Is a second, but slower HD, for scratch area a good thing?

It would probably help. It’s big enough to hold the scratch files, but it’s a bit small if anything else gets stored on it and causes the scratch files to fragment. If you keep your eyes open you will find some good buys on drives. Fry’s advertised an 80GB 7200 RPM 8MB buffer drive for something like $29 this weekend, I believe. The higher speed and the large track buffer will improve the speed quite a bit, although it was an ATA/100 drive if I recall. You new machine is probably capable of ATA/133 at least.

Don

"John Fryatt" wrote in message

Hi,

I have PS 7, and have just got a new PC to run it on (P4 3GHz, 1Gb RAM, 120Gb HD).
I still have my old PC around, which has two 4Gb SCSI disks installed in

it.

So far so good.

My question is….
Would it be worth installing the Adaptec 2940UW and one (or even both) of the SCSI disks in the new machine, for the PS scratch area to live on? The disks are IBM 34330Ws, which are ok but not, as far as I know, especially fast (5400rpm). However it would put the scratch on another drive, which

is

apparently
a ‘good thing’. Is 4Gb big enough for scratch in a 1Gb RAM environment?
So, to summarise, I understand that having a separate disk drive for the scratch space is good. But, is it still good is that separate drive is an older, slightly slower SCSI disk?

(I’ll be putting a SCSI card in the new machine anyway, to run my

scanners.)

"John Fryatt" wrote in message

Hi,

I have PS 7, and have just got a new PC to run it on (P4 3GHz, 1Gb RAM, 120Gb HD).
I still have my old PC around, which has two 4Gb SCSI disks installed in

it.

So far so good.

My question is….
Would it be worth installing the Adaptec 2940UW and one (or even both) of the SCSI disks in the new machine, for the PS scratch area to live on? The disks are IBM 34330Ws, which are ok but not, as far as I know, especially fast (5400rpm). However it would put the scratch on another drive, which

is

apparently
a ‘good thing’. Is 4Gb big enough for scratch in a 1Gb RAM environment?

Perhaps, but whether 4GB is enough depends on the maximum size of image that you expect to edit.

So, to summarise, I understand that having a separate disk drive for the scratch space is good. But, is it still good is that separate drive is an older, slightly slower SCSI disk?

Yes, having the PS scratch disk separate from the system disk is a good idea, but the only way to find out
how the slower speed affects performance is to try it out. Jim

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:50:46 GMT, "John Fryatt" wrote:

P.S. Fry’s isn’t that much use to me, being some distance away in the UK. I take your point about special deals though.

Try Dabs (www.dabs.com) Simply (www.simply.co.uk) or Maplin (www.maplin.co.uk) You can get an 80Gb HDD for about £50.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Well, I wouldn’t store anything else on the drive, as the point of putting it in the machine would be to use for PS scratch, so that looks ok.

However, I am still not too sure about all this. Looking up figures, assuming I am making proper sense of the mixed bits and pieces I can find, it would seem that the old 4Gb SCSI IBM disk is a lot slower than the new 120Gb IDE WD disk.
Apparently this model of WD disk, with it’s 8Mb buffer, can deliver up to 100Mb/s, whereas UW SCSI only gives up to 40Mb/s. So, speed-wise the old disk isn’t too hot, …BUT… it’s still a separate disk drive, and also SCSI doesn’t load up the CPU as much as IDE.

Maybe I’ll do a few benchmarks, then install the 4Gb disk and do them again. Assuming I can devise some realistic benchmarks….
Or maybe I’ll just forget it and pension off the old disk. As you say, maybe getting another modern drive might be a better approach. Trouble is, they’re all so big nowadays, then I’d be tempted to put more stuff on it, spoiling the point of the exercise. 😉

As it happens, my new Dimension 8300 does not do ATA/133. I can use ATA/100 or SATA. Tom’s Hardware suggests that ATA/100 isn’t that much of a good idea anyway, though.

John

P.S. Fry’s isn’t that much use to me, being some distance away in the UK. I take your point about special deals though.

