Computer Graphics with Photoshop - Build a Photoshop PC

Author

Build a Photoshop PC

Al Treacher

2004-05-20, 9:28 am

Hi folks,

The PC I currently run Photoshop in is now a very long way past its
"best by" date, so the time has come to build a new one. I've sought
advice from a couple of techie friends about the basic system
architecture and I've got essentially three direction that I could
take, it seems. Neither of my "advisors" use Photoshop regularly, so
I'd like to get opinions from other people that do...

Option 1:
Dual-processor motherboard with a pair of 2.8GHz Intel Xeon CPUs.

Considerations:
Two processors, each with HyperThread tech, so in theory I'd get a
performance equivalent to maybe three and a bit individual processors.
**IF** Photoshop supports more than two processors - I know it
supports two, but would it support (essentially) four?

Also, it looks like the Front-Side-Bus speed of Xeons is low compared
to the other Intel processors available, at 533MHz or possible even
only 400MHz. I'm guessing this is because of the necessity to
synchronize more threads, but I could be wrong.

Would this result in Photoshop running slower than a single processor
system running a 800MHz FSB?

I'm having problems finding the details of the cache size for Xeons.
It looks like there is an average (512KB) level 2 cache, with a 2MB
level 3 cache on some chips, but finding which ones seems impossible!
Any ideas?

Option 2:
Single Pentium 4C (Prescott) 3.2GHz CPU.

HT tech again, so essentially a dual processor on a single CPU.
800MHz Front-Side-Bus.
1MB of level 2 cache.

Seems like a good all-round option, but I'd like to find out if the
dual Xeons would outperform this when running Photoshop.

Option 3:
Single Pentium 4C (Northwood) 2.8GHz CPU overclocked to about 3.2GHz.
(Using PC4000 DDR500 RAM.)

Raising the FSB speed to 900+MHz would increase the speed the core was
running at, and also give faster RAM transfer. How much of a
performance increase (if any) would be noticeable?

Of course, there's the slight hit-and-miss of getting a chip that will
reliably overclock and keeping it cool, but I'd deal with that...!

I'd thought this was going to be a relatively easy project and I'd
have had the thing up and running now... How naive of me...

Your thoughts/observations/experiences and opinions are welcome!

Cheers,
Al

Faolan

2004-05-20, 9:28 am

In the writings of Al Treacher, the <rqqoa0179fjs7rscf3ddmacufuccf33q32@
4ax.com> scrolls contained these prophetic words:

To give you even more headaches read this article below. Now is *not* a
good time to build a new machine too many new motherboard designs and
technology are coming out. Intel have their new socket design due out at
the end of the year, SATA 2 and PCI-Express is due out as well...

The article is a comparison of Intel/AMD processors and their abilities.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q...50/index.x?pg=1

Personally? I am waiting till beginning of next year before I build
another system to a workstation specification. That way I avoid the
'sting' of new technology, and the the prices should have stabilised.

Oh and I am running a Athlon 64, very fast system compared to Intel's
chips...

Oh and before people accuse that site of being AMD biased, just check
other reviews, Opteron seems to beat Xeons hands down in most
disciplines, and those that it doesn't are Intel optimised and we have
yet to see how the 64Bit optimisations affect both Intel and AMD.
--
Scottish Heritage:
http://www.CelticShadows.co.uk

Rick

2004-05-20, 9:28 am

In my experience the four biggest contributors to PS performance
are, in order:

1. CPU speed
2. Memory speed
3. Disk subsystem speed
4. CPU cache size

Don't get too hung up with all the multiprocessor/hyperthreading
marketing glitz. PS is multiprocessor aware but will use a second
CPU only for a very limited number of operations (e.g. certain
filters). One is usually better off with a single cpu system with a
faster FSB. There are exceptions to this, e.g. if the system will
not be a dedicated PS workstation.

Rick

"Al Treacher" <big.al@stones.com.NOSPAM> wrote in message news:rqqoa0179fjs7rscf3ddmacufuccf33q32@4ax.com...
> Hi folks,
>
> The PC I currently run Photoshop in is now a very long way past its
> "best by" date, so the time has come to build a new one. I've sought
> advice from a couple of techie friends about the basic system
> architecture and I've got essentially three direction that I could
> take, it seems. Neither of my "advisors" use Photoshop regularly, so
> I'd like to get opinions from other people that do...
>
>
> Option 1:
> Dual-processor motherboard with a pair of 2.8GHz Intel Xeon CPUs.
>
> Considerations:
> Two processors, each with HyperThread tech, so in theory I'd get a
> performance equivalent to maybe three and a bit individual processors.
> **IF** Photoshop supports more than two processors - I know it
> supports two, but would it support (essentially) four?
>
> Also, it looks like the Front-Side-Bus speed of Xeons is low compared
> to the other Intel processors available, at 533MHz or possible even
> only 400MHz. I'm guessing this is because of the necessity to
> synchronize more threads, but I could be wrong.
>
> Would this result in Photoshop running slower than a single processor
> system running a 800MHz FSB?
>
> I'm having problems finding the details of the cache size for Xeons.
> It looks like there is an average (512KB) level 2 cache, with a 2MB
> level 3 cache on some chips, but finding which ones seems impossible!
> Any ideas?
>
>
> Option 2:
> Single Pentium 4C (Prescott) 3.2GHz CPU.
>
> HT tech again, so essentially a dual processor on a single CPU.
> 800MHz Front-Side-Bus.
> 1MB of level 2 cache.
>
> Seems like a good all-round option, but I'd like to find out if the
> dual Xeons would outperform this when running Photoshop.
>
>
> Option 3:
> Single Pentium 4C (Northwood) 2.8GHz CPU overclocked to about 3.2GHz.
> (Using PC4000 DDR500 RAM.)
>
> Raising the FSB speed to 900+MHz would increase the speed the core was
> running at, and also give faster RAM transfer. How much of a
> performance increase (if any) would be noticeable?
>
> Of course, there's the slight hit-and-miss of getting a chip that will
> reliably overclock and keeping it cool, but I'd deal with that...!
>
>
>
> I'd thought this was going to be a relatively easy project and I'd
> have had the thing up and running now... How naive of me...
>
> Your thoughts/observations/experiences and opinions are welcome!
>
> Cheers,
> Al
>

Bill Hilton

2004-05-20, 7:28 pm

What size files are you working with? How many need to be open at once?

If the answers are "not too big" and "not many" you don't really need the
baddest machine on the block.

Stephan

2004-05-20, 7:28 pm

"Al Treacher" <big.al@stones.com.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:rqqoa0179fjs7rscf3ddmacufuccf33q32@4ax.com...
> Hi folks,
>
> The PC I currently run Photoshop in is now a very long way past its
> "best by" date, so the time has come to build a new one. I've sought
> advice from a couple of techie friends about the basic system
> architecture and I've got essentially three direction that I could
> take, it seems. Neither of my "advisors" use Photoshop regularly, so
> I'd like to get opinions from other people that do...
>
>snip<

Sounds like overkill in the three cases.
If your PC is a tool you use for your trade AND if you are very busy you
"could" need something that fast.
Like someone said here not long ago, a few seconds gained on rendition of
filters can add up and make you more productive at the end of the day.But
are you really that busy that seconds count?
Working with photoshop is made much easier with a multiple display system
and a good graphic tablet.
I would get two or three very good monitors and a calibrating tool instead
of gamers motherboards and chips.

Stephan

Al Treacher

2004-05-20, 7:28 pm

Interesting observations... The reason for the upgrade is two-fold.
One is that my current system is becoming increasingly unstable, so
will need replacing sooner rather than later...

