Frage von Asjoker:
Aloa
So I want me to buy a new PC for:
as far as possible,
professional music and video editing (HD-range), but possibly no games 3D animations (what's this option will cost to keep open?) I had, until recently, no idea about hardware, but I did the past few days enormous much information. Gaps, however, there are many.
Well, at any rate is the moment my collection:
zum Bild Comment about this:
1st PSU, CPU fan, motherboard vll. (kA) & possibly the case (although I really do not feel like looking for them) will still change.
2nd graphics card, just do not know whether or HD4670 is better and 2 There is if you enter HD4650 is still 20 different and I do not know where the difference is. Here, for example, 3rd
http://www3.hardwareversand.de/3VwQhnSLo2V90b/pcconfselect.jsp?search.sKey=&pcConfigurator.catid=6&pcConfigurator.maid=0
Sound card is missing, because I still garnicht for what I need. Basically I want with the midi keyboard sounds to record that http://www3.hardwareversand.de/3VwQhnSLo2V90b/pcconfselect.jsp?search.sKey=&pcConfigurator.catid=6&pcConfigurator.maid=0
the computer with various VST Instrummenten without delay should reflect what else is needed I do not know because I never had the computer.
4 http://www3.hardwareversand.de/3VwQhnSLo2V90b/pcconfselect.jsp?search.sKey=&pcConfigurator.catid=6&pcConfigurator.maid=0
Next to 3rd http://www3.hardwareversand.de/3VwQhnSLo2V90b/pcconfselect.jsp?search.sKey=&pcConfigurator.catid=6&pcConfigurator.maid=0
a very important point: the hard drive.
OK, what hard drive I have between the two best Samsung F1 and WD Caviar Black BUT decided for the latter, how big, how many, system boards?, RAID0? I know nothing and therefore my question:
What should I do?
I want to edit HD movies and with massive effects rummachen, it will render quickly and I will also have the possibility irgendwan 3D animation to create.
1.
Is my system faster if I have 2 WD Caviar plates would get on one and only OS + Progs. on the other any other data (movies) would make?
2.
I would also RAID0 for a system disk? Is it because a SSD or http://www3.hardwareversand.de/3VwQhnSLo2V90b/pcconfselect.jsp?search.sKey=&pcConfigurator.catid=6&pcConfigurator.maid=0
Raptor disk?
3.
The plates are still on-board RAID0 controller integrated. The leave While the CPU do the work but is it the worst? Say would you recommend me?
4.
More generally, what should I do? ^ ^
either 1TB
or a 640 GB (and later possibly http://www3.hardwareversand.de/3VwQhnSLo2V90b/pcconfselect.jsp?search.sKey=&pcConfigurator.catid=6&pcConfigurator.maid=0
with a RAID0)
or two 640 GB disks (one disk system and one for data and possibly http://www3.hardwareversand.de/3VwQhnSLo2V90b/pcconfselect.jsp?search.sKey=&pcConfigurator.catid=6&pcConfigurator.maid=0
used later RAID0)
or two 320 GB (same as with 2 640GB disks)
or a 320 GB (system disk) and a 640 GB (used for data sheet) in RAID0, I would, however, a 640GB disk to buy ...
If I have a system disk with 320GB, I suppose so synonymous waste so much space ... So I guess then if the system disk or SSD?
kA ...[/ b]
Antwort von tommyb:
Basically, it is system-and Datenfetsplatten of each other be kept separate.
I would like two small plates for pick system (about 250GB) and then using RAID 1 (wikipedia) run. If one of them should die, I can continue to work with my system.
The data sheets, I would just 3x 1000GB koofen and these in RAID 5 mode run. I have a fairly high speed (but not as fast as with RAID 0) and a good time a security event of them should die.
With the Gigabyte motherboard, this would be feasible, but you would have all sorts of synonymous then the 6 SATA ports busy (5x hard drive and 1x burner).
Synonymous think a little s.die ventilation in your system.
So I guess then if the system disk or SSD?
If you have too much money, then yes.
Antwort von Asjoker:
Uhm ... uh yes my budget is not so restricted but not synonymous bombastically great ^ ^
5 + Harddisks expensive (200-400 ¬) controller, which alone makes things hard drive then ~ 700 ¬! oO.
No, I will therefore RAID0 because it is synonymous nor affordable.
