Setting Up Drives

Hi all...I am new to this group and in the process of planning to
build my first PC. I am planning on a Gigabyte 8XNKP motherboard and
an Intel P4 3.0 GHz CPU. I am a heavy user of Photoshop and work on
large image files of up to 500-600MB each and plan 2GB of RAM.
Because of PS use I use multiple HD in order to separate Photoshop
from the scratch disc etc.

I was considering two possible HD arrays:

1) 3 or 4 SATA HD all in a non-RAID arrangement or

2) 2 SATA HD arranged in a non-RAID arrangement (1 for the OS and for
the PS program and another for other applications) and an additional 2
SATA HD in a RAID 0 configuration for the PS scratch disc and for
other data....with important data being backed up with a CD or DVD
writer.

I don't yet have the motherboard and was wondering how easy or
difficult and reliable these arrangements might be to configure (and I
guess whether they also make sense).

Thanks


Howard

One more thing, If I were to set up 2 HD in non-RAID and two HD in a
RAID 0 and boot off of one of the HD that is not RAIDed...does the
second non-RAID HD have to be the same rotational speed or size if the
applications that the OS uses is on the second non-RAID drive? I
think not but just wanted to make sure.

Howard

Unless you have a specific purpose for having three or four non-RAID SATA
HD's, I'd put in only two. I have two fast PATA drives (Maxtor 160 and WD
100 JB, both with 8mb buffers), the WD being my PhotoShop scratch disk and
both being used for the Windows swap file. With this arrangement PS is
lightning fast with this mobo, 2gb RAM (dual-channel), and a P4 2.8C with HT
enabled. In fact, it amazes me how fast it can load 30 or more 31mb TIF
files for editing all at once, my guess being 1-2 per second. I do very
little waiting for anything, although I don't use radial blurs and other
time-consuming effects very often. With a 10k rpm SATA (like WD Raptor)
performance would be undoubtedly faster, but I doubt if you'd see a
noticeable performance increase with a regular SATA over a fast PATA. But
if you must buy new drives, I'd go with SATA for sure. If not, you might
want to wait if your PATA's are among the speediest of the genre.

As for RAID0, I had this running in my old system (PIII-1000) and it ran
well, but overall disk performance on this system is better, although the
faster components undoubtedly contribute to that fact. I didn't go SATA
because I have a number of fast PATA's lying around and the 10k SATA's
weren't available at the time I upgraded hardware. If I had to do it again
I think I'd replace the single PATA's with Raptors, at least for C:, as I'm
only using 10-15gb of this disk now and try to keep it as trim as possible.
I store my images on D: (edited TIF's) with backups for these TIF's and
NEF's (raw files) on two firewire drives (J: and K that are cranked up
only when needed.

Another factor in my decision to stay with PATA was that Norton Ghost was
having issues with SATA, although Symantec says they are now compatible.
I'm heavily entrenched with Ghost for doing clones to four rotated HD's in
mobil racks once per week, so the hardware needed to fit that scheme.

Be careful with your RAM selection on this board, as not all play well with
it. I bought mine as a bundle with mwave.com, selecting the Kingston over
generic. The modules I'm using are two matched pairs of KVR400X64C3AK2/1G
(512mb x 4). You'll need pairs of identical modules to run in dual-channel
mode.

This arrangement has proven very stable in 3½ months of use, and I have yet
to see a BSOD or lockup with XP Pro.


"Howard" wrote in message
om...
Hi all...I am new to this group and in the process of planning to
build my first PC. I am planning on a Gigabyte 8XNKP motherboard and
an Intel P4 3.0 GHz CPU. I am a heavy user of Photoshop and work on
large image files of up to 500-600MB each and plan 2GB of RAM.
Because of PS use I use multiple HD in order to separate Photoshop
from the scratch disc etc.

I was considering two possible HD arrays:

1) 3 or 4 SATA HD all in a non-RAID arrangement or

2) 2 SATA HD arranged in a non-RAID arrangement (1 for the OS and for
the PS program and another for other applications) and an additional 2
SATA HD in a RAID 0 configuration for the PS scratch disc and for
other data....with important data being backed up with a CD or DVD
writer.

I don't yet have the motherboard and was wondering how easy or
difficult and reliable these arrangements might be to configure (and I
guess whether they also make sense).

