YES, in case of large files and large records it is .
In facts the caches enhancing the throughput of a IDE array , in these cases
are almost irrelevant.
The way I have found ''economical'' not to say cheap to implement this has
been to deal the disks and the controller on eBay (despite I am Italian and
hence high costs of shipment and high costs of customs duties).
I have paid the controller (29160 full) 165$, the 36GB 160MB/s IBM 10K rpm =
367$ , the first 18GB 160MB/s 255$, the second 18GB (from Germany) 235$.
All the units were sealed brand new.
The sustained throughput (not peak!) is for all of them 29MB/s on 64KB
stacks.
Anyway ... the test at work ... was ARRAY vs. parallel raw access.... the
physical drives were the same simply differing by the architecture of access
.
Ready to give further explainations ... sorry for the broken English ! ;-))
Sincerely.
Ezio
www.lucenti.com e-photography site
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Kehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive
> Ezio,
>
> If I read you right you're saying testing has shown that the 160SCSI drive
> outperform an IDE Raid array by more than double. What is the cost of
this
> set-up? Is there an econimical way to get into this type of storage?
>
> Bob Kehl
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ezio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 5:44 PM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive
>
>
> > Rob , .... let me please put some doubts on the figures claimed by such
> kind
> > of vendors ... ;-) ..
> > No FLAME at all , but ... 15 years in hardware sales are driving my
> > behaviour ... a ''raw'' access to a wild animal like a SCSI 160 through
a
> > SCSI 160 controller ... TODAY ... is unbeatable specially for LOOONG
files
> > like ours (images) . (in our environment)
> > An array can take a lot of advantages from a wise use of caching
> algorhythms
> > (too many h ???) ... and thus the data claimed can be foolishing a lot
...
> > in facts ... I have demonstrated (at work) how wild beasts like
10000rpm
> > SERIAL disks without any cache (buth with many parallel paths) can
> > outrageously outperform mega cached (32GB cache) arrays ... handling
files
> > with a SINGLE DATA FIELD of 64GB .... on a 2 Terabyte sub-set of a huger
> > file system .
> >
> > NO WAY ... in these cases (we are in the same situation if you think we
> have
> > HUGE files with HUGE records ... and not many files with small records
...
> > and sometimes repetitive !!!) to have arrays going faster than ''raw''
> > access to faaaaast disks .
> > BTW ... the array made 60MB/s sustained throughput ... the wild serial
> > beasts made 160MB/s sustained throughput ... on the same sub-set of
data
> (2
> > Tera) .
> > (in this case sustained for almost 4 hours continuously)
> > .. the net result ? ... the customer bought 115Tera of raw wild animals
> ;-)
> > .. and I won the bet vs. my colleagues ... ;-)
> >
> > Sincerely.
> >
> > Ezio
> >
> > www.lucenti.com e-photography site
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 12:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive
> >
> >
> > > Ezio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Photoshop and other I/O bound applications receive a great help in
> > > speeding
> > > > up from I/O ... MORE than upgrading the clock of the CPU.
> > >
> > > Anyone wanting more IO speed at a reasonable price might want to think
> > about
> > > an IDE array. Promise make an IDE RAID card - check their web site
and
> > > you'll find a link to a comparison of a 2 drive array with a 15K rpm
> SCSI
> > > drive. The array performs pretty well. I find myself constantly
> > frustrated
> > > by waiting for scans to load and save. My second hard drive is an old
> > mode
> > > 4 5400rpm drive - the CDROM drive actually reads a scan file faster
than
> > the
> > > old hard drive!
> > >
> > > Price for an array: 2 x IBM 7200rpm 15GB drives + Promise RAID
> Controller
> > > total cost about US$330
> > > The cost of a SCSI 3 adapter and a suitable SCSI 3 drive would be
quite
> a
> > > bit more.
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