And if I have a separate plate for the system's hole, but then not equal to two with RAID1, which brings me garnicht? Systemraid1 uses anyway garnicht in performance and safety is relatively cold to me, if I time a hard drive crashes, I lost nothing, are only operating system and Progs, because I have just re-install, yes I have a server where it always ALWAYS an emergency plan must be ...
Had only the question whether a single system disk, a significant performance advantage. Had so much as ¬ 45 for 10GB total utilization of 320GB (250GB is too slow).
What are the data plate:
As for the disadvantages I have now with an onboard RAID0, either auf'm mainboard or hard drive (yes, there, or both?). The Euros for so'n controller, I would have gladly saved.
How else can I achieve higher performance without having to spend a fortune? Someone has meant I could be wise if I do a hard drive to read and write to the other use, so no raid ...
Not too expensive please ^ ^ the price / performance ratio has to be right.
Antwort von RickyMartini:
Ahem! A Pladde ONLY for reading and one only to write?
Explain to me please how this is technically a go? ;)
This is probably meant that on a record project data are based on a different file rausgerendert be. However, a strict separation in reality hardly observed - unless you are constantly copied and adjusted to the plates.
1. Sytemplatte - ok (about 50 ¬)
2. Data disks as RAID0 - synonymous ok (about 190 ¬)
An asset that must not be spent.
Antwort von tommyb:
250GB is too slow
The capacity of a hard drive has absolutely nothing with their speed to do so.
If you fly one of the plates, then what HAST DU definitely lost. Namely time. And if you as something for a customer, then you s.besten buy a faster processor so you lost this time with the least rendering nachholen can.
If you already have an opinion on hard disks, then you should not ask here.
For a proper and SAFE vorallem you have a workflow can NOT use RAID 0.
Come not only howling back and you complain that your whole project including imported and rendered material is gone, just before it was finished.
PS: Your motherboard has a RAID controller.
Antwort von RickyMartini:
A third plate for a Raid 1 but could still finance it?
If you have a customer for work and you smoke a RAID0 plates, can be your financial ruin, because the customer expects that the product you are punctual auslieferst.
Otherwise, there is no money from customers and payments will be reclaimed.
Without redundant data, the risk IMO not portable to be able to work professionally.
Antwort von MHK:
jup, Harddisks is always a topic for itself ...
Let us briefly:
SSD for the operating system is redundant. Current SSD's are smaller and worse than the HDD's you have for the same money can get.
The HDD's should, where possible, buy the newest series. Surely someone could now say they are * still * net mature but it seems to me to babble. Fact is, some of the latest models are fast sau. Thus comes to me synonymous WD Raptor no longer question if I have less money for the multiple space with the same or get better performance.
To Raid issue.
The installed on the X58 chipset is fast enough for a Onboardraid what you do on the chipset. I, too, would you, for reasons of performance and data rates to a Raid5. To mention, there is s.dieser the body of this controller on the mainboard yet another work of art masters. This is called "Intel Matrix Raid." Since taking 3x1000GB as HDD's, of each plate, for example, the first 200MB on a RAID0 compound (results in a RAID0 with 600GB) and the remaining 800 to a Raid5 (produces a Raid5 with 1600GB).
Since haste herforragende performance as the OS & temporary files and very good performance for data storage on the Raid5. So the only times when thoughts Anstoss.
But * old * 250GB disks are certainly slower than a current 1TB / 1.5 TB model.
The Raid Onloard makes the calculator is not really much slower. I noticed it s.meinem DualCore not work because you are there on the quad is not synonymous sense. Here are two benchmarks of me:
One of the Raid 0, where the system is on it & Programs
zum Bild
and once by the Raid 5 where data are stored
zum Bild
Were used plus 3 hard á 1.500GB of Seagte (ST31500341AS) s.so said an onboard chipset (X38). And I guess the numbers speak for themselves.
In any case, it is currently less the hard drive but more of the processor when the limiting factor if you have a Raid5 aufbaust.
=========================
Addendum relating to sound ...
So the market is better at * something * Card is rather confusing. If you are not, by itself, on a search like it's going vlt better ask the dealer who can give you at least time a rough direction / Recommendation enter. Then again so you should inform what they say. I've got so far when it comes to audio stuff is almost always me here: http://www.deejayladen.com/PCI-Steckplatz__scw006260062700958__scp0__scsi4__scso-1__scps10.aspx advice and am not yet fallen on the nose
=========================
@ RickyMartini
What should he ask with a * third * plate for RAID1? RAID1 on three disks, I believe something too much of a good thing, there's a Raid5 in any case more appropriate.
