tlarkin
VIP Member
I agree with you for an average every day user, but if you were say modifying a 2 gig photoshop file and running RAID 1, I bet you would notice some bottle necks. Remember disk I/O is the biggest bottle neck there is.
Reconfigure to RAID 0
- Thread starter neogamer
- Start date
I agree with you for an average every day user, but if you were say modifying a 2 gig photoshop file and running RAID 1, I bet you would notice some bottle necks. Remember disk I/O is the biggest bottle neck there is.
HI,
Not true. I am a digital photographer. I use Photoshop constantly. While most .psd files are not as big as your exagerated example, I have found no problem. Photoshop does require a powerful machine but where the power is needed is in the processor and memory. Disk becomes an issue only if Photoshop is forced to to do disk swapping. This should be avoided at all times by having enough fast memory. I have 4gB. My system never swaps.
And, because most of the time there are a significant number of images on the hard disk that have not been backed up, disk reliability becomes even more important. RAID 1 is the answer.
You have no valid points.
Sparky
Not true. I am a digital photographer. I use Photoshop constantly. While most .psd files are not as big as your exagerated example, I have found no problem. Photoshop does require a powerful machine but where the power is needed is in the processor and memory. Disk becomes an issue only if Photoshop is forced to to do disk swapping. This should be avoided at all times by having enough fast memory. I have 4gB. My system never swaps.
And, because most of the time there are a significant number of images on the hard disk that have not been backed up, disk reliability becomes even more important. RAID 1 is the answer.
You have no valid points.
Sparky
Let's modify the example to something less exaggerated then (although very large photoshop files are not that uncommon).
Take an uncompressed video file for example. They can easily go into the several GB in size range. A RAID0 (or 5 or any striped array) would give working with that file a good boost in speed.
tlarkin has a valid point, you just sound like you are trying to talk up your RAID1. Yes the speed is comparable to a single drive but you will notice that it is slow if you are doing anything that is IO heavy.
RAID1 is not the answer unless the question is 'What's a simple data protection solution?'
Take an uncompressed video file for example. They can easily go into the several GB in size range. A RAID0 (or 5 or any striped array) would give working with that file a good boost in speed.
tlarkin has a valid point, you just sound like you are trying to talk up your RAID1. Yes the speed is comparable to a single drive but you will notice that it is slow if you are doing anything that is IO heavy.
RAID1 is not the answer unless the question is 'What's a simple data protection solution?'
Last edited:
tlarkin
VIP Member
Oh this is very true. I work with RAID arrays all the time as I am a sys admin by trade. My servers run both RAID 1 and RAID 5 depending on the application. I can watch a 5 gig package get pushed out over a RAID 5 array versus a RAID 1 and there is a significant through put difference.
You aren't pushing it to the limit, and it depends on many factors, however RAID 1 does decrease performance plain and simple.
Run a data throughput benchmark on a single drive, then on the same hardware config run it again on RAID 1, you will get lower results.
HI,
I'm not disagreeing with you as I have said. Pure and simple, it's a question of priorities. Certainly, a disk intensive application will show the speed differences most. So, now the question becomes which is the most important, speed (at the cost of reliability) or reliability (at the cost of speed). Remember, my speed reference here is of a single disk, non-RAID disk. There is no question that RAID 0 is faster than RAID 1. But RAID 1 is only slightly slower than a non-RAID disk. Not enough difference to worry about.
Thus, by using RAID 1, one gets very close to the speed of a non-RAID disk but with a large increase of reliability. Plus, one must note, RAID 0 is less reliable than a single disk.
I'll take reliability as long as the speed is reasonable. RAID 1 speed is adequate for me. Photosop is my benchmark.
Sparky
I'm not disagreeing with you as I have said. Pure and simple, it's a question of priorities. Certainly, a disk intensive application will show the speed differences most. So, now the question becomes which is the most important, speed (at the cost of reliability) or reliability (at the cost of speed). Remember, my speed reference here is of a single disk, non-RAID disk. There is no question that RAID 0 is faster than RAID 1. But RAID 1 is only slightly slower than a non-RAID disk. Not enough difference to worry about.
Thus, by using RAID 1, one gets very close to the speed of a non-RAID disk but with a large increase of reliability. Plus, one must note, RAID 0 is less reliable than a single disk.
I'll take reliability as long as the speed is reasonable. RAID 1 speed is adequate for me. Photosop is my benchmark.
Sparky
Last edited:
tlarkin
VIP Member
As an end user solution I don't recommend RAID at all. Since you run your business on your computer, RAID 1 is something you like for the little down time. I understand your point and agree with you.
If you truly want reliability and back ups, you can do a RAID0+1.
For this user who posted this thread I recommend just using 2 hard drives and using one as back up, and then also copying additional back ups to DVD, thumb drive, or network computer for redundancy as a RAID is probably not going to be worth their time.
If you truly want reliability and back ups, you can do a RAID0+1.
For this user who posted this thread I recommend just using 2 hard drives and using one as back up, and then also copying additional back ups to DVD, thumb drive, or network computer for redundancy as a RAID is probably not going to be worth their time.
HI,
Yes, down time is important especially where time is money. One only has to rebuild an applications intensive disk to see the importance of not having the computer go down. But there's more to consider.
Data is often not not recoverable. It's not like an application program which can be recovered from the distribution CD. I consider the data to be the most important. A good example is data gained from laboratory experiments that may be available only once, at the time it was taken. This data is not only important but may be unique and, almost always, very expensive. Of course, the data should be backed up immediately. But, in my experience, careless reserchers often don't. Now, it becomes important for the computer itself to act as a reliable repository. RAID 1 offers that comfort. RAID modes that offer both mirrored and striped capabilities are the best but that requires a lot of hardware for a single user machine.
Sparky
Yes, down time is important especially where time is money. One only has to rebuild an applications intensive disk to see the importance of not having the computer go down. But there's more to consider.
Data is often not not recoverable. It's not like an application program which can be recovered from the distribution CD. I consider the data to be the most important. A good example is data gained from laboratory experiments that may be available only once, at the time it was taken. This data is not only important but may be unique and, almost always, very expensive. Of course, the data should be backed up immediately. But, in my experience, careless reserchers often don't. Now, it becomes important for the computer itself to act as a reliable repository. RAID 1 offers that comfort. RAID modes that offer both mirrored and striped capabilities are the best but that requires a lot of hardware for a single user machine.
Sparky