Value System Build

[SushiEater]

But they do have warehouses. Space is a space. They have workers. The point is someone who builds a computer for extra $50 instead of $1000 like Puget Computers rip-off can make money doing it. Not a rocket science anymore (it used to be) to build one yourself either.

 

[malch]

Ron AKA wrote:

Data Drive: Instead of using one Seagate Hybrid drive, I'm now thinking of using two less costly Seagate Barracuda 1TB drives configured in Raid 0. This would effectively double the data transfer rate, and double the drive capacity. Yes, I know that will double the chances of a hard drive failure, but I do full backup of all data, so I think I would survive that with little to no damage.

Paging medics! Another case of RAIDitis

If you have a SSD system drive, you really don't need to RAID 0 the data drive(s) containing your images. It's not going to have a significant impact on your overall performance.

SSD plus 7200rpm spinners for the photos is a really nice balance and you'll avoid all of the complexities and pitfalls of RAID.

 

[SushiEater]

Also, that Seagate hybrid drive probably not 7200 rpm. Actually I can't find the speed of the drive so most likely it is in the range of 5400-5900 rpm.

But I still would recommend getting 2 WD black drives and put them in the RAID 0.

 

[Ron AKA]

Actually Windows 8 makes it quite simple to implement a RAID like system. They call it a Storage Pool, and a RAID 0 would be a Simple Space within the pool. You just designate the drives you want to use, and the type, Simple. It does the rest and formats the number of disks you select. Some more info here.

 

[Ron AKA]

Actually the Seagate SSD Hybrid is a 7200 rpm with 8 GB of NAND, and 1TB disk storage. But it is not all that cheap and for the same price I can get 2 TB of 7200 rpm disk at RAID 0 speed, with the Seagate Barracuda model.

 

[malch]

SushiEater wrote:

Also, that Seagate hybrid drive probably not 7200 rpm. Actually I can't find the speed of the drive so most likely it is in the range of 5400-5900 rpm.

But I still would recommend getting 2 WD black drives and put them in the RAID 0.

Yup, RAIDitis!

So, I took a folder of 241 recent 16MP RAW images.

I have Lightroom 5 on an i7 with 16MB. System, software, LR catalog etc on a Samsung 840 Pro SSD and data on a WD Black (not RAID).

Starting with a clean catalog, the time to import those images with 1:1 previews was 398 seconds.

I deleted the catalog and repeated the import with copies of the exact same images on the SSD (which is a lot faster than two Blacks in RAID 0). It took 395 seconds.

Photo workflow just doesn't place a big load on the data drive (yes, catalog and cache are a different matter). Hence placing the images on a really fast drive (good SSD) doesn't give even a 1% performance improvement.

You just don't need RAID 0 for storing and editing photos!

 

[TrickTheLight]

Tom_N wrote:

Another white-box vendor I've seen mentioned on this site is CyberPower PC. However, their site is now heavily oriented towards flashy gaming PCs and their FAQ says they do not ship internationally.

I have a cyber power system and am very pleased. Their pricing was unbeatable, even by ordering parts and assembling at home. Their website looks very gamer oriented, and they hype gamer oriented features, but they let you build a system to your spec, so you can build the machine you want. When I ordered, water cooling was included at no cost, but water cooling is not a bad thing. My machine runs cool and quiet.



I understand that systems depreciate, but you aren't buying it to re-sell, you are buying it to use. Make sure it meets your needs, and if the industry hasn't bloated so much that your machine is unusable in 3 years, count yourself lucky. It'll be a boat anchor in 5.

 

[Ron AKA]

On the other hand, SATA 6 Gb/s, is frequently criticized as a scam, as disk data transfer rates do not come close to that speed. So, when you can double the actual disk transfer rates at essentially no cost per MB of storage, and take advantage of that controller speed, why not do it? The only down side is a slight increase in disk failure risk. Two times a very low number (failure risk) is still a low number.

 

[malch]

Ron AKA wrote:

On the other hand, SATA 6 Gb/s, is frequently criticized as a scam, as disk data transfer rates do not come close to that speed. So, when you can double the actual disk transfer rates at essentially no cost per MB of storage, and take advantage of that controller speed, why not do it? The only down side is a slight increase in disk failure risk. Two times a very low number (failure risk) is still a low number.

There is really no downside to SATA III over SATA II. It's really just a question of whether your devices support it.

My own system only has one SATA III port. Obviously, I connected the SSD to it. My HDD's are on SATA II ports and that's just fine with me.