Thanks


Howard

With a similar need ( processing .jpg and .tif files) I use two WD Raptor
SATA in a RAID 0 configuration. It moves the files in the PS at a rate of
about 84mB/s.
Setting up two drives in a non-RAID was simple. Setting up the RAID array
was only slightly more challenging . Setting up1 or 2 more SATA drives will
require a controller card complete with its own BIOS and drivers. That
could prove tricky.

It also leaves all 4 of the parallel ( PATA ) ports with no work. A coupe of
modestly priced ATA100's with 2 meg internal buffers in RAID 0 will give a
very respectable ~60mB/s for the OS and application programs.

Sign me: RAID fan

JPS




"Howard" wrote in message
om...
Hi all...I am new to this group and in the process of planning to
build my first PC. I am planning on a Gigabyte 8XNKP motherboard and
an Intel P4 3.0 GHz CPU. I am a heavy user of Photoshop and work on
large image files of up to 500-600MB each and plan 2GB of RAM.
Because of PS use I use multiple HD in order to separate Photoshop
from the scratch disc etc.

I was considering two possible HD arrays:

1) 3 or 4 SATA HD all in a non-RAID arrangement or

2) 2 SATA HD arranged in a non-RAID arrangement (1 for the OS and for
the PS program and another for other applications) and an additional 2
SATA HD in a RAID 0 configuration for the PS scratch disc and for
other data....with important data being backed up with a CD or DVD
writer.

I don't yet have the motherboard and was wondering how easy or
difficult and reliable these arrangements might be to configure (and I
guess whether they also make sense).

Thanks


Howard

Bob...thanks very much for your response.

The reason I wanted multiple discs is that I want fast (ie Raptor
10000RPM) but these are only 36GB (I know the 72 MB 10000RPM WD drive
is coming out, but that won't be for another month or two) and so I
needed more storage space.

I am now thinking of another setup:

Two non-RAID SATA discs: one 10000RPM Raptor for the OS and for the PS
program and the other a larger 7200 RPM SATA disc on the order of
100-200MB for my other applications as well as for long term image
storage. In addition to those discs two RAID 0 10000RPM Raptors to
serve as the scratch disc as well as to house the image files that are
incomplete and still being worked on.

A few questions about this arrangement:

1) Is it OK to have two different speed (in RPM) and sized disc in the
non-RAID portion? I suspect it is, but just wanted to make sure that
having the OS and the applications at different speed discs wouldn't
somehow screw things up in some way.

2)Would having the scratch disc set up as a RAID 0 array improve PS
performance? I would think it would as once RAM was used up PS could
write and retreive from the scratch faster than if it were a slower
disc or non-RAID. The reason I ask is that someone on the Adobe forum
said that once you physically separate the PS program and the scratch
disc from each other by putting them on separate drives there is
nothing else you can do to improve PS performance with HDs assuming
you have RAM maximized etc. If this were true my 2 Raptors in a RAID
0 configuration would not help. However, what he says does not seem
to make sense to me and wondering what you think about it.

3)What do you think of this setup in general?

Also, since you mentioned memory...it seems like many of the Intel 875
chipset boards seem to have memory issues and this one seems to have
less than many others. Do you know if Mushkin RAM will work?

Thanks .

Howard


"Bob Davis" wrote in message ...
Unless you have a specific purpose for having three or four non-RAID SATA
HD's, I'd put in only two. I have two fast PATA drives (Maxtor 160 and WD
100 JB, both with 8mb buffers), the WD being my PhotoShop scratch disk and
both being used for the Windows swap file. With this arrangement PS is
lightning fast with this mobo, 2gb RAM (dual-channel), and a P4 2.8C with HT
enabled. In fact, it amazes me how fast it can load 30 or more 31mb TIF
files for editing all at once, my guess being 1-2 per second. I do very
little waiting for anything, although I don't use radial blurs and other
time-consuming effects very often. With a 10k rpm SATA (like WD Raptor)
performance would be undoubtedly faster, but I doubt if you'd see a
noticeable performance increase with a regular SATA over a fast PATA. But
if you must buy new drives, I'd go with SATA for sure. If not, you might
want to wait if your PATA's are among the speediest of the genre.

