Please review this build

[dawgma]

This is my "beta" build. A lot of research went into the 'alpha' stages... and if I get some good feedback from this thread, I expect to have a Release Candidate real soon!

This system is primarily a Photoshop workstation for a home office. I would like to be able to push Photoshop as hard as I can... this explains the large quantities of RAM and the large RAID-0 array. Also... I just know I'm going to want to get into some of those upcoming DX10 games... hence the 8800GTS.


Here's the build:

CPU
C2D E6600 $320

A simple choice. I may overclock it to 3GHz. Photoshop is able to use 4 cores, but only during certain tasks. As far as I know, 2 cores is optimal.

GFX CARD
XFX 8800GTS 320MB $300

I would like to have a DX10 card. This is the cheapest they get!

RAM
2 x 2GB G.SKILL DDR2-800 (5-5-5-15) $400
2 x 1GB G.SKILL DDR2-800 (5-5-5-15) $140

Photoshop supports a maximum of 6GB of RAM with 64-bit Win XP. I would rather have lots of cheap RAM instead of a few sticks of high performance RAM. Photoshop uses RAM as a scratch disk... and even the slowest RAM is faster than the fastest hard drives.

Currently my scratch disk usage is usually between 2-4GB.

MOTHERBOARD
ASUS P5N32-E SLI Plus ATX LGA775 Nforce 650i $130

Nothing fancy, but I think it supports all of my hardware choices and it has what I need to OC an E6600.

STORAGE
1 x 74GB WD Raptor (OS drive) $160
4 x 250GB WD Raid Edition (RAID-0 data drives) $320
2 x 500GB SpinPoint T Series (RAID-0 backup drives) $270

After spending more time researching RAID than I ever wanted to... I've decided against setting up any data redundancy with a RAID array (such as RAID-01). I believe I get better performance and more storage with less disks in this arrangement.

I don't need to have my data backed up on-the-fly (as it would in a mirrored set)... I can run nightly backups instead.


1 x HighPoint RocketRAID 2300 PCI Express SATA II Controller Card $120

The RAID card is just for the 4 data drives. I don't mind using the on-board controller for the backup drives.


1 x GIGABYTE i-RAM $125
4 x 1GB G.SKILL Value DDR-400 (3-4-4-8 ) $270

I like the idea of using the i-RAM as an OS drive. I will be installing multiple operating systems (mostly on the 74GB Raptor), but I want to install my main drive (64-bit Win XP) on the i-RAM. I realize it's risky to install your OS on volatile storage... but I plan on taking bi-weekly images of the OS in case the i-RAM loses power.

I realize it is an expensive implementation... but I think the performance gains are profound. You can try as hard as you can to create the fastest hard drive arrangement in the world, but your still not going to boot into windows quicker than 20 seconds. But with the i-RAM you can do a restart in under 10 seconds... from splash screen to desktop in 3 seconds. Browsing folders, loading thumbnails, caching web pages and switching applications are instantaneous. This is the performance I've always longed for... and I'm willing to pay for it unless someone has a strong argument against it.

Wouldn't you want to have what's in these videos? Install XP in less than a minute? Yeah.

PSU
620W ENERMAX Liberty ELT620AWT ATX12V $150

Is this enough power?

CASE
I'm going to stuff all this in this attractive LIAN LI ATX Mid Tower $220

TOTAL $2805



Overall I think this is an amazing build. But as you can see it comes at a price... I would be interested in brining the cost below $2500 if possible.

Perhaps there is something I can do with the CPU/Motherboard/RAM/RAID Controller arrangement I've chosen (currently $1100 for those components). I did some moderate research into server boards that have 6 DIMM slots (to avoid 2MB RAM sticks), 8 SATA II connections (to avoid the RAID Card), and I looked briefly at the Xeon processors... but I was not able to come up with a combination that showed significant savings over what I have now.

Well... let me know if there is anything I can/should change.

 

[alcattle]

Well... let me know what you think!

WOW

 

[photographer]

1) You never, EVER run RAID 0 on your backup drives. Also I'd recommend using external drives for backing up. See :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822154106

2) Swap the 250's for 320's. The 320's have proven to be more reliable.

3) Yes, the PSU is certainly plenty. I ran your config through the PSU Engine at http://extreme.outervision.com/PSUEngine which states that you need a PSU capable of delivering 420W to support the system with a 100% TDP which I doubt you'll hit very often unless you do a lot of batch processing.

 

[dawgma]

1) You never, EVER run RAID 0 on your backup drives. Also I'd recommend using external drives for backing up.

