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

My current system is an Athlon 1.4GHz with 1 80GB single drive and 2
40's in RAID0. The motherboard is an Iwill KK266-R and I won't get
another. I hope your mobo doesn't use the Megaraid controller, because
it has been a source of problems for me. My belief now is that, if I
really need RAID, I will get a REAL RAID card such as the Adaptec 2400.
I'll do that once my image files get too big for 1 drive, and I'll
probably run RAID5.

Initially, I had the RAID set up as the boot drive and had numerous
corruptions and data loss. The computer without warning wouldn't boot.
I'd have to fully restore. I've since made the 80GB the boot drive and
(knock wood) this hasn't happened since. Incidentally, the 80 is not
even on the RAID side of the mobo. It's in one of the standard IDE
ports. The only option the megaRAID gives you to run a single disk is to
make it a 1 disk stripe. That seems oxymoronic to me. I've read that the
Highpoint controllers have a Just Plain Old Disk setting for that

Oh, BTW, the RAID on my system doesn't bench any faster, and in some
cases slower, than the 80. I'm using Quantum Fireballs in the RAID (the
80 is a Maxtor), and I read after the fact that they don't perform well
in RAID0. One of the PC mags recently did an exhaustive test and
concluded that RAID 0 is faster on writes, but slower on reads. For
video editing, that extra write speed would be important. For stills,
much less so.

I'm planning on rearranging my system to get rid of the RAID. I plan to
make one 40 the boot drive with OS, games, and maybe secondary backup
partitions. The 80 would handle main apps and data partitions. The other
40 would be entirely for compressed backups.


-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of John Matturri
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 12:07 PM
To: lodaniel@bham.rr.com
Subject: [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

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


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.