I'm adding a separate 80GB HDD to my laptop, mainly to act as the Scratch Disk for PS CS. In older versions, PS had a limitation on the size of partition ( logical drive) that PS could use, and up through v6 this was 4GBx4. I can't find data on CS's Scratch Disk usage, and wonder if I need to do a partitioning of the new drive to make PS CS most comfortable.
Any thoughts on this?
Hunt
[...]
Probably did not change, the largest file Windows and any windows app can use is 2GB last I knew. That win 95 and up limit will not change until 64-bit Windows.
Hunt wrote:
I'm adding a separate 80GB HDD to my laptop, mainly to act as the Scratch Disk for PS CS. In older versions, PS had a limitation on the size of partition ( logical drive) that PS could use, and up through v6 this was 4GBx4. I can't find data on CS's Scratch Disk usage, and wonder if I need to do a partitioning of the new drive to make PS CS most comfortable.
Any thoughts on this?
Hunt
Probably did not change, the largest file Windows and any windows app can use is 2GB last I knew. That win 95 and up limit will not change until 64-bit Windows.
In article <Dt0Ec.155732$>,
g-w wrote:
[...]
Probably did not change, the largest file Windows and any windows app can use is 2GB last I knew. That win 95 and up limit will not change until 64-bit Windows.
Since this is a PS group it may be good to mention that CS is not limited to 2gb image files. Dunno about the scratch disc thing, but I put my scratches on larger than 2gb discs, unpartitioned and used for other files. No harm, I hope.
I'm adding a separate 80GB HDD to my laptop, mainly to act as the ScratchDisk
for PS CS. In older versions, PS had a limitation on the size of partition ( logical drive) that PS could use, and up through v6 this was 4GBx4. I can't find data on CS's Scratch Disk usage, and wonder if I need to do a partitioning of the new drive to make PS CS most comfortable.
Any thoughts on this?
Hunt
g-w wrote insome
news:Dt0Ec.155732$:
Hunt wrote:
I'm adding a separate 80GB HDD to my laptop, mainly to act as the Scratch Disk for PS CS. In older versions, PS had a limitation on the size of partition ( logical drive) that PS could use, and up through v6 this was 4GBx4. I can't find data on CS's Scratch Disk usage, and wonder if I need to do a partitioning of the new drive to make PS CS most comfortable.
Any thoughts on this?
No need. CS broke the file size limitations.
Hunt
Probably did not change, the largest file Windows and any windows app can use is 2GB last I knew. That win 95 and up limit will not change until 64-bit Windows.
That's a limit of FAT16, the file system. An NTFS volume can handle a file of 16 *terabytes*, and that limit will likely go up in future windows releases.
The amount of *RAM* a single app can use under Windows 32 is 2GB minus
overhead, and that will change in 64-bit Windows.
Hunt wrote:
I'm adding a separate 80GB HDD to my laptop, mainly to act as the Scratch Disk for PS CS. In older versions, PS had a limitation on the size of partition ( logical drive) that PS could use, and up through v6 this was 4GBx4. I can't find data on CS's Scratch Disk usage, and wonder if I need to do a partitioning of the new drive to make PS CS most comfortable.
Any thoughts on this?
Hunt
Probably did not change, the largest file Windows and any windows app can use is 2GB last I knew. That win 95 and up limit will not change until 64-bit Windows.
It seems that a single partitionAbsolutely :)
is just as good as 4, with theses extreme Scratch Disk size limits.
On 28 Jun 2004 23:01:44 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:
It seems that a single partitionAbsolutely :)
is just as good as 4, with theses extreme Scratch Disk size limits.
In article , Hecate wrote:
On 28 Jun 2004 23:01:44 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:
It seems that a single partitionAbsolutely :)
is just as good as 4, with theses extreme Scratch Disk size limits.
Just to be sure - are you saying that for scratch-devices one large disc is as good as multiple discs (spindles)?
In article , Hecate wrote:
On 28 Jun 2004 23:01:44 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:
It seems that a single partitionAbsolutely :)
is just as good as 4, with theses extreme Scratch Disk size limits.
Just to be sure - are you saying that for scratch-devices one large disc is as good as multiple discs (spindles)?
4.) with the extreme capability of Scratch Disk utilization, is there any reason to partition the second physical drive to be used as Scratch Disk space? Doesn't seem that there is one, as far as I can find.
PS, now I just need to get one of those new 64EB drives!
In article ,
stafford.net says...
