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]

[filmscanners] Re: Re:Computer size: RAID



> > To carry disk performance to the max, go with
> > a striped SCSI array of 15000 RPM drives!
>
> Very expensive, though.  Also, one thing tends to lead to another:  If you
> use 15000 RPM drives, you soon have to start worrying about keeping the
> whole machine from melting down in its own heat.
>

I'm getting a system with 1.5 GB of RAM and 2 80MB 7200
drives (CPU: Athlon 1800+). Aside from possible
video-editing, would there be a reason to set the drives up
as RAID-0 (which is supported on the motherboard I'm using
so doesn't add to the cost). Opening and saving 128MB files
might be faster but would PS in general be faster given that
I assume there would be little need to go to the scratch
disk with that much RAM. Trying to figure out whether any
increased performance would be worth the loss of data if one
of the drives goes. On my current system I use the second
disk for daily incremental back-ups (without full mirroring)
which would be useless with the level 0 RAID. How, also,
does RAID interact with PS's desire for partitions?

As for any future large video editing project it might just
be better to dedicate a couple of drives in RAID to the
editing at that point.

Comments on my reasoning on this (or lack of it)?

--
John Matturri
words and images: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmatturr/


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.