Secondly, it's incredibly time-consuming waiting while long processes
are carried out.

It can take, in extreme cases, an hour or so to convert the RAW files
from a session's shooting into TIFs, and when I run certain Actions in
PS that I've created (nothing too fancy, just resizes, file info
addition, saving as LZW TIFs, that sort of thing) they can easily take
30-60s to carry out for each image.

So, when I'm working on a couple of hundred images, this takes a
significant amount of time. I would hope to gain more than a few
seconds by upgrading to a powerful machine. (And believe me, I
haven't got time to play games on it, as much as I would like to!)

A

>
>
>Sounds like overkill in the three cases.
>If your PC is a tool you use for your trade AND if you are very busy you
>"could" need something that fast.
>Like someone said here not long ago, a few seconds gained on rendition of
>filters can add up and make you more productive at the end of the day.But
>are you really that busy that seconds count?
>Working with photoshop is made much easier with a multiple display system
>and a good graphic tablet.
>I would get two or three very good monitors and a calibrating tool instead
>of gamers motherboards and chips.
>
>
>Stephan
>
>

Vector Newman

2004-05-20, 7:28 pm

Al Treacher wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> The PC I currently run Photoshop in is now a very long way past its
> "best by" date, so the time has come to build a new one. I've sought
> advice from a couple of techie friends about the basic system
> architecture and I've got essentially three direction that I could
> take, it seems. Neither of my "advisors" use Photoshop regularly, so
> I'd like to get opinions from other people that do...
>
>
> Option 1:
> Dual-processor motherboard with a pair of 2.8GHz Intel Xeon CPUs.
>
> Considerations:
> Two processors, each with HyperThread tech, so in theory I'd get a
> performance equivalent to maybe three and a bit individual processors.
> **IF** Photoshop supports more than two processors - I know it
> supports two, but would it support (essentially) four?
>
> Also, it looks like the Front-Side-Bus speed of Xeons is low compared
> to the other Intel processors available, at 533MHz or possible even
> only 400MHz. I'm guessing this is because of the necessity to
> synchronize more threads, but I could be wrong.
>
> Would this result in Photoshop running slower than a single processor
> system running a 800MHz FSB?
>
> I'm having problems finding the details of the cache size for Xeons.
> It looks like there is an average (512KB) level 2 cache, with a 2MB
> level 3 cache on some chips, but finding which ones seems impossible!
> Any ideas?
>
>
> Option 2:
> Single Pentium 4C (Prescott) 3.2GHz CPU.
>
> HT tech again, so essentially a dual processor on a single CPU.
> 800MHz Front-Side-Bus.
> 1MB of level 2 cache.
>
> Seems like a good all-round option, but I'd like to find out if the
> dual Xeons would outperform this when running Photoshop.
>
>
> Option 3:
> Single Pentium 4C (Northwood) 2.8GHz CPU overclocked to about 3.2GHz.
> (Using PC4000 DDR500 RAM.)
>
> Raising the FSB speed to 900+MHz would increase the speed the core was
> running at, and also give faster RAM transfer. How much of a
> performance increase (if any) would be noticeable?
>
> Of course, there's the slight hit-and-miss of getting a chip that will
> reliably overclock and keeping it cool, but I'd deal with that...!
>
>
>
> I'd thought this was going to be a relatively easy project and I'd
> have had the thing up and running now... How naive of me...
>
> Your thoughts/observations/experiences and opinions are welcome!
>
> Cheers,
> Al
>
Al,

You are going to spend some big bucks for that. Dell actually has a
workstation set up to run ( and it is included ) PS.
I have looked at these and thought they would be an ideal "PS Only"
machine ( my dream ).
However, having said that:

I have used PC's for years. Never touched a Mac. But, that changed when
I WON a new G5 (dual 2ghz) with the 23" cinema display. I added another
512mb of memory and I tell you, PS screams on it. It takes me 7 seconds
to open PS on the Mac and perhaps 30+ seconds on my 1.7 PIV with 1GB of
memory. I have never been one to get involved in the PC vs Mac argument.
I always thought they were BOTH nice. Now that I have both, I can't
believe that I am spending probably 75% of my time on the Mac now!
Consider a Mac though. There was no learning curve to speak of. Just
getting used to new keyboard shortcuts. I have to say, this dual Proc
Mac has won me over. Of course, the gorgeous display played a small part. :)

-----= Posted via codecomments.com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.codecomments.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Brooklyn NYC

2004-05-20, 7:28 pm

"Vector Newman" <perfectdroppage@yourdoorstep> wrote in message
news:40ad1c1e$1_8@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Al Treacher wrote:
>
> Al,
>
> You are going to spend some big bucks for that. Dell actually has a
> workstation set up to run ( and it is included ) PS.
> I have looked at these and thought they would be an ideal "PS Only"
> machine ( my dream ).
> However, having said that:
>
> I have used PC's for years. Never touched a Mac. But, that changed when
> I WON a new G5 (dual 2ghz) with the 23" cinema display. I added another
> 512mb of memory and I tell you, PS screams on it. It takes me 7 seconds
> to open PS on the Mac and perhaps 30+ seconds on my 1.7 PIV with 1GB of
> memory. I have never been one to get involved in the PC vs Mac argument.
> I always thought they were BOTH nice. Now that I have both, I can't
> believe that I am spending probably 75% of my time on the Mac now!
> Consider a Mac though. There was no learning curve to speak of. Just
> getting used to new keyboard shortcuts. I have to say, this dual Proc
> Mac has won me over. Of course, the gorgeous display played a small part.
:)
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via codecomments.com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.codecomments.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Thanks for making me drool. Wasn't necessary. ;-)

Vector Newman

2004-05-20, 7:28 pm

Brooklyn NYC wrote:

> "Vector Newman" <perfectdroppage@yourdoorstep> wrote in message
> news:40ad1c1e$1_8@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
>
> :)
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for making me drool. Wasn't necessary. ;-)
>
>
Sorry....I feel your pain.

-----= Posted via codecomments.com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.codecomments.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Stephan

2004-05-20, 11:28 pm

"Vector Newman" <perfectdroppage@yourdoorstep> wrote in message
news:40ad1c1e$1_8@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Al Treacher wrote:
>
>snip<
, PS screams on it. It takes me 7 seconds
> to open PS on the Mac and perhaps 30+ seconds on my 1.7 PIV with 1GB of
> memory.
>snip<

My friend has the same Mac than yours and we compared PS launch speed just
because it's fun
Results: The Mac wins:
4 seconds for my "antique" Athlon 2400, 1.5 GBof ram
3 seconds for the Mac.
Now the question is: So what?

Hecate

2004-05-20, 11:28 pm

Xalinai

2004-05-21, 7:28 am

On Thu, 20 May 2004 09:44:58 +0100, Al Treacher
<big.al@stones.com.NOSPAM> wrote:

>Hi folks,
>
>The PC I currently run Photoshop in is now a very long way past its
>"best by" date, so the time has come to build a new one. I've sought
>advice from a couple of techie friends about the basic system
>architecture and I've got essentially three direction that I could
>take, it seems. Neither of my "advisors" use Photoshop regularly, so
>I'd like to get opinions from other people that do...
>
>
>Option 1:
>Dual-processor motherboard with a pair of 2.8GHz Intel Xeon CPUs.
>
>Considerations:
>Two processors, each with HyperThread tech, so in theory I'd get a
>performance equivalent to maybe three and a bit individual processors.
>**IF** Photoshop supports more than two processors - I know it
>supports two, but would it support (essentially) four?