MfG MHK
Antwort von RickyMartini:
jup, Harddisks is always a topic for itself ...
@ RickyMartini
What should he ask with a * third * plate for RAID1? RAID1 on three disks, I believe something too much of a good thing, there's a Raid5 in any case more appropriate.
MfG MHK
Klaro! Hab gepennt! ;)
Antwort von Asjoker:
Quote of RickyMartini
Ahem! A Pladde ONLY for reading and one only to write?
Explain to me please how this is technically a go? ;)
This is probably meant that on a record project data are based on a different file rausgerendert be. However, a strict separation in reality hardly observed - unless you are constantly copied and adjusted to the plates.
Yes, I meant it as synonymous. Say the source and destination directory different. Can my only imagine is synonymous not go anywhere.
1. Sytemplatte - ok (about 50 ¬)
2. Data disks as RAID0 - synonymous ok (about 190 ¬)
An asset that must not be spent.
Whoot ^ ^? System disk, I understand, yes, but how do you account when the data disks with RAID0 to 190 ¬? Three times 640GB disks with on-board Raid? (But here again my questions regarding fitness and loss of real controllers to appear)
Yes it would be feasible ... question is a profitable 7200 as a system disk plate (know the performance advantage is not in reality)
and profitable, the RAID0, Onboard, 3Platten etc.
@ Tommyb
So sorry if my first reply sounded cheeky, I was just surprised.
The capacity of a hard drive has absolutely nothing with their speed to do so.
I do not know whether you now think praxisbezogen (no noticeable difference) but in theory - as it told me 100te male - is basically a larger plate (not always) smaller than a scneller.
Reason: More data on the same space -> Closer Compression -> The reader must go shorter distances -> faster hard disks. White is not exactly whether the read-only or write-access time refers to (all just in the Halbert Therie belongs) but well, more is more ^ ^
If you fly one of the plates, then what HAST DU definitely lost. Namely time. And if you as something for a customer, then you s.besten buy a faster processor so you lost this time with the least rendering nachholen can.
If you already have an opinion on hard disks, then you should not ask here.
For a proper and SAFE vorallem you have a workflow can NOT use RAID 0.
Come not only howling back and you complain that your whole project including imported and rendered material is gone, just before it was finished.
I myself, as I said the last weeks extremely strives off 0 Ahnung least a little idea to have it but I still ask precisely the right when unsafe area?
I'm sorry if it came across wrong, I actually wanted my (smaller) dimension clarify. So in terms of perfection are at risk to prices is not necessarily needed. My plate funzt since 6 years, I am always confused when people of high default probabilities talk (not you now), I would in any case the very small risk of what system boards are concerned.
It is dominated by performance to backups, I can still take care. But how can I get a lot of favorable performance? What is profitable for s.meisten not (so) a lot of money?
Quote of RickyMartini
A third plate for a Raid 1 but could still finance it?
If you have a customer for work and you smoke a RAID0 plates, can be your financial ruin, because the customer expects that the product you are punctual auslieferst.
Otherwise, there is no money from customers and payments will be reclaimed.
Without redundant data, the risk IMO not portable to be able to work professionally.
A third panel? That would mean 1 system and 2 data sheets, do you mean? System or 1-and 3 data disks? In any case, I know as I say not as
Antwort von tommyb:
@ Asjoker
No problem, in order;)
I would setup the following resolution:
2x 250 or 300GB as a system disk in RAID 1 composite
3x 1000GB as data disks in RAID 5 (or the Matrix RAID0 / RAID5)
Prices are of Mindfactory:
2x 250GB Western Digital WD2502ABYS RE2 16MB SATA II for 102.76
3x 1000GB Western Digital Caviar Green 32MB SATA2 for 254.19
If scarce 360, - Euro plus shipping gross. That you're serving for all cases and had a secure and fast system.
In total, however, could save a little, which would be synonymous, however, only a few Euros.
With me running the way, there are two 250er of WD in RAID 1 and honestly gave me the decision I made three years ago had a good one months ass saved.
Antwort von Asjoker:
Came too late, on to the next reply:
Quote of MIC:
jup, Harddisks is always a topic for itself ...
Let us briefly:
SSD for the operating system is redundant. Current SSD's are smaller and worse than the HDD's you have for the same money can get.
The HDD's should, where possible, buy the newest series. Surely someone could now say they are * still * net mature but it seems to me to babble. Fact is, some of the latest models are fast sau. Thus comes to me synonymous WD Raptor no longer question if I have less money for the multiple space with the same or get better performance.
