Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Scanning System: Dual Processor? More RAM?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
April 19, 2005 9:12:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

I am in the process of getting (buying or building) a new computer.
One of the main tasks that it will be used for is a lot of scanning of
paperwork. I want to be able to scan without slowing down other
applications I may be using. So my question is, as far as the
computer itself, what is the bottleneck for scanning? Is it the CPU,
or system RAM, both, either, neither?

In other words, which of the following would allow a lot of scanning
to be done without slowing down user applications?

1. Get more RAM
2. Get a dual processor system.
3. Get two systems, and dedicated one for scanning (and use a KVM
switch)

Currently I have two systems with KVM but both are way to old for
scanning so I am getting a new system(s).

Curious
April 20, 2005 5:16:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

Curious wrote:
>
> I am in the process of getting (buying or building) a new computer.
> One of the main tasks that it will be used for is a lot of scanning of
> paperwork. I want to be able to scan without slowing down other
> applications I may be using. So my question is, as far as the
> computer itself, what is the bottleneck for scanning? Is it the CPU,
> or system RAM, both, either, neither?
>
> In other words, which of the following would allow a lot of scanning
> to be done without slowing down user applications?
>
> 1. Get more RAM
> 2. Get a dual processor system.
> 3. Get two systems, and dedicated one for scanning (and use a KVM
> switch)
>
> Currently I have two systems with KVM but both are way to old for
> scanning so I am getting a new system(s).
>
> Curious


RAM

Jan
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 8:35:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

"Curious" <Curious@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uhsa61l4fn5uqtk07g9h166dnp540aj8mc@4ax.com...
>
>
> I am in the process of getting (buying or building) a new computer.
> One of the main tasks that it will be used for is a lot of scanning of
> paperwork. I want to be able to scan without slowing down other
> applications I may be using. So my question is, as far as the
> computer itself, what is the bottleneck for scanning? Is it the CPU,
> or system RAM, both, either, neither?
>
> In other words, which of the following would allow a lot of scanning
> to be done without slowing down user applications?
>
> 1. Get more RAM
> 2. Get a dual processor system.
> 3. Get two systems, and dedicated one for scanning (and use a KVM
> switch)
>
> Currently I have two systems with KVM but both are way to old for
> scanning so I am getting a new system(s).
>
> Curious

More RAM (minimum 512 MB), A large (greater than 40 GB) and fast (7200 RPM)
Hard drive.
Two systems.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--
Related resources
April 21, 2005 2:29:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:35:37 GMT, "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Curious" <Curious@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:uhsa61l4fn5uqtk07g9h166dnp540aj8mc@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> I am in the process of getting (buying or building) a new computer.
>> One of the main tasks that it will be used for is a lot of scanning of
>> paperwork. I want to be able to scan without slowing down other
>> applications I may be using. So my question is, as far as the
>> computer itself, what is the bottleneck for scanning? Is it the CPU,
>> or system RAM, both, either, neither?
>>
>> In other words, which of the following would allow a lot of scanning
>> to be done without slowing down user applications?
>>
>> 1. Get more RAM
>> 2. Get a dual processor system.
>> 3. Get two systems, and dedicated one for scanning (and use a KVM
>> switch)
>>
>> Currently I have two systems with KVM but both are way to old for
>> scanning so I am getting a new system(s).
>>
>> Curious
>
>More RAM (minimum 512 MB), A large (greater than 40 GB) and fast (7200 RPM)
>Hard drive.
>Two systems.

I agree with the RAM, but I'd go with one gig. That depends on how
many images you have in memory at a time. Without enough ram the
system will start page file swapping and that will *really* slow it
down.

I can't imagine a 40 Gig HD, but not many have as many photos as I do
currently and even with a good backup system I lost a bunch.
I use a Nikon LS-5000 ED scanner which feeds Photoshop CS.
I use either Nikon Scan, or VueScan. Both work well and both their
faults, but both have their place.

As for two systems: They have their good points and bad points.
I do not like scanning on one and processing on another. I prefer to
scan directly into the processing program with scratch and dust
removal taken care of in the scanning process. If there is a problem
I can immediately go back and redo that negative or slide.

OTOH, with two machines, post processing "can be" faster when done on
a different machine. That is, if you are using both machines at the
same time. I run a lot of apps on both machines and find that the way
they are configured works well for me.

I'm using a Nikon D70 and an old Oly E20N for digital while I use both
an F4S and F8008S for 35 mm.

Computer wise this one is a 3.4 Gig, 64-bit Athlon with one meg cache.
It has 2 Gigs of dual 400 MHz DDR RAM and three 7200 RPM EIDE HDs
totaling 570 Gigs.

The one to my right is a 3.2 Gig Athlon with one gig of RAM, a 400 Gig
SATA RAID, and three 7200 RPM EIDE ATA drives totaling 700 Gig and
soon to go over one terabyte.

The computer in the shop is the slow one and is used for back-ups and
storage across a gigabit Cat-5e network. I tried wireless, but it is
still far too slow. Maybe when the next generation comes out.