"Don" wrote in message

It would probably help. It’s big enough to hold the scratch files, but

it’s

a bit small if anything else gets stored on it and causes the scratch

files

to fragment. If you keep your eyes open you will find some good buys on drives. Fry’s advertised an 80GB 7200 RPM 8MB buffer drive for something like $29 this weekend, I believe. The higher speed and the large track buffer will improve the speed quite a bit, although it was an ATA/100

drive

if I recall. You new machine is probably capable of ATA/133 at least.
Don

"John Fryatt" wrote in message

Hi,

I have PS 7, and have just got a new PC to run it on (P4 3GHz, 1Gb RAM, 120Gb HD).
I still have my old PC around, which has two 4Gb SCSI disks installed in

it.

So far so good.

My question is….
Would it be worth installing the Adaptec 2940UW and one (or even both)

of

the SCSI disks in the new machine, for the PS scratch area to live on?

The

disks are IBM 34330Ws, which are ok but not, as far as I know,

especially

fast (5400rpm). However it would put the scratch on another drive, which

is

apparently
a ‘good thing’. Is 4Gb big enough for scratch in a 1Gb RAM environment?
So, to summarise, I understand that having a separate disk drive for the scratch space is good. But, is it still good is that separate drive is

an

older, slightly slower SCSI disk?

(I’ll be putting a SCSI card in the new machine anyway, to run my

scanners.)

Yes, I think you’re right. Seems like it’s difficult to predict.

John

"Jim" wrote in message

"John Fryatt" wrote in message

Hi,

I have PS 7, and have just got a new PC to run it on (P4 3GHz, 1Gb RAM, 120Gb HD).
I still have my old PC around, which has two 4Gb SCSI disks installed in

it.

So far so good.

My question is….
Would it be worth installing the Adaptec 2940UW and one (or even both)

of

the SCSI disks in the new machine, for the PS scratch area to live on?

The

disks are IBM 34330Ws, which are ok but not, as far as I know,

especially

fast (5400rpm). However it would put the scratch on another drive, which

is

apparently
a ‘good thing’. Is 4Gb big enough for scratch in a 1Gb RAM environment?

Perhaps, but whether 4GB is enough depends on the maximum size of image

that

you expect to edit.

So, to summarise, I understand that having a separate disk drive for the scratch space is good. But, is it still good is that separate drive is

an

older, slightly slower SCSI disk?

Yes, having the PS scratch disk separate from the system disk is a good idea, but the only way to find out
how the slower speed affects performance is to try it out. Jim

John Fryatt wrote:

Well, I wouldn’t store anything else on the drive, as the point of putting it in the machine would be to use for PS scratch, so that looks ok.
However, I am still not too sure about all this. Looking up figures, assuming I am making proper sense of the mixed bits and pieces I can find, it would seem that the old 4Gb SCSI IBM disk is a lot slower than the new 120Gb IDE WD disk.

As Don said, for a couple of bucks, you buy a newer, bigger and faster harddrive.

Apparently this model of WD disk, with it’s 8Mb buffer, can deliver up to 100Mb/s, whereas UW SCSI only gives up to 40Mb/s. So, speed-wise the old disk isn’t too hot, …BUT… it’s still a separate disk drive, and also SCSI doesn’t load up the CPU as much as IDE.

I doubt if teh WD drive can reach 100 MBps, also the IBM won’t reach the 40. That are maximum busspeeds. If you have a write spead of 40 MBps, you have a fast harddrive (for consumer electronics)…

The maximum busspeeds are important when using multiple devices on a single controller.

With SCSI the CPU load is indeed much less than with IDE, but with the current price and performance of IDE drivers, I’ll never buy SCSI drives anymore.

I would pension off the old disk, if it crashes while you’re busy, you lost your work. Also, a bigger driver may be useful to duplicate your data 🙂

As it happens, my new Dimension 8300 does not do ATA/133. I can use

ATA/100

or SATA. Tom’s Hardware suggests that ATA/100 isn’t that much of a good idea anyway, though.

I wouldn’t worry too much about ATA/133, especially not when connecting a DVD-ROM player and a harddrive on a single bus. Together, they won’t reach the 133 MBps.