If your applications are multithreaded and support more than one
processor you will be fine, but even with applications that do not
support multiple processors a dual processor system is fine if you
find one application keeping one processor busy while the other
handles OS and anything else (Oracle 7 database on a two processor
system worked like that).

Fo all other considerations there is a simple preference list:

1) Available real memory (and accessing speed)
2) Processor speed (no longer relevant once you run out of memory)
3) Virtual memory speed (put scratch and pagefile on RAID-0)

1) Graphic apps live on available memory. If you have a single huge
file or a smaller one with lots of layers doesn't matter, you will end
up using large chunks of memory. If you have not enough memory you
will fall from RAM-speed (several 2-digit-nanoseconds access time) to
disk-speed (1-digit-milliseconds at best; 100.000 times slower).
Access speed and caching is less relevant, more memory is always
better than going to the disk drive, even if more memory may be slower
than less memory on some systems.

2) Most current processors are able to process more data than their
memory interface can provide. FSB 800 is promising but still: getting
the hardware that gives you the last five percent of performance will
never pay.

3) There will be a day when you run out of memory. If you have 2 GB
this day will come later, but it will come.
If you are prepared, you will drink less coffee than otherwise.
Even if RAID-0 is a high risk configuration that I'd never recommend
for storing important data, it is perfect for high speed access to
pagefile and scratch files - contents that will be gone when you close
the application or switch off the system.

On the other hand: If you have multiple disks then distributing
pagefile and scratch files over as many of them as possible will
probably give better results. Graphic apps tend to have certain access
patterns for reading contiguous chunks of data from one location while
writing it to some other location - if source and target reside on the
same disk, this will result in slow transfer and heavy disk activity.
Source and target on different drives reduces positioning activity and
enables higher transfer speed.

And, by the way, there is no need for a high speed graphics card.

Michael

Rick

2004-05-21, 7:28 am

"Xalinai" <xalinai_Two@xalinai.de> wrote in message news:40adbaee.669052187@news.t-online.de...
> 2) Most current processors are able to process more data than their
> memory interface can provide. FSB 800 is promising but still: getting
> the hardware that gives you the last five percent of performance will
> never pay.

Promising? Five percent? Where have you been the last year?

FSB 800MHz pumps twice as much data to a cpu (or cpus) as
400MHz, and 50% more than 533MHz.

Rick

Stuart

2004-05-21, 7:28 am

Rick wrote:
> "Xalinai" <xalinai_Two@xalinai.de> wrote in message news:40adbaee.669052187@news.t-online.de...
>
>
>
> Promising? Five percent? Where have you been the last year?
>
> FSB 800MHz pumps twice as much data to a cpu (or cpus) as
> 400MHz, and 50% more than 533MHz.
>
> Rick

Where did you get those figures from? In the real world it will not be
quite as cut and dried as that, it may reach that at burst rates but not
continually.

Stuart

Xalinai

2004-05-21, 7:28 am

On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:01:03 -0700, "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>"Xalinai" <xalinai_Two@xalinai.de> wrote in message news:40adbaee.669052187@news.t-online.de...
>
>Promising? Five percent? Where have you been the last year?
>
>FSB 800MHz pumps twice as much data to a cpu (or cpus) as
>400MHz, and 50% more than 533MHz.

Sure.

But it does so for how much of the total code processed? And it does
so in what address mode?

How does a graphics application work? Adressing pixels, 3 bytes per
pixel. PS is processing data bytewise or double-byte-wise (in 16 bit
mode) adressing multiple pixels in a grid that makes memory locations
of pixels in adjacent rows three times the image width apart (Filters,
sharpen, blur). This isn't very much the thing that high speed burst
mode was designed for.

You won't get much more than five to ten percent on application level
from the faster memory bus on the average system. There will be more
if memory access is the major bottleneck in two (otherwise similar)
competing systems for specific applications (like Video streams).

Michael

Rick

2004-05-21, 7:28 am

"Stuart" <stuart@nospam.uk> wrote in message news:c8khs8$lvt$2@sunbeam.coventry.ac.uk...
> Rick wrote:
>
> Where did you get those figures from? In the real world it will not be
> quite as cut and dried as that, it may reach that at burst rates but not
> continually.

With the current P4, which can't do much (or in many cases,
anything) with bus speeds higher than 533MHz, that's correct.
But that will be changing in the very near future.

Rick

Clyde

2004-05-21, 11:28 pm

Hecate wrote:

> On Thu, 20 May 2004 09:44:58 +0100, Al Treacher
> <big.al@stones.com.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Or you could do Option 4 and have either a single or dual Athlon
> system in which case you'd have a faster PC, but there you go...
>
> --
>
> Hecate
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> veni, vidi, reliqui

I've been a geek for a couple of decades, but don't claim to know it
all. I've also used PS for several versions. (I think I started with 3,
skipped 4, and hit the rest.) I also sell computer equipment for a
living (such as it is).

I recently built my own PS machine. I have a P4 3.0 GHz HT with 1 GB of
Dual Channel PC3200 memory. I have a 7200 rpm 120 GB SATA hard drive. I
also have a CD-RW/DVD-+RW drive and a Firewire card. My son had bought
me a case with a top and side window in it, so I had to get a blue
cathode light in it. My Antec power supply also has blue lights, as does
the case front. It's all kind of cool. The case has 4 fans, which is
overkill. I use the heat sink and fan that came with the Intel box set.
Oh, I have an Intel D865-GBF motherboard.

In short, this is a very nice PS computer. It's very fast. I do
professional digital wedding photography as a side job and need to run
batches and hairy filters to do a bunch of pictures at once. In using
XP's performance measuring tools, I don't have any real bottle necks.

The P4 seldom works at 100% or anywhere close to it. The Hyper Threading
technology gets used some, but not all that much. I really like it to
run iTunes in one "processor" while I'm working in PS. Even with the
heaviest filters, the processor runs closer to 75%.

My guess is that's because the memory is the bottleneck. Dual Channel
400 MHz REALLY makes a difference!!! That is absolutely critical to
performance in PS. Maybe DDR-II will help a lot in the near future, but
it isn't hear yet. I don't have any need for more than 1 GB. I know a
lot of people claim that 2 GB is the cat's meow, but I have a tough time
filling up memory. Usually I don't even get close. I can only get close
with large stitched pano images, but haven't filled up memory there either.

I don't see much need for a faster hard drive. Yes, PS does swap no
matter how much memory you have. However, that all runs in the
background and doesn't seem to slow down much of what I do. Otherwise,
the HD speed is for opening and saving files. That's it fast enough for
me; even in batches. Besides the only way to get real disk speed would
be to do 15,000 rpm drives in RAID 0. That means very expensive SCSI
server drives.

Well, there is my $.02.

Clyde

aka 717

2004-05-22, 4:28 am

"Al Treacher" <big.al@stones.com.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:j64qa0hshi46lv5v2rb6j781iv602a4pc3@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
> Interesting observations... The reason for the upgrade is two-fold.
> One is that my current system is becoming increasingly unstable, so
> will need replacing sooner rather than later...
>
> Secondly, it's incredibly time-consuming waiting while long processes
> are carried out.
>
> It can take, in extreme cases, an hour or so to convert the RAW files
> from a session's shooting into TIFs, and when I run certain Actions in
> PS that I've created (nothing too fancy, just resizes, file info
> addition, saving as LZW TIFs, that sort of thing) they can easily take
> 30-60s to carry out for each image.
>
> So, when I'm working on a couple of hundred images, this takes a
> significant amount of time. I would hope to gain more than a few
> seconds by upgrading to a powerful machine. (And believe me, I
> haven't got time to play games on it, as much as I would like to!)
>
> A
>
>
>
instead[color=darkred]

I wonder if a graphics board with its own
processor might be the best way to change
formats and compress/ decompress. Just
my first thoughts as it(they) would work in
the background without taking CPU time.

