Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Best hard disks and LCD monitors for panoramic performance

Expand Messages
  • mrjimbo
    Th emachine sound spretty good. You may want to back off Vista and go with the 64 bit XP Pro.. Other forums have indicated that many things as in printers and
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Th emachine sound spretty good. You may want to back off Vista and go with the 64 bit XP Pro.. Other forums have indicated that many things as in printers and software are not yet working on this new operating system.

      Jim
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: matt_nolan_uaf
      To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 11:59 PM
      Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Best hard disks and LCD monitors for panoramic performance


      Hi. I asked my local computer store to spec out a $5000 PC and
      prioritize fast disk drives. My hope is to be able to process 16 bit
      11,000 x 5500 sphericals in a few minutes and 5GP panos in an hour or
      so, though I may be dreaming. I include their parts list below and
      ask a few questions to the group:

      - These 15,000 RPM SAS disks seem to be the fastest around. Is it
      possible to be so fast that the increased speed cant be used? Is
      this even close to that? Or is there something even faster (or
      another component that makes them work faster) that I should consider?

      - LCD monitor -- they included a cheapo monitor here. Does anyone
      have a recommendation for a monitor that is optimal for panoramic
      photography? What specs should be considered minimum?

      - Other comments on components below?

      Whatever I buy, I'll certainly try out Milko's speedtest and let you
      know the results.

      Thanks,
      Matt

      INTEL S5000PSLSASR SERVER MAINBOARD
      http://www.intel.com/design/servers/boards/s5000PSL/index.htm
      INTEL SC5299BRPNA WORKSTATION CASE W/ 650W PSU
      2x STT 2GB DDR2 667MHZ ECC FB SAMSUNG MODULE RAM
      2x SEAGATE CHEETAH ST3146855SS 146GB 15K SAS 3GB/S
      http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_cheetah_15k_5.pdf
      2x 750GB 7200RPM SATAII SEAGATE HDD
      2x INTEL XEON QUADCORE E5345 2.33GHZ 8MB CACHE LGA771 CPU
      XFX 8600GT 512MB PCIE VIDEO CARD DUAL HEAD
      PHILLIPS 20X DVD+-RW IDE OPTICAL DRIVE
      STARTECH 2 PORT FW800 1PT FW400
      WINDOWS VISTA ULTIMATE X64
      22IN ACER LCD 700:1 5MS WIDE SCREEN
      LOGITECH KEYBOARD AND OPTICAL MOUSE
      1 YEAR WARRANTY PARTS AND LABOR





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Carel
      Matt, Even the fastest mechanical HD will probably be slower than the solid state disks that are coming out in the coming months. The biggest bottleneck for
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Matt,

        Even the fastest mechanical HD will probably be slower than the solid state
        disks that are coming out in the coming months. The biggest bottleneck for
        stitching is the scratch disk and I always hear a LOT of activity from the
        HD head when it is reading and writing large files during stitching (even on
        a dedicated scratch disk, brand new, freshly formatted and empty).

        Alternately you could set up a RAID for your scratch disk with a bunch of
        regular SATAII drives, which should be faster than one superfast single
        drive and in the long run may be cheaper.

        Stay away from Vista. In tests it appears to be twice as slow as XP on the
        same machine:
        http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204203975

        Carel Struycken

        --
        View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Best-hard-disks-and-LCD-monitors-for-panoramic-performance-tf4927301.html#a14107686
        Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
      • AYRTON - avi
        ... GET a MAC ! So easier :-) ... AYRTON 21-9982.6313 www.ayrton.com Ladeira de Nossa Senhora, 214 / sl. 101
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          On 12/1/07, Carel <cs@...> wrote:
          >
          > Stay away from Vista. In tests it appears to be twice as slow as XP on the
          > same machine:
          > http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204203975

          GET a MAC !
          So easier :-)

          >
          > Carel Struycken


          AYRTON 21-9982.6313 www.ayrton.com
          Ladeira de Nossa Senhora, 214 / sl. 101 www.vrfolio.com
          Outeiro da Glória - RJ - 22211-100 - Brasil www.vr-images.com
          Panoramas do Rio de Janeiro www.rio360.com.br
        • Mark D. Fink
          Interesting timing on your link Carel. I just did one last email check before creating an image of my hard drive before downgrading to XP. :o) Mark
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Interesting timing on your link Carel. I just did one last email check
            before creating an image of my hard drive before downgrading to XP. :o)



