photoshop raid0,scratch,storage need you help for best config.

[manuel_terra]

hi,

I would like to know your opinion upon my options.

my hardware specs are

amd 6000+

asus m2n32 sli deluxe

2x nvidia quadro fx 1400 in sli

8 gb 800mhz RAM (just getting ready for cs4...)

nec 2690wuxi

4x wd5000aaks ,thats the caviar WD 500gb each

1x wd raptor 150gb (for programs and os)

1x seagate ultra ata 10gb(old drive might use for windows paging)

windows xp64 sp2

ps cs2 (will upgrade to cs4 as soon as available for extra ram usage)

x2 wd external for back up, 2 tb

 

I want this pc for ps work and storage and for music collection.

I work with LARGE files,6x9�s scanned to 760mb and 4x5�s scanned to 2gb.This sizes get bigger when I work on

them(layers,filters,etc)

So my question is about raid0 configuration and scratch.What do you think is best to do:

option 1)Setting a 2tb raid,making one 50gb for PS scratch and the rest for Photos and music

option 2)Setting a 1.5tb raid just for photos,and remaining 500 drive for ps scratch(50gb partition) and music

files(constantly playing and up-down loading(p2p)

option3)Setting a 1.5 tb raid 0 and making a 50gb partition for scratch for photos and using the remaining 500gb

drive exclusively for music.

In both cases I will use the old seagate as windows scratch and the raptor for os and programs.now using ps cs2 i

can only allocate 2.7gb ram and my eficciency goes to 40% when working on 760mb files,hopefully will remedy this

with cs4 allocating 6gb to ps. and the benefits of running a 64 bit program on a 64 bit platform.

Not worried about disk failure,everything will be externally backed up.

thanks for your help,let me know what would you guys do!

Manuel

[AaronFalkenberg]

I was in a similar position working with large files when I configured my PC. I have the same mobo. Ultimately, I chose a RAID 0 configuration (2x500 GB) for only the files+PS scratch disk, and a fast Seagate 7200.11 500 GB drive for Vista x64, programs, and Windows scratch. I would not advise using the 10GB disk. PS dynamically uses both windows page file + its own scratch space, and a very low density disk like your 10GB could compromise performance.

[garrison_k.]

Which Caviar WD's are they?

 

"Setting a 2tb raid,making one 50gb for PS scratch and the rest for..."

 

A partition on a physical drive for scratch is not recommended if you are using the other partition at the same

time. You can do it, but performance will not be the same as opposed to using a separate physical drive that is

dedicated to scratch only duties.

 

I'd only consider a raid 0 config for OS and another for your scratch. You have large drives to do this with and

seems a shame to have so much space just dedicated to small requirements.

 

With your 4 WD 500 drives, I'd have them as data storage in a normal set up as I'd buy a WD Velociraptor and use

it for your OS and app's. Use your other 150 gig rapator as scratch.

 

If you insist on working with your hardware, I'd use 2x500 WD at raid 0 for your OS and app's. On this 1TB drive,

make a 100 gig partition (C Drive) for the OS/apps. Make a 200 gig partition (D Drive) for Ghost or Acronis

clones of C Drive. The third 700 gig drive (E Drive) for current files you are working on. Use your 150 raptor for

scratch. Use the two remaining 500 WD's for storage.

 

Is your power supply and case fans up to snuff? There's a

lot of heat and power requirements here. I like the sythe fluid ball bearing fans. Quiet, high cfm, and dependable.

[manuel_terra]

thanks Aaron,did not know PS would use win paging file also.Will eliminate the 10g drive as it will create more heat also...

[manuel_terra]

Garrison,thanks.My wd 500 are the wd5000aaks 16 buffer not sure if they are called caviars,my wd 150 is 10000 speed 16buffer.My power supply is a corsair 620w,i have read somewhere the real output is 750,dont know about that.Its working fine but still have not connected 2 of the wd 500s.As for now i dont want to spend more cash I think I will leave the 10000 drive scratch only for later.What I think I will do is a mid term solution,that is make a 1.5 tb raid0 with 3 of the wd 500,use the 10000 as os and programs and win pg file.And the fourth will be partitioned in 2,being the first(think thats the faster?) as PS srcatch and the second for mp3s .What I will do is not use that disk when using PS so the scratch partition will be left alone.And in the near future I will get a wd 36gb 10000 speed for scratch,but first want to see If power supply handles the load.