To Raid issue.
The installed on the X58 chipset is fast enough for a Onboardraid what you do on the chipset. I, too, would you, for reasons of performance and data rates to a Raid5. To mention, there is s.dieser the body of this controller on the mainboard yet another work of art masters. This is called "Intel Matrix Raid." Since taking 3x1000GB as HDD's, of each plate, for example, the first 200MB on a RAID0 compound (results in a RAID0 with 600GB) and the remaining 800 to a Raid5 (produces a Raid5 with 1600GB).
Since haste herforragende performance as the OS & temporary files and very good performance for data storage on the Raid5. So the only times when thoughts Anstoss.
But * old * 250GB disks are certainly slower than a current 1TB / 1.5 TB model.
The Raid Onloard makes the calculator is not really much slower. I noticed it s.meinem DualCore not work because you are there on the quad is not synonymous sense. Here are two benchmarks of me:
One of the Raid 0, where the system is on it & Programs
and once by the Raid 5 where data are stored
Were used plus 3 hard á 1.500GB of Seagte (ST31500341AS) s.so said an onboard chipset (X38). And I guess the numbers speak for themselves.
In any case, it is currently less the hard drive but more of the processor when the limiting factor if you have a Raid5 aufbaust.
So the links of the benchmarks were not for now ^ ^.
Well in any case: Do you mean I can Raid5 synonymous with my onboard controller do? n.warum but since many have meant I need a real controller. Bin grad little confused why the such expensive ¬ 400 controller if everything goes as synonymous? The CPU utilization by fake raids is not so great is not it?
Raid5 is a little slower than RAID0 eh?
Well must inform me again, I Raid5 has previously suppressed because it seemed to me too big. Matrix Raid still synonymous. Werd then post again, but thank you for the kick:)
Soundcard moing werd ich mich ma synonymous advice.
 |
Antwort von tommyb:
Onboard chipsets have in many years, greatly improved. For the normal operating range it is sufficient. Expensive controller if you use no more than lots of money to spare synonymous nor the last percent out of or equal s.Geschwindigkeit with a RAID 50 or the like will come. That makes a maximum of sense in servers or in a professional workflow (post-production for movies, etc.).
Raid 5 is slower than RAID 0 because it must be so synonymous parity information is calculated and at least three disks are distributed.
If any of the disks in Raid 5, then the speed is much in the knee. Dignity in a hardware Raid 0 drive fails, everything would be gone.
The only fake-raids which, incidentally, there are those on the software and not hardware. Such in Windows, you can set up secure, they are not synonymous and are to be borne by the processor.
Antwort von MHK:
Raid5 is a little slower than RAID0 eh?
Well must inform me again, I Raid5 has previously suppressed because it seemed to me too big. Matrix Raid still synonymous. Werd then post again, but thank you for the kick:)
Yes as I said, depends s.was hold them for you to use hard disks. And with my RAID0 you should note that it is synonymous not two but three plates goes. with two plates do not you come to ~ 400MB / s
here are a few other figures from another Benchmak:
SiSoft Sandra 2009 SP1
Raid 0: Sequential Read 354 MiB / s
Raid 0: Sequential write 345 MiB / s
Raid 5: Sequential Read 212 MiB / s
Raid 5: Sequential write 101 MiB / s
So the CPU utilization by the Raid is negligible if you are not limited to the last ounce of performance matters. I did as I said just einnen Calculator with Dual Core 2.4 GHz (sometimes 3.0 overlocked) and not feel the raid.
Here is a link because the user's holding your HDD tested. As a rough times haste Comparison. http://forum.sysprofile.de/benchmarks/3722-hd-tach-ergebnisse.html
It has everything with nothing to do laboratory results, but we want to ever here or not eh? ;)
@ tommyb
just something about those of you * fake *. Raids I would not consider the matter. Even software raids have your benefits and general authorizations. The performance is not much worse than an onboard controller if you have a recent Linux or Windows starts. The advantage would be, for example, the controller is independent. That means you can expand and the plates to another calculator / server racks. There were / There is a fine article (I think at tomshardware) where they put it under the microscope and have the pros & cons herausgekitzelt have. So damn, I would totally do not want something, but as with every solution there is to halt the use purpose.