Xalinai

2004-05-22, 7:28 am

On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:24:23 -0700, "aka 717" <no@spam.net> wrote:

>
>"Al Treacher" <big.al@stones.com.NOSPAM> wrote in message
>news:j64qa0hshi46lv5v2rb6j781iv602a4pc3@4ax.com...
>instead
>
>I wonder if a graphics board with its own
>processor might be the best way to change
>formats and compress/ decompress. Just
>my first thoughts as it(they) would work in
>the background without taking CPU time.

There is already a processor on the graphics board which is
mainly(>90%) used for 3D rendering.

You will find that even the fan on the graphics card will go silent
when doing 2D graphics (Photoshop).

Your suggestion would go in the direction of a second all-purpose
processor on the graphics board to replace the specialized graphics
processor - I do not think it is a great idea.

The functions you specify are used for fragments of a second when you
load/save an image.

There are dual processor solutions available, but the only desktop
system where you could add a processor board and make a
multi-processor system from a basically single processor design was
the Commodore Amiga.

Michael

Al Dykes

2004-05-22, 7:28 pm

In article <j64qa0hshi46lv5v2rb6j781iv602a4pc3@4ax.com>,
Al Treacher <big.al@stones.com.NOSPAM> wrote:
>Interesting observations... The reason for the upgrade is two-fold.
>One is that my current system is becoming increasingly unstable, so
>will need replacing sooner rather than later...
>
>Secondly, it's incredibly time-consuming waiting while long processes
>are carried out.
>
>It can take, in extreme cases, an hour or so to convert the RAW files
>from a session's shooting into TIFs, and when I run certain Actions in
>PS that I've created (nothing too fancy, just resizes, file info
>addition, saving as LZW TIFs, that sort of thing) they can easily take
>30-60s to carry out for each image.

I don't think you've stated what you've got now, as a baseline.

One option I don't think has been proposed is that you put a
bargin-pricepoint machine togther while you're waiting for the perfect
machine. For the sake of discussion, here's a configuration similar to
one of mine;

Mobo; Asus A7N8X $ 70 (LAN and sound on mobo)
CPU AMD Athlon 3000/400FSB $140
2x1GBDDR PC3500 ram $300 (I think this is the right memory
dual chips increases memory bandwidth
if it's done right.)
Case & PSU $100
Good 2D Video card $100 (or get a dual-head Matrox card for $220)
CD burner & SW $ 40
XP/Home OS $ 90
2xSATA 10k Disk drives $220 (2x35GB)
$440 (2x75GB)

$850 to $1150. Most of the prices are from newegg.com.

The two disks give you the choice of putting PS working files, TEMP
and SWAP on a second disk, or doing striping of the entire system.
The faster CP and memory chips get expensive, fast, and IHMO it's
better to spend the bucks on a fast disk system.

>
>So, when I'm working on a couple of hundred images, this takes a
>significant amount of time. I would hope to gain more than a few
>seconds by upgrading to a powerful machine. (And believe me, I
>haven't got time to play games on it, as much as I would like to!)
>
>A
>
>
>
>

--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

rrt5387@att.net

2004-05-24, 12:14 pm

Clyde wrote:

> I recently built my own PS machine. I have a P4 3.0 GHz HT with 1 GB of
> Dual Channel PC3200 memory. I have a 7200 rpm 120 GB SATA hard drive. I
> also have a CD-RW/DVD-+RW drive and a Firewire card. My son had bought
> me a case with a top and side window in it, so I had to get a blue
> cathode light in it. My Antec power supply also has blue lights, as does
> the case front. It's all kind of cool. The case has 4 fans, which is
> overkill. I use the heat sink and fan that came with the Intel box set.
> Oh, I have an Intel D865-GBF motherboard.

Why did you "had to get a blue cathode light in it"? Did the blue light
speed up the machine? <g>

> I don't see much need for a faster hard drive. Yes, PS does swap no
> matter how much memory you have. However, that all runs in the
> background and doesn't seem to slow down much of what I do. Otherwise,
> the HD speed is for opening and saving files. That's it fast enough for
> me; even in batches. Besides the only way to get real disk speed would
> be to do 15,000 rpm drives in RAID 0. That means very expensive SCSI
> server drives.

A hd's cache size matters, the bigger the better. The new hds have 8mb
cache, up from the older 2mb, and the newer ones probably will have
more.

aka 717

2004-05-24, 7:14 pm

[snip]
I meant to add a board that would do the
codec work in the background.

Captain Blammo

2004-05-31, 7:14 pm

> Why did you "had to get a blue cathode light in it"? Did the blue light
> speed up the machine? <g>

Of course it did. Didn't you know they do that? I put a "Type R" sticker on
my PC, and it's 5 times quicker now.

Ewan

Terry

2004-06-02, 7:14 pm

In article <rqqoa0179fjs7rscf3ddmacufuccf33q32@4ax.com>,
big.al@stones.com.NOSPAM says...
> Hi folks,
>
> The PC I currently run Photoshop in is now a very long way past its
> "best by" date, so the time has come to build a new one. I've sought
> advice from a couple of techie friends about the basic system
> architecture and I've got essentially three direction that I could
> take, it seems. Neither of my "advisors" use Photoshop regularly, so
> I'd like to get opinions from other people that do...

Al,

I'd like to add that optimizing the Windows operating system can
significantly increases your machine's performance.

Most machines shipped right out of factories are loaded with software
that you never need. These software can be quite a bit of overhead.
Also, most machines come with one-partition-for-one-drive configuration.
It is best to repartition the hard drive to keep system files, program
files and data files separate.

There are a lot of tune-ups you can do for Windows XP or 2000. It is
even worthwhile to do a fresh installation of the Windows and configure
it the way you want and only install the software you need. You
definitely will get extra mileage from a clean optimized system.

Terry

www.PhotoRevamp.com

David Haley

2004-06-03, 4:14 am

This day of Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:35:10 -0500, Terry
<gobeyondgobeyond@Rem0ve.Yahoo.com> proclaimed:

>Also, most machines come with one-partition-for-one-drive configuration.
>It is best to repartition the hard drive to keep system files, program
>files and data files separate.

Why? Just seems like asking for trouble to me. You might not have allocated
enough space on one partition, at which point you're in trouble if you need more
of whatever files go there.

-dhaley

--
~david-haley

Xalinai

2004-06-03, 7:14 am

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:14:51 -0700, David Haley
<junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:

>This day of Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:35:10 -0500, Terry
><gobeyondgobeyond@Rem0ve.Yahoo.com> proclaimed:
>
>
>
>Why? Just seems like asking for trouble to me.

Would you keep your passport, cleaning agents, groceries and insurance
contracts in one big pile on the floor of your house?

So why do you do that with your computer?

The minimum requirement is to keep your user data and the files that
are used to operate the computer (OS, programs, whatever came in those
expensive boxes) separate. You can restore everything you bought from
original media but it can be troublesome to re-create anything you
made.

It is better to have separate drives for this purpose but separate
partitions will do.

> You might not have allocated
>enough space on one partition, at which point you're in trouble if you need more
>of whatever files go there.

There are enough tools available to change partition sizes.