            Mark

            www.pinnacle-vr.com <http://www.pinnacle-vr.com/>

            www.northernlight.net <http://www.northernlight.net/>





            -----Original Message-----
            From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
            Behalf Of Carel
            Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 12:46 PM
            To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Best hard disks and LCD monitors for panoramic
            performance




            Matt,

            Even the fastest mechanical HD will probably be slower than the solid state
            disks that are coming out in the coming months. The biggest bottleneck for
            stitching is the scratch disk and I always hear a LOT of activity from the
            HD head when it is reading and writing large files during stitching (even on
            a dedicated scratch disk, brand new, freshly formatted and empty).

            Alternately you could set up a RAID for your scratch disk with a bunch of
            regular SATAII drives, which should be faster than one superfast single
            drive and in the long run may be cheaper.

            Stay away from Vista. In tests it appears to be twice as slow as XP on the
            same machine:
            http://www.informat
            <http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204203975>
            ionweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204203975

            Carel Struycken

            --
            View this message in context: http://www.nabble
            <http://www.nabble.com/Best-hard-disks-and-LCD-monitors-for-panoramic-perfor
            mance-tf4927301.html#a14107686>
            com/Best-hard-disks-and-LCD-monitors-for-panoramic-performance-tf4927301.htm
            l#a14107686
            Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Carel
            ... I have both a MacBook Pro and an XP system, and although not completely up to speed on the Mac side yet, I dont understand what all the windows/Mac
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              AYRTON - avi wrote:
              >
              > On 12/1/07, Carel <cs@...> wrote:
              >>
              >
              > GET a MAC !
              > So easier :-)
              >
              >

              I have both a MacBook Pro and an XP system, and although not completely up
              to speed on the Mac side yet, I dont understand what all the windows/Mac
              bickering is about. Both operating system have their annoyances and both
              first need to be wrestled to the ground before they become usable. Windows
              explorer seems to work a lot faster than Finder or any of the 3rd party
              improvements and I have not found a way to quickly look at raw thumbnails
              yet from within Finder. Adobe Bridge is way too slow for that and misses the
              convenience of a generic file manager such as Windows Explorer.

              Carel Struycken
              --
              View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Best-hard-disks-and-LCD-monitors-for-panoramic-performance-tf4927301.html#a14109006
              Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
            • panotools@360image.de
              Hi Matt, ... I can confirm that. With all the talk on I/O speed lately I did install a hardware Raid0 (striping) with the 2 (80 gig) scratch discs i had
              Message 6 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Matt,
                >
                >
                > Alternately you could set up a RAID for your scratch disk with a bunch of
                >
                I can confirm that. With all the talk on I/O speed lately I did install
                a hardware Raid0 (striping) with the 2 (80 gig) scratch discs i had
                running with my dedicated stitcher box. I also moved the enblend
                ,smartblend and autopano plugins to those discs. Turns out that the
                speedtest files where finished at 1 min 25 sec as compared to 1 min and
                55 sec before. It does not sound like much, but its an improvement of
                35% with the same hardware as before. Not bad for a single core 2 ghz/
                3gig ram AMD box. It took less than 10 minutes to do...

                In case some testers want to do that and redo a a speedtest you are
                invited to send me your results.
                http://www.360image.de/test/smallfoot.htm

                Cheers, Milko
              • John Riley
                I just bought a dual drive enclosure on ebay that I plan to use as a dedicated RAID 0 scratch disk for stitching. Does anyone have recommendations on how
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  I just bought a dual drive enclosure on ebay that I plan to use as a
                  dedicated RAID 0 scratch disk for stitching. Does anyone have
                  recommendations on how large the disks should be as a minimum? Since
                  I won't be using it for storage, I imagine it doesn't need to be
                  huge, but how big is big enough, give or take?

                  John

                  John Riley
                  johnriley@...
                  jriley@...




