Yes, SCSI drives
are faster, but cost many times more for the same storage.
Åke
-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 9:39 PM
To: ake.vinberg@home.se
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Re:Computer size: RAID
>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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
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