I think this is no longer neccessary as you can mount new disks at the
places you like since W2K and thus extend filesystems over as much
space as you like.

Michael

David Haley

2004-06-03, 12:14 pm

This day of Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:27:46 GMT, xalinai_Two@xalinai.de (Xalinai)
proclaimed:

>On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:14:51 -0700, David Haley
><junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Would you keep your passport, cleaning agents, groceries and insurance
>contracts in one big pile on the floor of your house?
>
>So why do you do that with your computer?
>
>The minimum requirement is to keep your user data and the files that
>are used to operate the computer (OS, programs, whatever came in those
>expensive boxes) separate. You can restore everything you bought from
>original media but it can be troublesome to re-create anything you
>made.

Or, you just know what you need to keep and what you don't. :) I've formatted my
computer(s) several times and have never lost anything, nor have I ever had more
than one partition.

>It is better to have separate drives for this purpose but separate
>partitions will do.

You see, I'm not convinced that multiple partitions really matter. Multiple
drives are what you want if you're going for data safety; but your analogy with
real life objects just doesn't seem right at all. If the disk dies then the disk
dies, no matter how many partitions you have.

>
>There are enough tools available to change partition sizes.
>
>I think this is no longer neccessary as you can mount new disks at the
>places you like since W2K and thus extend filesystems over as much
>space as you like.
>
>Michael

--
~david-haley

2004-06-03, 12:14 pm

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:27:46 GMT, xalinai_Two@xalinai.de (Xalinai) wrote:

> The minimum requirement is to keep your user data and the files that
> are used to operate the computer (OS, programs, whatever came in those
> expensive boxes) separate. You can restore everything you bought from
> original media but it can be troublesome to re-create anything you
> made.
>
> It is better to have separate drives for this purpose but separate
> partitions will do.

I agree with you on this. When I was setting up the new machine I put in 2
drives - 1 for the operating system and all programs and the second for all
data and any file downloads. For example I have installed Agent, the news
reader, on C: drive while the newsgroup messages are all stored on D: drive.

Next I have 2 external drives similar in size to the main drives. These
are only switched on when I use Norton Ghost to create a backup or to
restore a drive if something has gone wrong. I create a backup each week
keeping the current and 2 previous copies and deleting any earlier copies.

The only other thing you will need is a bootable floppy disk so that you can
format the new drive.

While you are correct in saying that you can restore using the original
media that ignores the settings side of the game. Using Ghost or similar
programs restores both the program and any settings changes made to suit
your usage. I can recall the time it took me 2 weeks to recover from a
disk failure - with Ghost or similar it would be around 30 minutes or so.

While this may sound like an overkill consider what you will do, and how
long that will take, if you lose a drive for whatever reason.

Cheers, John

Use au instead of invalid for emails to me.

Terry

2004-06-03, 12:14 pm

In article <hc9tb0d4v61mpf1a659lponfm614kbqoas@4ax.com>, junkmale221
@hotmail.com says...
> This day of Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:35:10 -0500, Terry
> <gobeyondgobeyond@Rem0ve.Yahoo.com> proclaimed:
>
>
>
> Why? Just seems like asking for trouble to me. You might not have allocated
> enough space on one partition, at which point you're in trouble if you need more
> of whatever files go there.
>

If you have 2 or more hard drives, you are still much better off with
multiple partitions on a single drive. Say if you have 1 GB of RAM,
your paging file (virtual memory) will be bigger than 1 GB. Writing a 1
GB paging file on one partition at once isn't the fastest solution. It
is highly recommended to break the paging file into smaller chunks on
separate partitions, even if you have just one hard drive. This
configuration also helps avoid fragmenting the paging file which can
seriously slow down your machine.

Hope this helps,

Terry

www.PhotoRevamp.com

Captain Blammo

2004-06-03, 7:14 pm

> If you have 2 or more hard drives, you are still much better off with
> multiple partitions on a single drive. Say if you have 1 GB of RAM,
> your paging file (virtual memory) will be bigger than 1 GB. Writing a 1
> GB paging file on one partition at once isn't the fastest solution. It
> is highly recommended to break the paging file into smaller chunks on
> separate partitions, even if you have just one hard drive. This
> configuration also helps avoid fragmenting the paging file which can
> seriously slow down your machine.

I was under the impression that partitioning a disk splits it into "slices"
like a pie chart. if so, surely long read or write operations would be
slowed by a function of the size/number of partitions that you have, unless
the program doing the writing also can write to the other partitions and
distributes temp data across them in a way that doesn't impact performance.

I don't know how PS stores temp data, but I imagine that it doesn't
seamlessly switch to the partition that is under the drive head at any given
time. Surely then, if you had 2 equally sized partitions on a drive, PS
would slow down by a factor of two?

N.B. I'm probably wrong, so please do correct me. Can you partition a disk
in a concentric ring configuration? That way, you could even increase
performance by using the fastest part of the physical disk for a temp data
partition.

Ewan

Xalinai

2004-06-03, 7:14 pm

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:07:06 GMT, "Captain Blammo" <eas6@nbnet.nb.ca>
wrote:

>
>I was under the impression that partitioning a disk splits it into "slices"
>like a pie chart. if so, surely long read or write operations would be
>slowed by a function of the size/number of partitions that you have, unless
>the program doing the writing also can write to the other partitions and
>distributes temp data across them in a way that doesn't impact performance.

Partitions are defined as ranges of cylinders - that is the same track
on a number of disk heads, one per disk surface. Writing on several
partitions the same time would cause the positioning mechanism to move
between the area of both partitions - severely slowing down the
operation.

With regard to the paging file used by windows, it is written in block
sized like the memory pages - 2 KB - and, depending on the
applications memory access pattern, at most times randomly. No long
contiguous write access. The benefit from using several page files on
different disks results from having multiple independent disk
mechanisms handling multiple read/write commands simultaneously.

>I don't know how PS stores temp data, but I imagine that it doesn't
>seamlessly switch to the partition that is under the drive head at any given
>time. Surely then, if you had 2 equally sized partitions on a drive, PS
>would slow down by a factor of two?

Using multiple partitions on the same disk for scratch files will
cause a slowdown that can be even bigger than a factor of two.

>N.B. I'm probably wrong, so please do correct me. Can you partition a disk
>in a concentric ring configuration? That way, you could even increase
>performance by using the fastest part of the physical disk for a temp data
>partition.

Partitions are always concentric rings.

And, yes, if you make sure that the scratch file and page files are
allocated in the fastest part of the disk, you can have a performance
gain.

But this would mean to create the "scratch"-partition as the first
partition on a drive and as most systems only have one disk this would
require a heavy amount of fiddling.

Michael

Clyde

2004-06-03, 11:14 pm

Xalinai wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:14:51 -0700, David Haley
> <junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Would you keep your passport, cleaning agents, groceries and insurance
> contracts in one big pile on the floor of your house?
>
> So why do you do that with your computer?
>
> The minimum requirement is to keep your user data and the files that
> are used to operate the computer (OS, programs, whatever came in those
> expensive boxes) separate. You can restore everything you bought from
> original media but it can be troublesome to re-create anything you
> made.
>
> It is better to have separate drives for this purpose but separate
> partitions will do.
>
>
>
>
> There are enough tools available to change partition sizes.
>
> I think this is no longer neccessary as you can mount new disks at the
> places you like since W2K and thus extend filesystems over as much
> space as you like.
>
> Michael

Is that what the file system is for? I that it allowed you and the OS to
organize all your data into folders and files. Why do you need an extra
logical layer on top of that?

