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

I find that little of the time spent is due to the disk drive, which is
the reason for my comment that a 7200 rpm drive, even though it is 33%
faster than a 5400 rpm drive, will not necessarily reduce load times by
a like percentage.

As for my times being slow, you're right: I was quoting the performace
of my "junker" computer which is used only for scanning -- it's a 466
Celeron with 512MB RAM but Intel's woefully undersized L2 cache.
However, the times you quote make me wonder if you are loading
LZW-compressed TIFFs. If so, it is *definitely* time for me to upgrade
the scanner computer!

Thanks for your comments,
From: geoff murray <geoffmurray@primus.com.au>
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Date: Saturday, July 28, 2001 6:15 AM

Hi Dana,
            Gee your times seem very slow. I tried loading a 56mb file
my scratch disk and it took 3.6 seconds. A 169mb file took 17 seconds.
on a Win 98SE machine with a 1Ghz Athlon and 512mb of PC133 ram and two
7200rpm hard drives. Scratch partition is not on the hard drive which
PS6. 7200 rpm drives made a significant difference to overall speed.

Geoff Murray

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dana Trout" <dana@troutcom.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 7:40 AM
Subject: 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
> reloaded it into PhotoShop (this time from the cache -- the disk
> 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
> 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.