Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows



A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
compressed TIFFs -- I got curious so I set up a cache large enough to
hold the whole file (53MB). The first time I loaded it into PhotoShop
it took 61 seconds (reading from the disk). I then closed the file and
reloaded it into PhotoShop (this time from the cache -- the disk light
never even blinked) and it took 55 seconds. And I'm reasonably sure
that a RAM cache is *much* faster than a 7200 rpm drive!

BTW, Ed's VueScan takes less than 30 seconds to read the same file.
  --Dana
----------
From: Rob Geraghty <harper@wordweb.com>
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in
Windows
Date: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:22 AM

< snip >

On the other hand I'm reasonably sure the main
bottleneck in my PC when dealing with large scans is the 5400RPM IDE
drive.
 A 7200RPM drive would speed up loading and saving files by at least
25%.
 Two 7200rpm drives in a RAID array should be significantly better
still.
 Loading and saving files is the no.1 timewaster for me when working
with
film scans on my PC.

Rob


Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
http://wordweb.com





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.