Yes, I have partitioned many of hard disk in the past 20 or so years.
The only reason I've ever seen that makes since is when you have
multiple booting operating systems. They do need their own partitions so
the stupid (pre-FS load) boot process can find what it's looking for.

I guess the only other reason would be if you have an OS or app that is
so flaky, screwed up, and dangerous that it's likely to damage the rest
of the data. Then again, why would you even run such a thing? OK, we did
in the past because that's all there was, but you don't need to today.

Clyde

Hecate

2004-06-04, 4:14 am

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:17:11 -0400, Brian <no.spam@no.spam.com> wrote:

>
>
>At the very least it makes reformatting and reinstalling the system and
>apps much easier if your data and documents are elsewhere - I never
>store anything I need to keep on my system drive, so if I have to
>unexpectedly wipe the drive I don't have to worry about making any
>backups of my documents (which would be very hard to do if the system
>was hosed).
>
It doesn't matter where you store your data if you have a proper back
up and archiving strategy. Whilst it's convenient to have your data
on another drive (I have it on an internal drive, an external drive
and archived to DVD) as long as you use proper back up it really
doesn't matter where it is.

--

Hecate
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate

2004-06-04, 4:14 am

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:26:11 +1000, JC <jhoppyc@westnet.com.invalid>
wrote:

>The only other thing you will need is a bootable floppy disk so that you can
>format the new drive.

Only if you have an ancient computer. You can easily boot and
reformat from the install CDROM for both W2k and XP>

--

Hecate
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui

2004-06-04, 7:14 am

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 03:56:20 +0100, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:26:11 +1000, JC <jhoppyc@westnet.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Only if you have an ancient computer. You can easily boot and
> reformat from the install CDROM for both W2k and XP>

So I just discovered. Thanks for the confirmation.

Cheers, John

Use au instead of invalid for emails to me.

realworld@att.net

2004-06-04, 12:14 pm

Terry wrote:
>
> In article <hc9tb0d4v61mpf1a659lponfm614kbqoas@4ax.com>, junkmale221
> @hotmail.com says...
>
> If you have 2 or more hard drives, you are still much better off with
> multiple partitions on a single drive. Say if you have 1 GB of RAM,
> your paging file (virtual memory) will be bigger than 1 GB. Writing a 1
> GB paging file on one partition at once isn't the fastest solution. It
> is highly recommended to break the paging file into smaller chunks on
> separate partitions, even if you have just one hard drive. This
> configuration also helps avoid fragmenting the paging file which can
> seriously slow down your machine.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Terry
>
> www.PhotoRevamp.com

With 1 GB of ram and PS as the *only* application running, what are some
scenarios that virtual memory will kick in? For example, consider an
editing session starting with a 100mb file and ending with ~six
adjustment layers.

realworld@att.net

2004-06-04, 12:14 pm

Xalinai wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:07:06 GMT, "Captain Blammo" <eas6@nbnet.nb.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
> Partitions are defined as ranges of cylinders - that is the same track
> on a number of disk heads, one per disk surface. Writing on several
> partitions the same time would cause the positioning mechanism to move
> between the area of both partitions - severely slowing down the
> operation.
>
> With regard to the paging file used by windows, it is written in block
> sized like the memory pages - 2 KB - and, depending on the
> applications memory access pattern, at most times randomly. No long
> contiguous write access. The benefit from using several page files on
> different disks results from having multiple independent disk
> mechanisms handling multiple read/write commands simultaneously.

In theory, accessing multiple disks simultaneously can improve
performance. But in reality, how can you tell if the file system or PS
is really doing this?

>
> Using multiple partitions on the same disk for scratch files will
> cause a slowdown that can be even bigger than a factor of two.
>
>
> Partitions are always concentric rings.
>
> And, yes, if you make sure that the scratch file and page files are
> allocated in the fastest part of the disk, you can have a performance
> gain.
>
> But this would mean to create the "scratch"-partition as the first
> partition on a drive and as most systems only have one disk this would
> require a heavy amount of fiddling.
>
> Michael

Brian

2004-06-04, 12:14 pm

> I guess the only other reason would be if you have an OS or app that is
> so flaky, screwed up, and dangerous that it's likely to damage the rest
> of the data. Then again, why would you even run such a thing? OK, we did
> in the past because that's all there was, but you don't need to today.

Your OS can become hopelessly corrupt at the drop of a hat, regardless
of how stable it runs under normal circumstances. Especially Windows
(and no, this isn't a platform flame, merely a fact of life - I use
Win2K, XP and OS X, and I've had to reinstall all three, albeit OS X
only once and it was my fault the system went down in the first place).

In an emergency do you really want to have to worry about what
non-system data might be on that volume, and whether it was backed up,
or how to even back it up if the OS is hosed? I don't, so I keep *all*
non-system / non-software data and documents on a separate volume.

To be honest I don't see any valid argument not to set up systems (both
production workstations as well as my home machines) this way, but I see
plenty of great reasons to continue this practice.

Xalinai

2004-06-04, 12:14 pm

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:16:22 GMT, Clyde <lughclyde@attbi.comedy>
wrote:

>Xalinai wrote:
>
>
>Is that what the file system is for? I that it allowed you and the OS to
>organize all your data into folders and files. Why do you need an extra
>logical layer on top of that?

Because the OS doesn't know which files belong to me and which files
belong to the computer itself. If you let application designers and M$
ideas about disk organisation run free, you find that some programs
use a folder under c:\documents, others write to the user's "my
documents" folder and others create databases in their install
directory.

So as there is a basic necessity to do a thorough cleanup in each
program's settings to teach it like a pup where to go and where not,
you can avoid a lot of that hassle doing the right setup early.

That is: Install the OS in a small partition (~10GB will suffice) and
create a separate partition where programs are to be installed. It
will take a little effort to empty the C:\programs folder destruction
free and mount that second partition there. After that, all programs
installed on C:\programs are on a separate partition that doesn't mix
with windows components.

Another partition is mounted in c:\documents... where all user's "my
documents" folders reside.

Now the system feels like the usual one filesystem windows clone but
works in a very different way. And once one compartment becomes full,
it can be increased by adding another disk, moving the data elsewhere
or replacing the mounted partition with one from a different drive
without interrupting normal operations.

>Yes, I have partitioned many of hard disk in the past 20 or so years.
>The only reason I've ever seen that makes since is when you have
>multiple booting operating systems. They do need their own partitions so
>the stupid (pre-FS load) boot process can find what it's looking for.

How about using the same set of user data from different operating
systems?
One partition for Win2K that runs smooth and stable, one for WinXP
where you do some experimental work and a third one with the Mac
Emulator - all accessing the same data on a separate partition.

Current multi hundred gigabyte drives almost require structures like
that.

>I guess the only other reason would be if you have an OS or app that is
>so flaky, screwed up, and dangerous that it's likely to damage the rest
>of the data. Then again, why would you even run such a thing? OK, we did
>in the past because that's all there was, but you don't need to today.

How about interesting but still unfinished applications?

Michael

Xalinai

2004-06-04, 12:14 pm

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:36:46 GMT, realworld@att.net wrote:

>
>
>Xalinai wrote:
>
>In theory, accessing multiple disks simultaneously can improve
>performance. But in reality, how can you tell if the file system or PS
>is really doing this?

The only way to assure that the system is using multiple disks the
same time is to use a RAID system.

With the current, cheap RAID controllers you are limited to either
RAID-0 (no redundancy, high speed), RAID-1 (Mirroring, safe, no
performance improvement) or RAID-10 (Mirrored RAID-1 pairs combined to
phigher performance RAID-0 stacks; requires a minimum of four disks).

