Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 26, 2004, 10:18 PM   #11
Senior Member
Marc H's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 130

Originally Posted by BillDrew
The key word in RAID (Redunant Array of Inexpensive Drives) is Redunant. Error checking and recovery. Might or might not be worth the money to you, but having had hard drives fail (they all do sometime), I am thinking very seriously about it for my next machine.

Not just for servers. RAID is for anyone who has a large amount of data they really don't want to lose - like photos. I am still fishing about in my stack of back-up CDs and would rather not have to do much of that.
Nice idea but no go. Raid, (Mirroring to be precise) is NO! replacement for backups. Repeat after me: Raid is NO! replacement for backups!

Mirroring is a technology used to decrease downtimes due to a hard drive crash. Data loss can occur by much more reasons than hardware crashes alone. Mirroring doesnt protect against viruses, outside harm(Lightningstrike e.g.), baby sisters/brothers accidentally formatting the wrong drive, or plain user stupdity.

If all you're after is a safe backup, get a tape drive or a DVD writer.
Marc H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 11:02 PM   #12
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 162

didn't know most of you hold CCNA's and A+ certs....
Mr_Saginaw and Marc H have the right ideas...
There are 3 basic setups, and a total of 11 different raid configurations first of all-
2nd of all- we dont even know this guy's setup yet.
3rd of all- for simplistic application as well as a hardcore 'image editing' platform a person has no real business having raid on their computers unless they want to sound smart, act like a gamer who has the 'ultimate' configuration, or some salesman who lied.
Marc H is right- RAID is NOT backup- and you should get a dvd writer, or a tape drive.

There are many things you can to deter from things that affect your computer's life. Some controllable and some not controllable. Unless by some freakish chance you have gigabytes among gigabytes of images (more than a couple of DVD's can hold) and you just CANT lose them; then you've got a problem;
huckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 11:35 PM   #13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 182
Default tomdzi back on subject

Tyically your better off to go ahead and get a new computer. It normally cost more to do all the upgrading and you may still be very limited to whatever you current hardware is. Image manipulation can take quite a bit of CPU usage so you will want to consider a Pentium 4. The Celerons as pointed out don't perform as well since the onboard CPU cash is much lower than the P4.

Also get enough RAM. 512 is a normally sufficiant.

I have seen DELL PCs starting at $399.00-$499.00 without a monitor. You would have a hard time doing upgrades to match them if you PC has any age on it at all.
hst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 11:42 PM   #14
Posts: n/a
Default I roll my own...

Computers that is. I like building my own because I can use better parts than the retail computer cobblers.

I currently use an Athlon XP3200+ with a Gig of DDR-RAM, a 128mb NVida video card & XP Pro. It's plenty fast for anything I need or do & often run PShop CS, several browsers, a couple of instant messengers, Breeze Browser & maybe Word. I've never had a problem converting & working on several large image files at once.

RAM seems to be the great equalizer when using something like PhotoShop, but don't discount the motherboard maker/chip set & the CPU cache size.
  Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 11:56 PM   #15
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 383

well gee Huckle, no one but you and mark are speaking about using it as a backup in the formal sense of a backup, slipe merely referenced the idea and clearly stated it was useless against virus damage.

The most logical reason for mirroring is to have more than one copy (a backup) in case a hard drive crashes which ensures the integrity of the data and lets you keep on going.

I personally use an external hard drive, partitioned into 2 drives and clone my HD, not as reliable as removable media because if it F's up during a clone cycle, well you get the picture.
PKchopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2004, 12:40 AM   #16
Senior Member
BillDrew's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512

Agree - RAID is not a substitute for backup: didn't mean to imply that it was. Other than RAID0 - which is not redundant - it does decrease the odds of data loss and makes recovery from a single hard drive failure much easier. Digging your data out of punch-cards/paper-tape/floppy-disk/magnetic-tape/CD/DVD/... has never been fun and never will be. It is worth something to make life easier - how much it is worth is something everyone has to figure out for themselves.

It is also worth noting that a Gigabyte is not that many images. The first sentence of tomdz's post was, "Seems my system just can't deal with those big TIFF and RAW files." Exactly the situation where restoring from backup becomes painfull. The situation where reducing the odds of having to do it becomes worth more. Worth the price of RAID? - maybe, maybe not. For sure something to thinking about.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2004, 1:05 AM   #17
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 162

10mb tiff * 10 = 100 mb * 10 = 1gig,
100 tiffs. = 1 gig.

~4.7gigs = 1 dvd;

~470 images on 1 dvd.
2 dvd's = ~940 images
5 dvd's = ~2350 images

This is all assuming your tiff is a massive 10 megs.

Telling a person to get a new computer without knowing what they have is outlandish. Not to mention he said he didn't want to purchase a new computer. there are MANY things that could make this 'slow' for him, spyware even. Nor do we know if he's done stuff like jogging his memory; We still don't even know what his computer IS!

PK: Originally I stated that RAID doesn't make it faster- I suggest you reread the thread with the same scrutiny with everyone else.

People... restoring backup of ANY KIND is going to be a pain in the rear. That's why people do their best to buy quality products and take care of them- to help prolong the drive's life as best as possible.

Processor speed doesn't even have to do speed sometimes either... A lot of it is the Cache. For example, those Athlon64's out are fast because not their Ghz, but their monster sized caches!
SCSI drives are fast because they have high RPM and monster size caches.

Bottlenecks- There are TONS of possible bottlenecks, from user, software, motherboard, and mediums....

Wait... why am I giving a sermon on computer junk? I'm out. haha
huckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2004, 12:31 PM   #18
Senior Member
JerryF's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 149

I've also found that some services that run in the background can really take up a lot of memory and slow a computer.

I recently disabled a lot of services that uksecurityonline.com recommeded. A couple that they suggested to disable I kept running because I needed them.

JerryF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2004, 12:35 PM   #19
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 383

Originally Posted by huckle
PK: Originally I stated that RAID doesn't make it faster- I suggest you reread the thread with the same scrutiny with everyone else.
read my quote, I said I agree with you.
PKchopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2004, 1:41 PM   #20
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 5

First, let me thank all of you. After a week of going from review to review, and learning little, I dawned on me why not ask folks who actually use their computers for photography. So you can see I'm a bit on the slow side. I've had my camera just over a year. Minolta 7i.

Now to the ugly part. I have been trying to make an old office computer work, I had to replace. It was a heat problem that I discovered later. I have 512 memory. Primary hard drive is 160 Gig, secondary HD 40 Gig. 52 X burner, Radon 900 Video card and a wifi network card. Running Windows ME. All of this has been added on after I retired the computer from the office. In other words I put all this stuff on a AMD K7 (700) CPU.

So, when I'm 5 or 10 minutes into a project, the damn thing freezes.

The RAW files run 9.7MB. I just checked and I have some TIFF files at 28.8.

As to $$, I would rather spend on another camera, and I don't want to pay MS for another operating system that I won't be using. Otherwise, I'd just go for the SUN system and quit pestering you all.

Thanks again.
tomdzi is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:23 PM.