All have the new, dual layer DVD/CD R/W drives. I use both Roxio and
Nero. I back up scans and digital photos on two machines and make
dual back-ups on DVDs with one copy in the shop and one in here.
Still, due to my own mistakes I have lost photos. Unfortunately they
were from the digital cameras and could not be re scanned.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>--
>CSM1
>http://www.carlmcmillan.com
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 3:02:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

I would have thought the latest SCSI being involved with firstly the scanner
(faster transfer), & then on to HD (faster transfer) or even the latest SATA
HD.
Of course memory is essential but I would suspect the transfer to be the
bottle neck especially if doing high definition scans. (20 to 100 megs etc)
I must admit I don't know a lot about SCSI but how about asking a similar Q
in the SCSI groups?
comp.periphs.scsi




"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:txv9e.738$yd7.589@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Curious" <Curious@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uhsa61l4fn5uqtk07g9h166dnp540aj8mc@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> I am in the process of getting (buying or building) a new computer.
>> One of the main tasks that it will be used for is a lot of scanning of
>> paperwork. I want to be able to scan without slowing down other
>> applications I may be using. So my question is, as far as the
>> computer itself, what is the bottleneck for scanning? Is it the CPU,
>> or system RAM, both, either, neither?
>>
>> In other words, which of the following would allow a lot of scanning
>> to be done without slowing down user applications?
>>
>> 1. Get more RAM
>> 2. Get a dual processor system.
>> 3. Get two systems, and dedicated one for scanning (and use a KVM
>> switch)
>>
>> Currently I have two systems with KVM but both are way to old for
>> scanning so I am getting a new system(s).
>>
>> Curious
>
> More RAM (minimum 512 MB), A large (greater than 40 GB) and fast (7200
> RPM) Hard drive.
> Two systems.
>
> --
> CSM1
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com
> --
>
>
April 21, 2005 5:14:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:02:09 +0930, "BruceM" <bruce@@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I would have thought the latest SCSI being involved with firstly the scanner
>(faster transfer), & then on to HD (faster transfer) or even the latest SATA
>HD.

The Nikon LS5000 ED is one of the fastest scanners at roughly 20
seconds per scan. Adding ICE will not quite double that and I leave
ICE on almost all the time for both slides and negatives.

This is with USB2. Virtually all the new scanners use either USB2
although I think there are some using fire wire which is faster than
USB2.

>Of course memory is essential but I would suspect the transfer to be the
>bottle neck especially if doing high definition scans. (20 to 100 megs etc)

A 4000 dpi scan of a 35 mm negative or slide is in the 60 megabyte
range when using 8 bit color depth and 120 some at 16 bit.

Your main bottlenecks will be
1. RAM
2. CPU speed
3. HD storage space.

Without enough RAM the system will page file swap. I've found an
absolute minimum is 512 Meg with one Gig being preferable.

*Probably* anything faster than a 2 Gig CPU will work fine at present,
but the image processing programs are getting larger all the time and
take more number crunching. This is one of the most CPU intensive
operations you will find outside of gaming.

HD space. With 60 meg images you never seem to have enough.
I/O doesn't usually seem to be a problem. One system here uses a 400
Gig (2, 200 gig) spanned and striped SATA RAID. The other uses EIDE
ATA drives. The images are kept on a different drive than the
programs. While the cache is on a third.

Don't forget a good archival system.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm might be of some help.

So it all breaks down to a fast CPU with plenty of on board cache,
lots of fast RAM, lots of HD space, and a well organized storage and
naming system with good back-up.

>I must admit I don't know a lot about SCSI but how about asking a similar Q
>in the SCSI groups?

I rarely see SCSI mentioned with scanners any more.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>comp.periphs.scsi
>
>
>
>
>"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:txv9e.738$yd7.589@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Curious" <Curious@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:uhsa61l4fn5uqtk07g9h166dnp540aj8mc@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> I am in the process of getting (buying or building) a new computer.
>>> One of the main tasks that it will be used for is a lot of scanning of
>>> paperwork. I want to be able to scan without slowing down other
>>> applications I may be using. So my question is, as far as the
>>> computer itself, what is the bottleneck for scanning? Is it the CPU,
>>> or system RAM, both, either, neither?
>>>
>>> In other words, which of the following would allow a lot of scanning
>>> to be done without slowing down user applications?
>>>
>>> 1. Get more RAM
>>> 2. Get a dual processor system.
>>> 3. Get two systems, and dedicated one for scanning (and use a KVM
>>> switch)
>>>
>>> Currently I have two systems with KVM but both are way to old for
>>> scanning so I am getting a new system(s).
>>>
>>> Curious
>>
>> More RAM (minimum 512 MB), A large (greater than 40 GB) and fast (7200
>> RPM) Hard drive.
>> Two systems.
>>
>> --
>> CSM1
>> http://www.carlmcmillan.com
>> --
>>
>>
>
Related resources
!