More efficient RAID-5 units are usually sold as external devices and
not/seldom part of a PS workstation setting.

Michael

David Haley

2004-06-04, 11:14 pm

This day of Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:54:48 GMT, xalinai_Two@xalinai.de (Xalinai)
proclaimed:

>On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:16:22 GMT, Clyde <lughclyde@attbi.comedy>
>wrote:
>
>
>Because the OS doesn't know which files belong to me and which files
>belong to the computer itself. If you let application designers and M$
>ideas about disk organisation run free, you find that some programs
>use a folder under c:\documents, others write to the user's "my
>documents" folder and others create databases in their install
>directory.
>
>So as there is a basic necessity to do a thorough cleanup in each
>program's settings to teach it like a pup where to go and where not,
>you can avoid a lot of that hassle doing the right setup early.
>
>That is: Install the OS in a small partition (~10GB will suffice) and
>create a separate partition where programs are to be installed. It
>will take a little effort to empty the C:\programs folder destruction
>free and mount that second partition there. After that, all programs
>installed on C:\programs are on a separate partition that doesn't mix
>with windows components.
>
>Another partition is mounted in c:\documents... where all user's "my
>documents" folders reside.
>
>Now the system feels like the usual one filesystem windows clone but
>works in a very different way. And once one compartment becomes full,
>it can be increased by adding another disk, moving the data elsewhere
>or replacing the mounted partition with one from a different drive
>without interrupting normal operations.

Forgive me for being obtuse but I'm still not convinced you're actually
accomplishing anything with the above setup.

Is your argument that it's easier to format the OS drive?

How does installing things somewhere else prevent them from using their default
(and sometimes hard-coded) mydocs, c:\docs, whatever storage settings?

How exactly are things "working in a very different way"?

Basically, I'm not convinced you're accomplishing anything you can't do with
good organization on a single partition anyways. I've never had multiple
partitions except when I had to with fat16 and a 4 gig hard-drive, and that was
one of the least pleasant experiences I've ever had. I regularly format my
hard-drive and know exactly where the files I want to keep are.

-dhaley

--
~david-haley

Clyde

2004-06-04, 11:14 pm

Xalinai wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:16:22 GMT, Clyde <lughclyde@attbi.comedy>
<snip>

>
> Because the OS doesn't know which files belong to me and which files
> belong to the computer itself. If you let application designers and M$
> ideas about disk organisation run free, you find that some programs
> use a folder under c:\documents, others write to the user's "my
> documents" folder and others create databases in their install
> directory.
>
OK, the OS knows something about your files - let's hope so. The OS
installer really does know what files are yours and what are OS files.
Upgrades wouldn't work otherwise.

I don't let apps "run free". I make them put data where I want and know.
I also put all my data where I want it to go. Then I back it up. Yes, I
let the OS put stuff where it wants to and don't put my data there. So,
the file system, with me organizing it, keeps the OS and my data
separate. It doesn't happen often, but that makes reinstalling the OS
very simple, clean, and functional.

> So as there is a basic necessity to do a thorough cleanup in each
> program's settings to teach it like a pup where to go and where not,
> you can avoid a lot of that hassle doing the right setup early.
>
Yes. How is that different with or without partitions? You are
configuring you apps using the file system. The file system just has one
more layer if you partition.

> That is: Install the OS in a small partition (~10GB will suffice) and
> create a separate partition where programs are to be installed. It
> will take a little effort to empty the C:\programs folder destruction
> free and mount that second partition there. After that, all programs
> installed on C:\programs are on a separate partition that doesn't mix
> with windows components.
>
> Another partition is mounted in c:\documents... where all user's "my
> documents" folders reside.
>
> Now the system feels like the usual one filesystem windows clone but
> works in a very different way. And once one compartment becomes full,
> it can be increased by adding another disk, moving the data elsewhere
> or replacing the mounted partition with one from a different drive
> without interrupting normal operations.
>
That sounds like a lot of work for nothing.

>
>
>
> How about using the same set of user data from different operating
> systems?
> One partition for Win2K that runs smooth and stable, one for WinXP
> where you do some experimental work and a third one with the Mac
> Emulator - all accessing the same data on a separate partition.
>
> Current multi hundred gigabyte drives almost require structures like
> that.
>
>
>
>
> How about interesting but still unfinished applications?
>
Yes, alpha/beta testing and experimentation are valid reasons for
partitioning. I got tired of that years ago and spend my time actually
working now. To each his own.

> Michael

I guess a big question I have for the partitioning crowd is what files
on your system are you willing to sacrifice and which ones are valuable
to you? To me they are all valuable. If they aren't I delete them. I
want to keep my OS, apps, and data files all working just fine.

Clyde

Xalinai

2004-06-05, 12:14 pm

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:12:56 -0700, David Haley
<junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:

>This day of Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:54:48 GMT, xalinai_Two@xalinai.de (Xalinai)
>proclaimed:
>
>
>
>Forgive me for being obtuse but I'm still not convinced you're actually
>accomplishing anything with the above setup.
>
>Is your argument that it's easier to format the OS drive?

If I have that default user specific documents folder separated from
the system drive, the system disk will be less changed, less used and
in the end less fragmented than a volume where everybody reads, writes
and modifies files.

Chances are that there is even less need to format the system drive
from time to time as it seems common on many a Windows system.

>
>How does installing things somewhere else prevent them from using their default
>(and sometimes hard-coded) mydocs, c:\docs, whatever storage settings?

No. The method I use results in programs installing in their default
location but the same time not on my system drive.

>How exactly are things "working in a very different way"?

The program is installed in C:\programs, but c:\programs is no longer
a folder but a mountpoint for a different partition or disk so the
size of c:\programs is no longer taken off the C: volume.

>Basically, I'm not convinced you're accomplishing anything you can't do with
>good organization on a single partition anyways. I've never had multiple
>partitions except when I had to with fat16 and a 4 gig hard-drive, and that was
>one of the least pleasant experiences I've ever had. I regularly format my
>hard-drive and know exactly where the files I want to keep are.

Did you ever work in an environment were you had to replace the OS of
several PCs within a short time and had no chance to test every
workstation before it was to be used again?

I set up the system I'm currently working on three years ago when a
deinstallation of ZoneAlarm destroyed the network functions. A year
before that the system migrated from a WinNT4 installation done in
1997 to Win2K.

There are three drives attached to the main disk controller, two to an
IDE Raid-0 controller and one huge external RAID-5 box with 6x120GB
configured as a 5-disk-array plus one hot spare.
The whole thing shows only three filesystems to the User: A system
drive (C:, 40 GB), a temp drive (T:, 200 GB) and the user file drive
(U:, 800GB). Main use of that system is video editing, that's the
reason for the huge temp drive.

Michael

Terry

2004-06-05, 12:14 pm

>
> With 1 GB of ram and PS as the *only* application running, what are some
> scenarios that virtual memory will kick in? For example, consider an
> editing session starting with a 100mb file and ending with ~six
> adjustment layers.

One easy way to find out is to call up the Windows Task Manager by
right-clicking on the task bar and starting the "Task Manager". Under
the "Performance" tab, you will see how much "Physical Memory" is
available. This monitor gives you live info regarding your system. If
the available physical memory is getting low, say about 10% of Total
physical memory, chances are that the virtual memory will kick in pretty
soon.

Another indicator of the virtual memory kicking in is that you hear a
lot disk reading and writing activity, plus the system is slowing down.

