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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.