In article , Hecate wrote:
On 28 Jun 2004 23:01:44 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:
It seems that a single partitionAbsolutely :)
is just as good as 4, with theses extreme Scratch Disk size limits.
Just to be sure - are you saying that for scratch-devices one large disc is as good as multiple discs (spindles)?
So far, this is where I am with the Scratch Disk debate:
1.) a second (or whatever) physical drive is better than a single physical
drive. The OS and PS are located on the first physical (boot in most cases) drive and the additional physical drive contains the scratch disk.
2.) the upper limit of Scratch Disk usage by PS CS is 64EB (exabytes = 1
billion GB's.
3.) in past versions of PS, the Scratch Disk was best partitioned into a least four logical drives, i.e D:\, E:\, F:\, G:\, etc. but that was when 4GB was the largest amount of Scratch Disk space that PS could use. An ideal configuration then was 4 x 4GB with any leftover going to other types of storage.
4.) with the extreme capability of Scratch Disk utilization, is there any reason to partition the second physical drive to be used as Scratch Disk space? Doesn't seem that there is one, as far as I can find.
PS, now I just need to get one of those new 64EB drives!
:
4.) with the extreme capability of Scratch Disk utilization, is there any reason to partition the second physical drive to be used as Scratch Disk space? Doesn't seem that there is one, as far as I can find.
Dead on.
PS, now I just need to get one of those new 64EB drives!
You mean at least three for a nice striped RAID setup, right?
In article ,
com says...
:
4.) with the extreme capability of Scratch Disk utilization, is there any reason to partition the second physical drive to be used as Scratch Disk space? Doesn't seem that there is one, as far as I can find.
Dead on.
PS, now I just need to get one of those new 64EB drives!
You mean at least three for a nice striped RAID setup, right?
Yes!!! Maybe I'll try e-Bay <G>.
In article , Hecate wrote:
On 28 Jun 2004 23:01:44 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:
It seems that a single partitionAbsolutely :)
is just as good as 4, with theses extreme Scratch Disk size limits.
Just to be sure - are you saying that for scratch-devices one large disc is as good as multiple discs (spindles)?
(one_of_many) wrote in news:john-2906040711310001
@m-0-20.docsis.hbci.com:
In article , Hecate wrote:
On 28 Jun 2004 23:01:44 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:
It seems that a single partitionAbsolutely :)
is just as good as 4, with theses extreme Scratch Disk size limits.
Just to be sure - are you saying that for scratch-devices one large disc is as good as multiple discs (spindles)?
No, she didn't say that. A single scratch file on a SCSI U320 3-15K disc RAID setup would be *lots* faster than a single big, slow run-of-the-mill mechanism, since all three spindles are used concurrently.
The subject at hand was partitions, and in particular on a single disc. It makes no sense to place multiple scratch files on multiple partitions on a single spindle since the 4GB limit was broken.
Your (and my) tax money has probably already purchased a couple of these in the name of Homeland Security/
There is work in the labs that shows we can increase the data per square inch by a couple more orders of magnitude over today's disks. The bottleneck becomes the interface speed. And it won't be cheap unless a mass-market develops. Home audio won't do it. We've all gotta want to store our HDTV/DVD video collections online. Or a multilayer PSD of every crappy frame each of us has ever snapped.
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:11:31 -0500,
(one_of_many) wrote:
Just to be sure - are you saying that for scratch-devices one large disc is as good as multiple discs (spindles)?
Nope. But you have to realise that the hard disk you install is, ion fact, usually 3-4 platters. What I am saying is that if you install that *0ne* hard disk it makes no sense to partition it if you're going to use it solely a Photoshop's scratch disk.
OTOH, if you have a multidisk set up, then that's different. RAID 0, for example, suing 2 identical disks will show you what looks like a single disk but is in fact two with reading/writing occurring simultaneously. You don't make the "partition" but it's there all the same.
Not sure a RAID is going to be any better than the same number of separate spindles - overlap seeks are a good thing to make up for latency.
Hunt wrote:
I'm adding a separate 80GB HDD to my laptop, mainly to act as the Scratch Disk for PS CS. In older versions, PS had a limitation on the size of partition ( logical drive) that PS could use, and up through v6 this was 4GBx4. I can't find data on CS's Scratch Disk usage, and wonder if I need to do a partitioning of the new drive to make PS CS most comfortable.
Any thoughts on this?