MfG
Antwort von Asjoker:
And once again, too late ^ ^
@ Asjoker
No problem, in order;)
I would setup the following resolution:
2x 250 or 300GB as a system disk in RAID 1 composite
3x 1000GB as data disks in RAID 5 (or the Matrix RAID0 / RAID5)
Prices are of Mindfactory:
2x 250GB Western Digital WD2502ABYS RE2 16MB SATA II for 102.76
3x 1000GB Western Digital Caviar Green 32MB SATA2 for 254.19
If scarce 360, - Euro plus shipping gross. That you're serving for all cases and had a secure and fast system.
In total, however, could save a little, which would be synonymous, however, only a few Euros.
With me running the way, there are two 250er of WD in RAID 1 and honestly gave me the decision I made three years ago had a good one months ass saved.
:) - Why, both because nothing can go wrong?
Well in any case garkein controller seems to be longer, since it had not received. So is an onboard controller woll but good enough.
This is sometimes a nice saving. Since no one synonymous system boards received, it is synonymous probably goes without saying that this is a big performance benefit. The performance difference between RAID0 and Raid5? Can I remove synonymous not sure but seems not to be too much .. 3HDD's with Raid5 are denk ich auf jeden fall faster than 2HDD's with RAID0. Tell me if what I did wrong intepretiert.
Because I like you see only s.Anfang my "career" I can stand in terms of safety / first time start small, say a system disk (if serious, can I still a buy and could have been avoided by the extremely fast falling prices here Einsparmöglichkeiten - Time is Money ^ ^). What are the rest ... hmm
I am better informed about nor ma & Matrix Raid5 Raid.
Also would be a comparison between normal RAID0 & Raid5 beautiful.
Werd still need more time ... However, it seems difficult in the Internet the right price / performance ratio for my needs it and choose to transfer to the reality ... still not know in what dimension I'm always talking about ... only theory ...
Treasures as the only try ...
Or compare the experiences people have searched for benchmarks to ask ^ ^ naja ma guggn ...
Can grad any case nothing better answers ...
Antwort von Asjoker:
blub ^ ^ think I'm just too slow.
Quote of tommyb
Onboard chipsets have in many years, greatly improved. For the normal operating range it is sufficient. Expensive controller if you use no more than lots of money to spare synonymous nor the last percent out of or equal s.Geschwindigkeit with a RAID 50 or the like will come. That makes a maximum of sense in servers or in a professional workflow (post-production for movies, etc.).
Raid 5 is slower than RAID 0 because it must be so synonymous parity information is calculated and at least three disks are distributed.
If any of the disks in Raid 5, then the speed is much in the knee. Dignity in a hardware Raid 0 drive fails, everything would be gone.
The only fake-raids which, incidentally, there are those on the software and not hardware. Such in Windows, you can set up secure, they are not synonymous and are to be borne by the processor.
Yes that's cool. The price of the controller has always made everything impossible. Really a relief:). But memory is still there but not there? Say synonymous because it loads on the CPU? Well yes always seems to be no issue.
Quote of MIC
Yes as I said, depends s.was hold them for you to use hard disks. And with my RAID0 you should note that it is synonymous not two but three plates goes. with two plates do not you come to ~ 400MB / s
Uhm, why do I need so much? I've got you my own words:
In any case, it is currently less the hard drive but more of the processor when the limiting factor if you have a Raid5 aufbaust.
Hab so intepretiert hard acceleration, if anything, only to a certain lvl sense, because everything else is slowed down by the CPU or what was wrong with that?
RAID0 with 2 würd I think therefore I am rich ^ ^
Moreover, the failure rate would be higher synonymous.
here are a few other figures from another Benchmak:
SiSoft Sandra 2009 SP1
Raid 0: Sequential Read 354 MiB / s
Raid 0: Sequential write 345 MiB / s
Raid 5: Sequential Read 212 MiB / s
Raid 5: Sequential write 101 MiB / s
As I said, the benchmarks of your previous post are not displayed, they are already here krasser than I thought.
Both of these same systems with the same plates every 3 eh?
1.5 times to 3 times the write ... While still not where the difference between sequential and random but it's already bigger than I thought.
Say Raid5 with 3 hard disks would be about as fast as 2 with RAID0, just the safety bonus + ... puah ...
bisal still needs to think only ma hau me on ear ...
Big Thank you ^ ^ besides the on-board motherboards open completely new possibilities to me: D
Antwort von MHK:
I've fixed up the pictures.
And I think you have sufficiently slowly then glance around to be able to decide for itself how much performance you need. If you are of course with weak / uncompressed HD data work sheets will you need faster than with highly compressed codecs, there are usually stuck s.der CPU.
MfG MHK