                  On Dec 1, 2007, at 8:38 PM, panotools360imagede wrote:

                  > Hi Matt,
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Alternately you could set up a RAID for your scratch disk with a
                  > bunch of
                  > >
                  > I can confirm that. With all the talk on I/O speed lately I did
                  > install
                  > a hardware Raid0 (striping) with the 2 (80 gig) scratch discs i had
                  > running with my dedicated stitcher box. I also moved the enblend
                  > ,smartblend and autopano plugins to those discs. Turns out that the
                  > speedtest files where finished at 1 min 25 sec as compared to 1 min
                  > and
                  > 55 sec before. It does not sound like much, but its an improvement of
                  > 35% with the same hardware as before. Not bad for a single core 2 ghz/
                  > 3gig ram AMD box. It took less than 10 minutes to do...
                  >
                  > In case some testers want to do that and redo a a speedtest you are
                  > invited to send me your results.
                  > http://www.360image.de/test/smallfoot.htm
                  >
                  > Cheers, Milko
                  >
                  >
                  >



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Sacha Griffin
                  Then it would be driven by price. They usually only make one size in large production the budget price. Smaller drives are just fractionally cheaper, and the
                  Message 8 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Then it would be driven by price.

                    They usually only make one size in large production the budget price.
                    Smaller drives are just fractionally cheaper, and the drive just above it is
                    very expensive.



                    I think the price points are best around 250 gig. If its not for storage..
                    anything you buy will be overkill.



                    Sacha Griffin
                    Southern Digital Solutions LLC - Atlanta, Georgia
                    www.southern-digital.com
                    www.seeit360.net
                    www.ezphotosafe.com
                    404-551-4275
                    404-731-7798

                    _____

                    From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                    Behalf Of John Riley
                    Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 10:43 PM
                    To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Best hard disks (RAID array question)



                    I just bought a dual drive enclosure on ebay that I plan to use as a
                    dedicated RAID 0 scratch disk for stitching. Does anyone have
                    recommendations on how large the disks should be as a minimum? Since
                    I won't be using it for storage, I imagine it doesn't need to be
                    huge, but how big is big enough, give or take?

                    John

                    John Riley
                    johnriley@chesnet. <mailto:johnriley%40chesnet.net> net
                    jriley@uscupstate. <mailto:jriley%40uscupstate.edu> edu

                    On Dec 1, 2007, at 8:38 PM, panotools360imagede wrote:

                    > Hi Matt,
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Alternately you could set up a RAID for your scratch disk with a
                    > bunch of
                    > >
                    > I can confirm that. With all the talk on I/O speed lately I did
                    > install
                    > a hardware Raid0 (striping) with the 2 (80 gig) scratch discs i had
                    > running with my dedicated stitcher box. I also moved the enblend
                    > ,smartblend and autopano plugins to those discs. Turns out that the
                    > speedtest files where finished at 1 min 25 sec as compared to 1 min
                    > and
                    > 55 sec before. It does not sound like much, but its an improvement of
                    > 35% with the same hardware as before. Not bad for a single core 2 ghz/
                    > 3gig ram AMD box. It took less than 10 minutes to do...
                    >
                    > In case some testers want to do that and redo a a speedtest you are
                    > invited to send me your results.
                    > http://www.360image <http://www.360image.de/test/smallfoot.htm>
                    .de/test/smallfoot.htm
                    >
                    > Cheers, Milko
                    >
                    >
                    >

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • matt_nolan_uaf
                    John, I m certainly no expert, but from what I ve been reading, the smaller the disk is physicall, the faster it will be. Also, it is possible to partition
                    Message 9 of 14 , Dec 2, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      John,

                      I'm certainly no expert, but from what I've been reading, the smaller
                      the disk is physicall, the faster it will be. Also, it is possible
                      to partition the disks such that you define the innermost part of the
                      disk as a separate partition and just use that as your scratch disk
                      (called quarter stroking). The speed increase is several fold
                      because the arm has to move much less, and is a much cheaper solution
                      apparently than by so-called very fast disks, where the spec speeds
                      are average for anywhere physically on the disk. But if you have the
                      money, then buying 'very fast' disks (like SAS Cheetah 76GB) and
                      quarter stroking those might be the best you can do. But from what
                      I've read recently, using iRAM disks in RAID 0 is a factor of 10,000
                      faster than the fastest disk, but I've never tried it.
                      http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/05/hyperos_dram_hard_drive_on_the_
                      block/page6.html

