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

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

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