Hunt
Probably did not change, the largest file Windows and any windows app can use is 2GB last I knew. That win 95 and up limit will not change until 64-bit Windows.
g-w wrote in
news:Dt0Ec.155732$:
Hunt wrote:
I'm adding a separate 80GB HDD to my laptop, mainly to act as the Scratch Disk for PS CS. In older versions, PS had a limitation on the size of partition ( logical drive) that PS could use, and up through v6 this was 4GBx4. I can't find data on CS's Scratch Disk usage, and wonder if I need to do a partitioning of the new drive to make PS CS most comfortable.
Any thoughts on this?
No need. CS broke the file size limitations.
Hunt
Probably did not change, the largest file Windows and any windows app can use is 2GB last I knew. That win 95 and up limit will not change until 64-bit Windows.
That's a limit of FAT16, the file system. An NTFS volume can handle a file of 16 *terabytes*, and that limit will likely go up in future windows releases.
The amount of *RAM* a single app can use under Windows 32 is 2GB minus some overhead, and that will change in 64-bit Windows.
In article ,
stafford.net says...
In article , Hecate wrote:
On 28 Jun 2004 23:01:44 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:
It seems that a single partitionAbsolutely :)
is just as good as 4, with theses extreme Scratch Disk size limits.
Just to be sure - are you saying that for scratch-devices one large disc is as good as multiple discs (spindles)?
So far, this is where I am with the Scratch Disk debate:
1.) a second (or whatever) physical drive is better than a single physical
drive. The OS and PS are located on the first physical (boot in most cases) drive and the additional physical drive contains the scratch disk.
2.) the upper limit of Scratch Disk usage by PS CS is 64EB (exabytes = 1
billion GB's.
3.) in past versions of PS, the Scratch Disk was best partitioned into a least four logical drives, i.e D:\, E:\, F:\, G:\, etc. but that was when 4GB was the largest amount of Scratch Disk space that PS could use. An ideal configuration then was 4 x 4GB with any leftover going to other types of storage.
4.) with the extreme capability of Scratch Disk utilization, is there any reason to partition the second physical drive to be used as Scratch Disk space? Doesn't seem that there is one, as far as I can find.
Hunt
PS, now I just need to get one of those new 64EB drives!
(one_of_many) wrote in
news::Not sure a RAID is going to be any better than the same number of separate spindles - overlap seeks are a good thing to make up for latency.
Photoshop doesn't do overlap seeks by itself, bud. You won't use more than one scratch file unless you fill the first to capacity.
OTOH, RAID does concurrent read/write/seek with whatever application you use.
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:11:31 -0500,
(one_of_many) wrote:
In article , Hecate wrote:
On 28 Jun 2004 23:01:44 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:
It seems that a single partitionAbsolutely :)
is just as good as 4, with theses extreme Scratch Disk size limits.
Just to be sure - are you saying that for scratch-devices one large disc is as good as multiple discs (spindles)?
Nope. But you have to realise that the hard disk you install is, ion fact, usually 3-4 platters. What I am saying is that if you install that *0ne* hard disk it makes no sense to partition it if you're going to use it solely a Photoshop's scratch disk.
OTOH, if you have a multidisk set up, then that's different. RAID 0, for example, suing 2 identical disks will show you what looks like a single disk but is in fact two with reading/writing occurring simultaneously. You don't make the "partition" but it's there all the same.
--
Hecate
veni, vidi, reliqui
In article , Eric Gill
wrote:
(one_of_many) wrote in
news::Not sure a RAID is going to be any better than the same number of separate spindles - overlap seeks are a good thing to make up for latency.
Photoshop doesn't do overlap seeks by itself, bud. You won't use more than one scratch file unless you fill the first to capacity.
Now, Eric. Hold on here. I understand the OS subsystem is responsible for disc access at that level (overlap seeks/write), but are you _certain_ that CS doesn't use concurrent scratch files?
If I specify
three, does it really wait until one is full before using the other?
OTOH, RAID does concurrent read/write/seek with whatever application you use.
Huh? It would be harder to keep a subsystem from doing overlap seeks than not.
(one_of_many) wrote in
news::
Now, Eric. Hold on here. I understand the OS subsystem is responsible for disc access at that level (overlap seeks/write), but are you _certain_ that CS doesn't use concurrent scratch files?
Unqualified yes. It isn't some sort of soft RAID system.
In article , Eric Gill
wrote:
(one_of_many) wrote in
news::
Now, Eric. Hold on here. I understand the OS subsystem is responsible for disc access at that level (overlap seeks/write), but are you _certain_ that CS doesn't use concurrent scratch files?