Having Windows paging file and a clean partition reduces the chance of
having the paging file fragmented. Whenever you have a huge paging file
broken into small chunks and they are sitting on different parts of the
hard drive, the performance can be slowed to a halt.

Terry

www.PhotoRevamp.com

Terry

2004-06-05, 7:14 pm

In article <K0Ivc.52807$Np3.2309310@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, eas6
@nbnet.nb.ca says...
>
> I was under the impression that partitioning a disk splits it into "slices"
> like a pie chart. if so, surely long read or write operations would be
> slowed by a function of the size/number of partitions that you have, unless
> the program doing the writing also can write to the other partitions and
> distributes temp data across them in a way that doesn't impact performance.
>
> I don't know how PS stores temp data, but I imagine that it doesn't
> seamlessly switch to the partition that is under the drive head at any given
> time. Surely then, if you had 2 equally sized partitions on a drive, PS
> would slow down by a factor of two?
>
> N.B. I'm probably wrong, so please do correct me. Can you partition a disk
> in a concentric ring configuration? That way, you could even increase
> performance by using the fastest part of the physical disk for a temp data
> partition.

In my experience, the biggest advantage of properly partitioning hard
drives is to avoid fragmentation of the Windows paging file (virtual
memory) and Photoshop's scratch disk.

Say if you have the Windows paging file on a partition with a lot of
existing data files, chances are that you don't have a big chunk of free
disk space to ensure that the paging file isn't fragmented. If you have
a machine with 1 GB of RAM (which is rather common these days), you will
need a contiguous free space of over 1 GB to avoid fragmentation for the
paging file. Having a fragmented paging file can bring the fastest
machine to a halt.

Same can be said about Photoshop's scratch disk. So, I prefer having
the paging file and scratch disk on clean partitions where I don't store
much data file. Also, keep the primary scratch disk away from paging
file partition.

Anyway, when configuring a new PC for Photoshop, by all means get at
least 2 hard drives. Preferrably attach them on a high-performance disk
controller rather than the generic disk controller on the motherboard.

Terry

www.PhotoRevamp.com

Al Dykes

2004-06-05, 7:14 pm

In article <MPG.1b2ba2cb2f9c6d0c989693@news.tc.umn.edu>,
Terry <gobeyondgobeyond@Rem0ve.Yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <K0Ivc.52807$Np3.2309310@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, eas6
>@nbnet.nb.ca says...

The size of your pagefile reqm't is determined by theapplications you
run, n ot the RAM in your system.
[color=darkred]
>
>In my experience, the biggest advantage of properly partitioning hard
>drives is to avoid fragmentation of the Windows paging file (virtual
>memory) and Photoshop's scratch disk.
>
>Say if you have the Windows paging file on a partition with a lot of
>existing data files, chances are that you don't have a big chunk of free
>disk space to ensure that the paging file isn't fragmented. If you have
>a machine with 1 GB of RAM (which is rather common these days), you will
>need a contiguous free space of over 1 GB to avoid fragmentation for the
>paging file. Having a fragmented paging file can bring the fastest
>machine to a halt.
>
>Same can be said about Photoshop's scratch disk. So, I prefer having
>the paging file and scratch disk on clean partitions where I don't store
>much data file. Also, keep the primary scratch disk away from paging
>file partition.
>
>Anyway, when configuring a new PC for Photoshop, by all means get at
>least 2 hard drives. Preferrably attach them on a high-performance disk
>controller rather than the generic disk controller on the motherboard.
>

pagefile fragmentation is best prevented by setting it to a fixed size
and then using a defrag product that can defrag system files during
reboot. (I like perfectdisk.)

Putting the pagefile in it's own partition is a guarenteed performance
loss since a long seek is required every time you need to access it.
Putting it on different disk is good, as long as that disk is
underutilized when you need to swap.

TaskManager can show you how big your pagefile should be;

Start up every application you want to run, all at once.

Open up more PSD files than you will ever need to, for real.

Start TaskMAnager (right mouse click on taskbar). Click on performance.
The lower graph is the pagefile size.

In controlpanel/system/performace set swap space to MIN=MAX. Make it a
bit larger that the number taskman just gave you. More can't hurt.

Do a stand-alone defrag to eliminate pagefile (and other system file)
fragments.

--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

realworld@att.net

2004-06-05, 7:14 pm

Xalinai wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:36:46 GMT, realworld@att.net wrote:
>
>
> The only way to assure that the system is using multiple disks the
> same time is to use a RAID system.
>
> With the current, cheap RAID controllers you are limited to either
> RAID-0 (no redundancy, high speed), RAID-1 (Mirroring, safe, no
> performance improvement) or RAID-10 (Mirrored RAID-1 pairs combined to
> phigher performance RAID-0 stacks; requires a minimum of four disks).
>
> More efficient RAID-5 units are usually sold as external devices and
> not/seldom part of a PS workstation setting.
>
> Michael

My question was in the context of multiple drives NOT configured as
RAID. If you cannot prove that multiple non-RAID drives are indeed
accessed simultaneously by the OS or an application, then you cannot
substantiate your original statement:

> The benefit from using several page files on
> different disks results from having multiple independent disk
> mechanisms handling multiple read/write commands simultaneously.

realworld@att.net

2004-06-05, 7:14 pm

Terry wrote:
>
>
> One easy way to find out is to call up the Windows Task Manager by
> right-clicking on the task bar and starting the "Task Manager". Under
> the "Performance" tab, you will see how much "Physical Memory" is
> available. This monitor gives you live info regarding your system. If
> the available physical memory is getting low, say about 10% of Total
> physical memory, chances are that the virtual memory will kick in pretty
> soon.
>
> Another indicator of the virtual memory kicking in is that you hear a
> lot disk reading and writing activity, plus the system is slowing down.
>
> Having Windows paging file and a clean partition reduces the chance of
> having the paging file fragmented. Whenever you have a huge paging file
> broken into small chunks and they are sitting on different parts of the
> hard drive, the performance can be slowed to a halt.
>
> Terry
>
> www.PhotoRevamp.com

So you can't think of a scenario that:

"Say if you have 1 GB of RAM, your paging file (virtual memory) will be
bigger than 1 GB."

jjs

2004-06-05, 7:14 pm

> With 1 GB of ram and PS as the *only* application running, what are some
> scenarios that virtual memory will kick in? For example, consider an
> editing session starting with a 100mb file and ending with ~six
> adjustment layers.

Disc access (virtual memory) _always_ "kicks in" for Photoshop because it
uses its own proprietary disc files as temporary and swap space (so to
speak, for lack of a better term). Always have at least two separate
spindles. More is better!

jjs

2004-06-05, 7:14 pm

In article <40C1F60F.7BBAF380@att.net>, realworld@att.net wrote:

> My question was in the context of multiple drives NOT configured as
> RAID. If you cannot prove that multiple non-RAID drives are indeed
> accessed simultaneously by the OS or an application, then you cannot
> substantiate your original statement:

New to the OS thing, right? I simply cannot believe that XP does not
support overlap seeks. It would be an abomination of computer architecture
established decades ago. And, btw, the application has to work through
the OS to access a disc drive.

Stephan

2004-06-05, 7:14 pm

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:buovb0hdpe8i2t4pecn62klrti0egu20jh@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:26:11 +1000, JC <jhoppyc@westnet.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
can[color=darkred]
>
> Only if you have an ancient computer. You can easily boot and
> reformat from the install CDROM for both W2k and XP>
>
And even ME, had to rebuilt someone's ME machine and a friend saved me a lot
of time giving a an bootable ME CD
I didn't even know it existed.
Stephan