                      -Matt

                      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, John Riley <johnriley@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > I just bought a dual drive enclosure on ebay that I plan to use as
                      a
                      > dedicated RAID 0 scratch disk for stitching. Does anyone have
                      > recommendations on how large the disks should be as a minimum?
                      Since
                      > I won't be using it for storage, I imagine it doesn't need to be
                      > huge, but how big is big enough, give or take?
                      >
                      > John
                      >
                      > John Riley
                      > johnriley@...
                      > jriley@...
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > On Dec 1, 2007, at 8:38 PM, panotools360imagede wrote:
                      >
                      > > Hi Matt,
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Alternately you could set up a RAID for your scratch disk with
                      a
                      > > bunch of
                      > > >
                      > > I can confirm that. With all the talk on I/O speed lately I did
                      > > install
                      > > a hardware Raid0 (striping) with the 2 (80 gig) scratch discs i
                      had
                      > > running with my dedicated stitcher box. I also moved the enblend
                      > > ,smartblend and autopano plugins to those discs. Turns out that
                      the
                      > > speedtest files where finished at 1 min 25 sec as compared to 1
                      min
                      > > and
                      > > 55 sec before. It does not sound like much, but its an
                      improvement of
                      > > 35% with the same hardware as before. Not bad for a single core 2
                      ghz/
                      > > 3gig ram AMD box. It took less than 10 minutes to do...
                      > >
                      > > In case some testers want to do that and redo a a speedtest you
                      are
                      > > invited to send me your results.
                      > > http://www.360image.de/test/smallfoot.htm
                      > >
                      > > Cheers, Milko
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                    • verifone411
                      Regarding Raid setups. For the original image location and the final finished file location. Does this matter? Should either of these placed on different
                      Message 10 of 14 , Dec 12, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Regarding Raid setups.

                        For the original image location and the final finished file location.
                        Does this matter? Should either of these placed on different disks?

                        disk 1 original images
                        disk(s) 2 temp disk
                        disk 3 final image

                        I doubt readyboost would help any in vista eh? There would be no easy
                        way to go back to xp pro 64 I have vista home premium. If I am going
                        to stick with Vista should I upgrade to the better version of vista? I
                        have a 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ 2.6ghz and I do not know if it is
                        optimized for 64 bit.

                        Thank you

                        KieranMullen
                      • Georgia Real Tours
                        ... Naturally, the answer depends on your raid setup. ... Might not be so hard, actually, but I d recommend going to the 32-bit XP Pro. There s some nasty
                        Message 11 of 14 , Dec 12, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 12/12/07, verifone411 <kieranmullen@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Regarding Raid setups.
                          >
                          > For the original image location and the final finished file location.
                          > Does this matter? Should either of these placed on different disks?
                          >
                          > disk 1 original images
                          > disk(s) 2 temp disk
                          > disk 3 final image

                          Naturally, the answer depends on your raid setup.


                          > I doubt readyboost would help any in vista eh? There would be no easy
                          > way to go back to xp pro 64.

                          Might not be so hard, actually, but I'd recommend going to the 32-bit
                          XP Pro. There's some nasty problems in 64-bit XP, mostly in regards
                          to software issues and driver issues. And in my opinion, the
                          advantages of Vista are outweighed by the shortcomings of that
                          operating system.


                          > I have vista home premium. If I am going
                          > to stick with Vista should I upgrade to the better version of vista? I
                          > have a 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ 2.6ghz and I do not know if it is
                          > optimized for 64 bit.

                          I seriously doubt you have a 64-bit Vista, but you might. Take a look
                          at this site: <http://www.windows-vista-update.com/Windows_Vista_64_bit.html>
                          for much better info on both Vista and XP and 64-bit.

                          Another option to consider is a Linux distribution (aka 'distro') and
                          install on it a virtualization solution such as VMWare workstation.
                          You can run essentially any other operating system (even Mac, though
                          with some issues) inside a virtual machine, and I'd wager that you
                          could run XP Pro 32-bit inside that vm faster than you could run Vista
                          with Aero directly on the hardware, especially with a distro that has
                          a small footprint in terms of memor and cpu requirements. In my
                          opinion Linux offers the best utilization of your machine's 64-bit
                          dual-core heart. That's a very respectable piece of hardware you
                          have, by the way. Might as well use it to its fullest extent.