Unqualified yes. It isn't some sort of soft RAID system.
"Some sort" doesn't inspire my confidence.
In article , Eric Gill
wrote:
(one_of_many) wrote in
news::Not sure a RAID is going to be any better than the same number of separate spindles - overlap seeks are a good thing to make up for latency.
Photoshop doesn't do overlap seeks by itself, bud. You won't use more than one scratch file unless you fill the first to capacity.
Now, Eric. Hold on here. I understand the OS subsystem is responsible for disc access at that level (overlap seeks/write), but are you _certain_ that CS doesn't use concurrent scratch files? If I specify three, does it really wait until one is full before using the other?
In article , Eric Gill
wrote:
(one_of_many) wrote in
news::
Now, Eric. Hold on here. I understand the OS subsystem is responsible for disc access at that level (overlap seeks/write), but are you _certain_ that CS doesn't use concurrent scratch files?
Unqualified yes. It isn't some sort of soft RAID system.
"Some sort" doesn't inspire my confidence.
I have to believe we have some technical terminology misunderstanding. I'll leave this to Chris Cox or another PS code wizard to answer. Until then, I'll assert that it is highly unlikely that CS subverts subsystem overlap seeks/writes. That would be rather diifficult to do, to say the least. It also seems unlikely that CS waits until one scratch device is full before hitting the other(s). Distributing the writes and reads across spindles makes more sense, at least to me. Anyway, I don't mind being corrected if I am wrong.
In the specific case, my Toshiba P25, I only have room for one additional physical HDD, which has to replace the battery and preculudes its use, except when tethered to the AC. My #2 workstation has RAID 0 on two 250GB HDD's and that functions nicely. To get the additional physical Scratch Disk there, I added another un-striped 250GB. With HHD costs coming down, I may add another and strip it to the third (now un-striped) 250. Only concern is whether I need to add another RAID controller, or whether mine can handle 4 HDD's in two RAID arrays.If you have that many disk do a RAD 0+1 set up. You get the speed advantage of RADI 0 and the safety of RAID 1.
Thanks for the feedback,
Hunt
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:59:19 -0500,
(one_of_many) wrote:
I'll leave this to Chris Cox or another PS code wizard to answer. Until then, I'll assert that it is highly unlikely that CS subverts subsystem overlap seeks/writes. That would be rather diifficult to do, to say the least. It also seems unlikely that CS waits until one scratch device is full before hitting the other(s). Distributing the writes and reads across spindles makes more sense, at least to me. Anyway, I don't mind being corrected if I am wrong.
You're wrong.
In article ,
com says...
:
4.) with the extreme capability of Scratch Disk utilization, is there any reason to partition the second physical drive to be used as Scratch Disk space? Doesn't seem that there is one, as far as I can find.
Dead on.
PS, now I just need to get one of those new 64EB drives!
You mean at least three for a nice striped RAID setup, right?
Yes!!! Maybe I'll try e-Bay <G>.
In article , Hecate wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:59:19 -0500,
(one_of_many) wrote:
have to believe we have some technical terminology misunderstanding.I'll leave this to Chris Cox or another PS code wizard to answer. Until then, I'll assert that it is highly unlikely that CS subverts subsystem overlap seeks/writes. That would be rather diifficult to do, to say the least. It also seems unlikely that CS waits until one scratch device is full before hitting the other(s). Distributing the writes and reads across spindles makes more sense, at least to me. Anyway, I don't mind being corrected if I am wrong.
You're wrong.
Okay. Could you direct me to the authoritative source of this info? Or do you know this because you can watch the file activity?
One down side of RAID is that if one drive dies, you lose all the data.
Unless the RAID has extra drive(s) for correction/recovery, which means more cost.
Hunt wrote:
In article ,
com says...
:
4.) with the extreme capability of Scratch Disk utilization, is there any reason to partition the second physical drive to be used as Scratch Disk space? Doesn't seem that there is one, as far as I can find.
Dead on.
PS, now I just need to get one of those new 64EB drives!
You mean at least three for a nice striped RAID setup, right?
Yes!!! Maybe I'll try e-Bay <G>.
One down side of RAID is that if one drive dies, you lose all the data. Unless the RAID has extra drive(s) for correction/recovery, which means more cost.
wrote:
One down side of RAID is that if one drive dies, you lose all the data.
That is only correct for RAID0...
Unless the RAID has extra drive(s) for correction/recovery, which means more cost.
...but if you have RAID1 it may not be as fast but doesn't cost anymore, just a different configuration.