Based on my benchmark results, RAID 0 will offer you a performance improvement of less than 1%. However, it doubles the risk of a serious data loss. Actually, it's worse than that -- there's double the risk due to twice as many drives and then there's an additional risk of a RAID sync/corruption issue (even if the individual drive hardware is perfectly fine).

That's a major reduction in reliability for almost no benefit. I can't imagine why anyone would want to go for that deal.

If you really want to play with RAID or need the bragging rights, by all means go for it. This is your system. But don't kid yourself that you'll be able to develop your photographs any better or faster.

 

[SushiEater]

malch wrote:

SushiEater wrote:

Also, that Seagate hybrid drive probably not 7200 rpm. Actually I can't find the speed of the drive so most likely it is in the range of 5400-5900 rpm.

But I still would recommend getting 2 WD black drives and put them in the RAID 0.

Yup, RAIDitis!

So, I took a folder of 241 recent 16MP RAW images.

I have Lightroom 5 on an i7 with 16MB. System, software, LR catalog etc on a Samsung 840 Pro SSD and data on a WD Black (not RAID).

Starting with a clean catalog, the time to import those images with 1:1 previews was 398 seconds.

I deleted the catalog and repeated the import with copies of the exact same images on the SSD (which is a lot faster than two Blacks in RAID 0). It took 395 seconds.

Did you read my post of what I think about SSD and why it is only good for OS, software, index files?

COMPUTING TIME!!!!

Now try to copy from one fast location to another fast location so no computing time is involved and you see a big difference. Also, try saving large files (not 16mp RAW files) generated by panorama software or copying these files from one location to another and you will see huge difference.

Photo workflow just doesn't place a big load on the data drive (yes, catalog and cache are a different matter). Hence placing the images on a really fast drive (good SSD) doesn't give even a 1% performance improvement.

You just don't need RAID 0 for storing and editing photos!

Not everything is storing and editing small files. Try large files and you will see saving bar on the bottom of Photoshop. The faster the drive the shorter the wait. Plus same drive can be used for other things. I am sure OP is not going to have dedicated photo computer.

 

[SushiEater]

malch wrote:

Ron AKA wrote:

On the other hand, SATA 6 Gb/s, is frequently criticized as a scam, as disk data transfer rates do not come close to that speed. So, when you can double the actual disk transfer rates at essentially no cost per MB of storage, and take advantage of that controller speed, why not do it? The only down side is a slight increase in disk failure risk. Two times a very low number (failure risk) is still a low number.

There is really no downside to SATA III over SATA II. It's really just a question of whether your devices support it.

My own system only has one SATA III port. Obviously, I connected the SSD to it. My HDD's are on SATA II ports and that's just fine with me.

Based on my benchmark results, RAID 0 will offer you a performance improvement of less than 1%. However, it doubles the risk of a serious data loss. Actually, it's worse than that -- there's double the risk due to twice as many drives and then there's an additional risk of a RAID sync/corruption issue (even if the individual drive hardware is perfectly fine).

That's a major reduction in reliability for almost no benefit. I can't imagine why anyone would want to go for that deal.

If you really want to play with RAID or need the bragging rights, by all means go for it. This is your system. But don't kid yourself that you'll be able to develop your photographs any better or faster.

You are obviously not a power user so don't assume everyone is not either.

I have been using many raids and only had problem once and that was in a backup array. And drives did not crash either. It was a Seagate firmware problem. Drives were falling out of array. After a simple firmware update everything is fine and I am still using it now. If someone has a simple discipline to back up everything often RAID is not a problem. And your benchmarks are flawed because you are not a power user. You didn't even mention where you were importing files from. If you use slow origin no matter how fast your destination is it is still going to be as slow as origin.

 

[SushiEater]

Strange. They don't advertize speed on their website. And yes go for the RAID0 with less expensive drives. Hybrid drive is only good for a single drive configuration. Build in SSD only memorizes frequently used files like OS or programs.

 

[malch]

SushiEater wrote:

Now try to copy from one fast location to another fast location so no computing time is involved and you see a big difference. Also, try saving large files (not 16mp RAW files) generated by panorama software or copying these files from one location to another and you will see huge difference.

Oh good grief man. Does it sound like the OP spends his day editing Giga pixel panos as his profession?

> My current Intel E4300 overclocked CPU running XP at nearly 7 years of age is nearing end of useful life. My use is general desktop home applications, Open Office, Explorer, Google Chrome, Photoshop Elements, and probably in the future Lightroom 5.

