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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Best hard disks (RAID array question)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
      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 2 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
        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 3 of 14 , Dec 2, 2007
          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 4 of 14 , Dec 12, 2007
            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 5 of 14 , Dec 12, 2007
              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 6 of 14 , Dec 13, 2007
                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.