As for cooling,I have a thermaltake matrix case,small but well refrigerated,has a big fat in front of drives and an fan in the rear.As it can hold only 4 drives so I bought a thermaltake hardcano 14,thats a drive cooler and adapter that is placed in a optical bay drive with a small fan,not sure its efficient,still waiting for this to arrive,mail order... thanks again

[rffffffff]

According to adobe's help, photoshop uses scratch when it doesnt have enough ram to perform an operation.

 

I just created 30"x40" @ 300dpi (9000x12000 pixels) documents with 68 layers on a machine with 8gb of ram and I think just under 4gb dedicated to photoshop alone and I never ran out of ram, so, in theory, I never hit the scratch partition.

 

People spend a lot of time and energy on scratch, but any hard drive is SOOOO slow compared to ram that it doesnt matter. If you need more than the max memory you can allocate to photoshop, worry about it. If not, I would raid 10 the 4 hard drives, leave the raptor as the operating system and dont worry about scratch.

 

Raid 0 is really a great way to lose data, so either make backups or use raid 10. You'll only have 1 TB of storage, but its fast and reliable.

 

My current system uses four 750gb drives in raid 10 for data, (1.5tb storage) and a velociraptor 300gb 10000 rpm drive for the system... I use vista 64 and CS3, but its pretty fast and works pretty well...

[manuel_terra]

Robert,I am really waiting to cs4 to come out,read it will use gpu power+will be faster just for being a 64 bit program+ you will be able to allocate more ram,so if one allocates 6gb memory to ps,I guess that much of this problems will end.any way what size are those files your working? and which processor you have?

[garrison_k.]

"What I think I will do is a mid term solution,that is make a 1.5 tb raid0 with 3 of the wd 500,use the 10000 as os and programs and win pg file.And the fourth will be partitioned in 2,being the first(think thats the faster?) as PS srcatch and the second for mp3s .What I will do is not use that disk when using PS so the scratch partition will be left alone.And in the near future I will get a wd 36gb 10000 speed for scratch..."

 

The Raided 3x 500 drives would be faster than the 10K Raptor. You want your OS and apps on the fastest drive set up. Like I said above, I'd personally go 2x500 Raid 0 for your OS and apps and put the raptor on scratch. Down the road when you get the older 36 gig Raptor, swap the raptors. Going 2 x500 raid 0 will probably match your cpu and ram capabilities and if you went 3 x 500, I doubt you'd notice much improvement.

 

"Raid 0 is really a great way to lose data..."

 

I disagree with Robert on a number of points. Almost everyone notices a performance increase when dedicating a drive to scratch. The faster the drive, the better. Raid 10 isn't necessary if you do back ups to externals and dvd's. Drives are so reliable today that raid 10 isn't worth the storage loss and raid 0 is worth the "risk". When was the last time you had a drive fail or a friend? Drives have been great over the last four or five years. The manufactures must do so, failing drives can sink sales and it's in their best interest to make sure they don't. But I guess it depends how you do your back ups. I don't rely on drives in my computer at all and only consider the data there a convenience.

 

As I mentioned above, Manuel, make sure you have a ghost or acronis image of your OS/apps C Drive partition. If anything does happen, it's easy to replace these drives, do your re-store and be back and running. I recommend ghost 2003 or earlier if you can find it. These were the last of the Ghost programs that would let your load a C drive partition onto another set of drives. The newer Ghost and Acronis recognize the drives aren't the same as your what your image was made on and wont let you re-store. With the aim of cutting down on piracy, we lost the most important part of doing a ghost image.

[AaronFalkenberg]

Vista Ultimate has a really good disk image backup utility. I use it all the time.

 

"You want your OS and apps on the fastest drive set up." I disagree with this. Once a program like PS or heck even winamp is open, disk usage for the program itself is 0. You want your large files and scratch space to be on the fastest drive(s) because it's these files that ultimately create disk activity, not the programs that contain them.

[garrison_k.]

""You want your OS and apps on the fastest drive set up.""

 

"I disagree with this."

 

I'm not sure how anybody could disagree that the OS should be on the fastest possible drive.

[AaronFalkenberg]

Garrison, unless you want a blazing fast startup, once Windows is booted, it hardly uses the disk. In Manuel's case, it's those large image files and swap file that will be creating most, if not all, of the disk activity.