He doesn't need RAID. Even if he stitches a few large panos together from time to time (as I do) he doesn't need RAID.

Yeah, there's at least one regular here who does giga pixel images all day every day for a living. Of course, RAID is more appropriate for him based on need and the fact that knows exactly what he's doing.

 

[malch]

SushiEater wrote:

You are obviously not a power user so don't assume everyone is not either.

You'd be wrong on both counts.

I've been building, designing, programming, using, selling, supporting computers professionally for 40 years! How 'bout you?

Also, I didn't make arbitrary assumptions about the OP's need. I read the needs he enumerated in his initial post.

 

[kelpdiver]

SushiEater wrote:

Strange. They don't advertize speed on their website. And yes go for the RAID0 with less expensive drives. Hybrid drive is only good for a single drive configuration. Build in SSD only memorizes frequently used files like OS or programs.

The current hybrid drives (or any laptop class) from Seagate and WD are 5400. Only Toshiba is making 7200 rpm 2.5" drives now. I believe this was a requirement for one of the consolidation purchases - one of the big two had to sell the 2.5" division to Toshiba so there would be a third competitor.

I think the performance buy here for a cheaper system is the 500Gb from Seagate, selling for $80. ST500LM000. If you don't need more space, that's $40 reclaimed. For a LR/CS oriented desktop, that 8gb cache will go a ways without spending ~400 on the SSD.

Striping two black drives - insanity. totally inappropriate for the use case being given here.

 

[kelpdiver]

Ron AKA wrote:

That comparison puts a real heavy weighting on single core computing performance. The FX pretty much beats it in every other measure. How do you think single core performance will show up as real world value?

I've looked up quite a few benchmarks for that 8 core FX and rarely does it match or beat the 4 cores on Sandy Bridge. A big part of the reason why IB and Haswell are still giving us essentially the same performance.

If you have some meaningful metrics to show current benefit, not a hopeful future, where these 8 cores actually deliver a better experience, I'm all ears.

 

[malch]

malch wrote:

Yup, RAIDitis!

So, I took a folder of 241 recent 16MP RAW images.

I have Lightroom 5 on an i7 with 16MB. System, software, LR catalog etc on a Samsung 840 Pro SSD and data on a WD Black (not RAID).

Starting with a clean catalog, the time to import those images with 1:1 previews was 398 seconds.

I deleted the catalog and repeated the import with copies of the exact same images on the SSD (which is a lot faster than two Blacks in RAID 0). It took 395 seconds.

Just for fun, I repeated the experiment with the images on a USB3 external.

That took 386 seconds.

And then on a USB2 external.

399 seconds.

With an i7 and SSD system drive, the speed of the data drives really doesn't have much of an impact on Lightroom -- even when comparing SSD versus USB2.

It's pretty much the same with Photoshop and the same again on my laptop which has SSD plus a slow 5400rpm spinner for the data.

 

[malch]

SushiEater wrote:

Also, try saving large files (not 16mp RAW files) generated by panorama software

Well, I did just try this with a multi-layer pano as a 0.5GB PSD.

With CS6 at least, the save is done in a background thread so it's not a big deal. But I don't see much difference in save times with a SSD versus a 7200rpm spinner.

A very quick look at Task Manager suggests that a single core is fully saturated for pretty much the entire save operation.

 

[SushiEater]

I don't care if you are doing it for 80 years, you are still not the power user by your own admission.

You only have 1 SATA3 port.

You are only processing 16mp RAW files. No big deal. My old laptop can do it.

Try creating multi-row panoramas out D800 files and it will bring your computer to a standing halt.

 

[SushiEater]

kelpdiver wrote:

SushiEater wrote:

Strange. They don't advertize speed on their website. And yes go for the RAID0 with less expensive drives. Hybrid drive is only good for a single drive configuration. Build in SSD only memorizes frequently used files like OS or programs.

The current hybrid drives (or any laptop class) from Seagate and WD are 5400. Only Toshiba is making 7200 rpm 2.5" drives now. I believe this was a requirement for one of the consolidation purchases - one of the big two had to sell the 2.5" division to Toshiba so there would be a third competitor.

How about this one? I have it in my laptop.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148837

Even the new 750GB is 7200rpm.

500GB comes in 5400 and 7200 rpm.

1TB only in 5400rpm.

http://www.seagate.com/internal-hard-drives/laptop-hard-drives/laptop-solid-state-hybrid-drive/?sku=ST1000LM014