As for RAID0, I had this running in my old system (PIII-1000) and it ran
well, but overall disk performance on this system is better, although the
faster components undoubtedly contribute to that fact. I didn't go SATA
because I have a number of fast PATA's lying around and the 10k SATA's
weren't available at the time I upgraded hardware. If I had to do it again
I think I'd replace the single PATA's with Raptors, at least for C:, as I'm
only using 10-15gb of this disk now and try to keep it as trim as possible.
I store my images on D: (edited TIF's) with backups for these TIF's and
NEF's (raw files) on two firewire drives (J: and K that are cranked up
only when needed.

Another factor in my decision to stay with PATA was that Norton Ghost was
having issues with SATA, although Symantec says they are now compatible.
I'm heavily entrenched with Ghost for doing clones to four rotated HD's in
mobil racks once per week, so the hardware needed to fit that scheme.

Be careful with your RAM selection on this board, as not all play well with
it. I bought mine as a bundle with mwave.com, selecting the Kingston over
generic. The modules I'm using are two matched pairs of KVR400X64C3AK2/1G
(512mb x 4). You'll need pairs of identical modules to run in dual-channel
mode.

This arrangement has proven very stable in 3½ months of use, and I have yet
to see a BSOD or lockup with XP Pro.

JPS...you said that "Setting up two drives in a non-RAID was simple.
Setting up the RAID array was only slightly more challenging .
Setting up1 or 2 more SATA drives will require a controller card
complete with its own BIOS and drivers. That could prove tricky."

This is going to be an important point for me. With this board
(8XNKP) aren't all the controllers etc built into the board. My
understanding is that there is the Intel chip which can handle 2 SATA
drives in RAID or non-RAID configuration as well as the Promise chip
that can handle 2 SATA drives in RAID or non-RAID configuration. So
is it not easy to configure 2 SATA non-RAID HD on one chip and 2 SATA
RAID HD on the other without a controller card with its own BIOS
etc????? If this is not the case I think my configuration is not
going to be.

Thanks...I would really like to know this.

Howard




"jpsga" wrote in message .net...
With a similar need ( processing .jpg and .tif files) I use two WD Raptor
SATA in a RAID 0 configuration. It moves the files in the PS at a rate of
about 84mB/s.

It also leaves all 4 of the parallel ( PATA ) ports with no work. A coupe of
modestly priced ATA100's with 2 meg internal buffers in RAID 0 will give a
very respectable ~60mB/s for the OS and application programs.

Sign me: RAID fan

JPS

That will work. If you are the same Howard as above, it will work.
If you really want performance, consider SCSI III with Ultra 320 drives. OK,
you will need a controller, but you could get the 8KNXP Ultra (comes with
SCSI). A SCSI 3 36 GB drive is about the same price as a Raptor (actually
less last time I looked).

- Tim


"Howard" wrote in message
om...
JPS...you said that "Setting up two drives in a non-RAID was simple.
Setting up the RAID array was only slightly more challenging .
Setting up1 or 2 more SATA drives will require a controller card
complete with its own BIOS and drivers. That could prove tricky."

This is going to be an important point for me. With this board
(8XNKP) aren't all the controllers etc built into the board. My
understanding is that there is the Intel chip which can handle 2 SATA
drives in RAID or non-RAID configuration as well as the Promise chip
that can handle 2 SATA drives in RAID or non-RAID configuration. So
is it not easy to configure 2 SATA non-RAID HD on one chip and 2 SATA
RAID HD on the other without a controller card with its own BIOS
etc????? If this is not the case I think my configuration is not
going to be.

Thanks...I would really like to know this.

Howard




"jpsga" wrote in message
.net...
With a similar need ( processing .jpg and .tif files) I use two WD
Raptor
SATA in a RAID 0 configuration. It moves the files in the PS at a rate
of
about 84mB/s.

It also leaves all 4 of the parallel ( PATA ) ports with no work. A
coupe of
modestly priced ATA100's with 2 meg internal buffers in RAID 0 will give
a
very respectable ~60mB/s for the OS and application programs.

Sign me: RAID fan

JPS

Thanks for your response Tim. I think I am going to try the 2 RAID
and 2 non-RAID setup when I get the hardware. I am a first time
builder and feel in a tad over my head right now (but learning a
bunch) so I think I better put off dealing with SCSI for the moment.

Howard







"Tim" wrote in message ...
That will work. If you are the same Howard as above, it will work.
If you really want performance, consider SCSI III with Ultra 320 drives. OK,
you will need a controller, but you could get the 8KNXP Ultra (comes with
SCSI). A SCSI 3 36 GB drive is about the same price as a Raptor (actually
less last time I looked).

- Tim