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:55:25 -0500,
(one_of_many) wrote:
Read what Adobe says about scratch disks.
"Stuart" wrote in messagewrote:
One down side of RAID is that if one drive dies, you lose all the data.
That is only correct for RAID0...
Unless the RAID has extra drive(s) for correction/recovery, which means more cost.
...but if you have RAID1 it may not be as fast but doesn't cost anymore, just a different configuration.
The problem with RAID is that it can potentially provide a false sense of security. Yes, it does protect against drive failures, but in my experience 98% of system failures are a result of software corruption (virus attacks, bad drivers, OS or application updates etc etc). RAID doesn't protect against any of these problems. So the best overall defense is a good backup scheme such as frequent drive imaging.
Given that, the usefulness of RAID for hardware protection is greatly diminished -- if a drive fails, one can simply restore from the last image backup. But it *is* still useful for performance enhancement.
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 03:19:50 -0700, "Rick" wrote:
"Stuart" wrote in messagewrote:
One down side of RAID is that if one drive dies, you lose all the data.
That is only correct for RAID0...
Unless the RAID has extra drive(s) for correction/recovery, which means more cost.
...but if you have RAID1 it may not be as fast but doesn't cost anymore, just a different configuration.
The problem with RAID is that it can potentially provide a false sense of security. Yes, it does protect against drive failures, but in my experience 98% of system failures are a result of software corruption (virus attacks, bad drivers, OS or application updates etc etc). RAID doesn't protect against any of these problems. So the best overall defense is a good backup scheme such as frequent drive imaging.
Given that, the usefulness of RAID for hardware protection is greatly diminished -- if a drive fails, one can simply restore from the last image backup. But it *is* still useful for performance enhancement.
How long does a restore take for a 300 GB array?
"Xalinai" wrote in messageOn Fri, 2 Jul 2004 03:19:50 -0700, "Rick" wrote:
"Stuart" wrote in messagewrote:
One down side of RAID is that if one drive dies, you lose all the data.
That is only correct for RAID0...
Unless the RAID has extra drive(s) for correction/recovery, which means more cost.
...but if you have RAID1 it may not be as fast but doesn't cost anymore, just a different configuration.
The problem with RAID is that it can potentially provide a false sense of security. Yes, it does protect against drive failures, but in my experience 98% of system failures are a result of software corruption (virus attacks, bad drivers, OS or application updates etc etc). RAID doesn't protect against any of these problems. So the best overall defense is a good backup scheme such as frequent drive imaging.
Given that, the usefulness of RAID for hardware protection is greatly diminished -- if a drive fails, one can simply restore from the last image backup. But it *is* still useful for performance enhancement.
How long does a restore take for a 300 GB array?
Depends on the hardware. In many cases not much (or any) longer than it takes to rebuild one.
On 30 Jun 2004 16:22:26 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:Interesting article atIn the specific case, my Toshiba P25, I only have room for one additional physical HDD, which has to replace the battery and preculudes its use, except when tethered to the AC. My #2 workstation has RAID 0 on two 250GB HDD's and that functions nicely. To get the additional physical Scratch Disk there, I added another un-striped 250GB. With HHD costs coming down, I may add another and strip it to the third (now un-striped) 250. Only concern is whether I need to add another RAID controller, or whether mine can handle 4 HDD's in two RAID arrays.If you have that many disk do a RAD 0+1 set up. You get the speed advantage of RADI 0 and the safety of RAID 1.
Thanks for the feedback,
Hunt
--
Hecate
veni, vidi, reliqui
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 04:43:55 +0100, Hecate wrote:
On 30 Jun 2004 16:22:26 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:In the specific case, my Toshiba P25, I only have room for one additional physical HDD, which has to replace the battery and preculudes its use, except when tethered to the AC. My #2 workstation has RAID 0 on two 250GB HDD's and that functions nicely. To get the additional physical Scratch Disk there, I added another un-striped 250GB. With HHD costs coming down, I may add another and strip it to the third (now un-striped) 250. Only concern is whether I need to add another RAID controller, or whether mine can handle 4 HDD's in two RAID arrays.If you have that many disk do a RAD 0+1 set up. You get the speed advantage of RADI 0 and the safety of RAID 1.
Thanks for the feedback,
Hunt
Interesting article at
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=2101
suggests that RAID 0 in the real world offers nothing like a doubling of speed more like <5% an increase which is offset by the decrease in reliability of spreading the striping the data over two disks.