I like SATA in the sense that my mainboard supports both ATA and SATA, so I can connect more devices (together with SCSI now 8). I also like the thin cables, but the connectors are so-so.

Waldo

"Waldo" wrote in message

John Fryatt wrote:

Well, I wouldn’t store anything else on the drive, as the point of

putting

it in the machine would be to use for PS scratch, so that looks ok.
However, I am still not too sure about all this. Looking up figures, assuming I am making proper sense of the mixed bits and pieces I can

find,

it would seem that the old 4Gb SCSI IBM disk is a lot slower than the

new

120Gb IDE WD disk.

As Don said, for a couple of bucks, you buy a newer, bigger and faster harddrive.

Just trying to be economical I guess. Probably misguided in this case. 😉

Apparently this model of WD disk, with it’s 8Mb buffer, can deliver up

to

100Mb/s, whereas UW SCSI only gives up to 40Mb/s. So, speed-wise the old disk isn’t too hot, …BUT… it’s still a separate disk drive, and also SCSI doesn’t load up the CPU as much as IDE.

I doubt if teh WD drive can reach 100 MBps, also the IBM won’t reach the 40. That are maximum busspeeds. If you have a write spead of 40 MBps, you have a fast harddrive (for consumer electronics)…

Yes I am sure that’s true. The comparison is still valid though, I would think.
I.e. the old SCSI disk is significantly slower.

The maximum busspeeds are important when using multiple devices on a single controller.

With SCSI the CPU load is indeed much less than with IDE, but with the current price and performance of IDE drivers, I’ll never buy SCSI drives anymore.

Likewise. When I got the older machine, the SCSI option was quite good for extra performance, but IDE has advanced now and the balance has tipped the other way. As far as I know you can’t get reasonably priced SCSI drives anymore now, the ones on sale now are mostly 10,000rpm high end types, with matching prices.

I would pension off the old disk, if it crashes while you’re busy, you lost your work. Also, a bigger driver may be useful to duplicate your data 🙂

That’s true. Not an irrevocable loss I suppose, but very annoying (and time wasting).

If I get a new second drive and partition it, presumably that would work fairly ‘efficiently’ in regard to the Photoshop scratch area? I’m thinking I could have, say, a 4-8Gb partition dedicated to the PS scratch and the rest as a general disk area. That would keep the PS scratch area tidy, i.e. uncluttered and unsegmented, and as long as I didn’t actually do anything in the other partition on the disk WHILE I was Photoshopping, it would be ok from a performance point of view as well. Does that make sense?

Thanks for the advice, I think I’m making sense of this now.

John

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:52:11 GMT, "John Fryatt" wrote:

Yes, I think you’re right. Seems like it’s difficult to predict.

One thing to investigate. You may have extra slots and you may have extra connections for the extra drives, but make sure your power supply can handle the extra load. Both Dell and Gateway only give you enough power supply for the delivered system and I have always had to upgrade my power supply on my Dells to add an additional drive. Check the specs on the older IBMs because sometimes older drives consume more power than newer ones even though they might have only a fraction of the storage capacity. If you’re running low on peak power, strange things can happen. I once thought I had a head crash on one of my drives but discovered that it was only that I could run one drive or the other, but not both, until I added more power.

"raymond" wrote in message

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:52:11 GMT, "John Fryatt" wrote:

Yes, I think you’re right. Seems like it’s difficult to predict.

One thing to investigate. You may have extra slots and you may have extra connections for the extra drives, but make sure your power supply can handle the extra load. Both Dell and Gateway only give you enough power supply for the delivered system and I have always had to upgrade my power supply on my Dells to add an additional drive. Check the specs on the older IBMs because sometimes older drives consume more power than newer ones even though they might have only a fraction of the storage capacity. If you’re running low on peak power, strange things can happen. I once thought I had a head crash on one of my drives but discovered that it was only that I could run one drive or the other, but not both, until I added more power.

Good point, worth checking.
However, I have had two Gateways in the past (can’t get them in the UK anymore) and have added extra HDs with no problem. Also, in the Dell handbook it has instructions for fitting an adiitional hard disk, and there’s no warning about power supply issues.
It’s a good point to be aware of though.

John