tived
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #2 · CS4 - upgrade to quad core? | |
worth it? that's in the eye of the beholder.
Its also the last 5-10% performance gain, that cost most.
Having just canned 9 scsi drives and a hardware RAID cache controller, and installed 4 Samsung F1 1TB disks. I am having some mixed feelings about this whole issue.
Though my new installation is only a few days old, re-installation, had a raid fail on me, but all recovered (yes it was a RAID 0 )
what are my findings, well, SCSI which has always been my favorite and my soft spot, is probably the better over all solution, I am saying probably because at the moment, while my wounds are healing from this crash, the SATA setup is running really smooth, with one raid 0 running of my main board...could me vapor RAID...or deep down soft ware raid....but supposedly hardware RAID. bottom line, I am impressed at the moment and they are running quiet and cool, which i could not say about the SCSI disks I had, almost all 15000 rpm's but also a couple of 300GB 10k disks.
If you are going to run RAID on a hardware controller I would strongly recommend that you get a battery backup unit, for either the controller itself or a UPS for the whole computer, so that you do not loose any data that is in the cache, should you loose power.
SATA disks has become really fast, a lot even faster then some SCSI disks, at least on the first inspection, such as benchmark test, which really don't give us the real work load feel, but never the less its cool to be able to say.....my disk is faster then yours!
I have for the moment, put my SCSI disks on the shelf, till i have gotten through my current work backlog, the RAID crash set me back one month, due to the time it took me to recover my data.
I am contemplating, to build a new hard drive setup, with a 8 or 16 port SATA RAID Cache controller and start off with 8 disks in RAID 10, stripe and mirror (4x2) this should be the fine balance between speed and redundancy.
However, Photoshop likes to have its own scratch disk or disks so, it will also require some disks for this function and ideally this should be disks that are really fast out of the blocks e.g. access time, it is here that SCSI shines but again its that last 5-10% gain, that is going to cost us.
Quad or not...I think Photoshop is happy with two cores, but would perform better in most cases with faster CPU's over more CPU's, it is going to be your quantity of ram and hard disk system, that is your bottleneck
good luck
Henrik
|
