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

Re: Best hard disks (RAID array question)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.