                          Obviously, you would initially want to make the machine dual-bootable,
                          or even tri- or quad-bootable if you have sufficient harddrive space.
                          Do that and you'll literally have the best of all worlds and you can
                          have the freedom to choose the best solution available to you at the
                          time you need it.

                          Go ahead... your machine can take it. ;c)

                          Cheers,
                          Robert~

                          --
                          Mid GA: 478-599-1300
                          ATL: 678-438-6955
                          garealtours.com
                        • mrjimbo
                          Howdy, I agree with Robert about staying off Vista.. As far as the Linux suggestion if your comfortable with taking that on go for it.. If that would all be
                          Message 12 of 14 , Dec 13, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Howdy,
                            I agree with Robert about staying off Vista..
                            As far as the Linux suggestion if your comfortable with taking that on go for it.. If that would all be new business for you ..Stick with XP pro..

                            As far as the 64 bit OS.. their are many benefits to it but primarily that's the only way you can address more then 4gb of ram.

                            As far as your raid set up.. either I missed info in an earlier post or you haven't gotten their as yet..

                            Basically their are two kinds of raids... at a high level.. Hardware Raids and Software Raids... The hardware version typically costs more but generally are more trouble free. Beyond that you have to decide upon the interface. Today SCSI is still the fastest over Sata, or firewire I would not suggest considering anything using usb.. I have one machine set up which stripes to two disks for speed followed by mirroring to two more for redundency using 320 SCSI. That for me has proved so far to be my favorite set up. It was a bit spendy. It has proven to be secure and relatively fast. I have two other harware raids using 800 firewire.. Their ok but they are tempermental. I am gearing up to do another workstation and I'm going to replicate the SCSI set up but use Sata with the fastest Seagates I can acquire. Also note I don't have any OS on these drives They are for working jobs and current file and or jobs. One more thought...if you can afford to use a drive bay with trays do so.. Make sure to get an extra set of trays right from the get go.. Down the road when you've filled the drive or drives you can just start using another set to continue..

                            jim
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Georgia Real Tours
                            To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 2:17 PM
                            Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Best hard disks (RAID array question)


                            On 12/12/07, verifone411 <kieranmullen@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Regarding Raid setups.
                            >
                            > For the original image location and the final finished file location.
                            > Does this matter? Should either of these placed on different disks?
                            >
                            > disk 1 original images
                            > disk(s) 2 temp disk
                            > disk 3 final image

                            Naturally, the answer depends on your raid setup.

                            > I doubt readyboost would help any in vista eh? There would be no easy
                            > way to go back to xp pro 64.

                            Might not be so hard, actually, but I'd recommend going to the 32-bit
                            XP Pro. There's some nasty problems in 64-bit XP, mostly in regards
                            to software issues and driver issues. And in my opinion, the
                            advantages of Vista are outweighed by the shortcomings of that
                            operating system.

                            > I have vista home premium. If I am going
                            > to stick with Vista should I upgrade to the better version of vista? I
                            > have a 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ 2.6ghz and I do not know if it is
                            > optimized for 64 bit.

                            I seriously doubt you have a 64-bit Vista, but you might. Take a look
                            at this site: <http://www.windows-vista-update.com/Windows_Vista_64_bit.html>
                            for much better info on both Vista and XP and 64-bit.

                            Another option to consider is a Linux distribution (aka 'distro') and
                            install on it a virtualization solution such as VMWare workstation.
                            You can run essentially any other operating system (even Mac, though
                            with some issues) inside a virtual machine, and I'd wager that you
                            could run XP Pro 32-bit inside that vm faster than you could run Vista
                            with Aero directly on the hardware, especially with a distro that has
                            a small footprint in terms of memor and cpu requirements. In my
                            opinion Linux offers the best utilization of your machine's 64-bit
                            dual-core heart. That's a very respectable piece of hardware you
                            have, by the way. Might as well use it to its fullest extent.

                            Obviously, you would initially want to make the machine dual-bootable,
                            or even tri- or quad-bootable if you have sufficient harddrive space.
                            Do that and you'll literally have the best of all worlds and you can
                            have the freedom to choose the best solution available to you at the
                            time you need it.

                            Go ahead... your machine can take it. ;c)

                            Cheers,
                            Robert~

                            --
                            Mid GA: 478-599-1300
                            ATL: 678-438-6955
                            garealtours.com




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.