I don't see the problem. Essentially, both arrays are backups to one another. However, I will be accessing the 4-disk array most of the time because it is faster.

If a disk failed in either array, I would just swap in a new one and rebuild the array manually. That's not a big problem, is it? I like the idea of my "backup drives" running at least 2x speed... so the nightly backups are done faster.

2) Swap the 250's for 320's. The 320's have proven to be more reliable.

I have a problem doing this because it means increasing my cost over the original estimate. I would like to move in the other direction.

Also... people seem to talk about RAID failures like they happen every week. In all honesty, how likely am I to experience a failure in the next 3-4 years? Maybe once? Failure rates are measured in hundreds of thousands of hours. 4 disks will increase the failure rate 4x... but the overall MTBF would still be over a decade. By that time (in 3-4 years actually) I will most likely have moved to a newer system.

--------------------------------------------

Could anyone else suggest a more cost-effective arrangement of parts than my original list? Keep in mind that:

1) Storage does not necessarily have to be 1TB... it could range from 700GB to over a TB if the new arrangement is cheaper.

2) I don't really care about how fast my RAM is... just as long as I have a lot of it. It's more important that I use RAM for my Photoshop swap file instead of the hard disk.

2) Can someone suggest an alternative cpu/motherboard/ram arrangement that uses Xeons? The new arrangement cannot have a slower cpu, however - the Xeon chip would have to be equivalent or better. I personally could not figure out the Xeon chips... like how they are different from C2D and will this make a difference in my Photoshop system. There would also need to be a reliable upgrade path for the cpu within the next 2-3 years. (whether that means a dual socket board, or something that supports quad, I dunno).

 

[_path_finder]

Well everything is great but I can't but agree with photographer, storing backups on RAID is not a great thought indeed. I think then it comes for backup the most important thing is reliability but not the speed.

 

[photographer]

If a disk failed in either array, I would just swap in a new one and rebuild the array manually. That's not a big problem, is it? I like the idea of my "backup drives" running at least 2x speed... so the nightly backups are done faster.

Whatever. It's going to be done overnight so I don't see the hurry. I assumed that you were considering this for a business but obviously I was mistaken.

Also... people seem to talk about RAID failures like they happen every week. In all honesty, how likely am I to experience a failure in the next 3-4 years?

It depends on many variables. Power, temp. fluctuations, humidity, drive qualities, drive read/writes, and a whole lot more. Of course the controller is another weak link. Note that I haven't seen any studies showing that any of the PCI/PCI-E controllers are any better in throughput or durability when compared to the onboard controllers. If I were running RAID (and I'm definitely not, even though I have 6 hard drives), then I'd be running RAID5. RAID10 in your case though I think that's a little extreme for a home gaming system/image box.

Maybe once? Failure rates are measured in hundreds of thousands of hours. 4 disks will increase the failure rate 4x... but the overall MTBF would still be over a decade. By that time (in 3-4 years actually) I will most likely have moved to a newer system.

I'd suggest you learn a few more things about computers. Start here :

http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/perf/qual/specMTBF.html

How about running 3X320's in RAID5 with a 500GB external backup drive ? Just backup the data files and don't worry about the OS.

 

[dawgma]

I assumed that you were considering this for a business but obviously I was mistaken.

in your case... a home gaming system/image box.

Do I sense some attitude here? Or do you not consider digital imaging to be "work"? I mentioned right at the start that this is mainly a Photoshop workstation for a home office. Do you know how important fast data access is for Photoshop? If not... why are you making any suggestions about my storage arrangement?

Just so you know, I had considered RAID-5, RAID-01 and RAID-05 for a few weeks before finally deciding against them. Why? Because I demand a large volume of storage, the read/write performance of more than 2-disks... but I also have a limited budget. My goal is to achieve the speed of about 4 disks.

Now, you can roll your eyes and say that this arrangement provides me with more performance than I could ever use... but I've seen the difference - and I don't simply mean I've read a few benchmarks online. I have witnessed what it is like to perform digital imaging tasks on 2, 4, and 6 disk RAID-0 arrays. The performance gains are phenomenal at 4+. The files I work with are enormous. From 100MB - 2GB. This kind of performance is necessary. It is not superfluous.

How about running 3X320's in RAID5

Holy smokes. Never recommend a 3-disk RAID-5 as a storage solution again for applications that demand fast data access. Sure, the read performance of RAID-5 is good, but write performance is just terrible. Write speeds are more important than read speed in Photoshop. The overhead of the parity calculations for RAID-5 is enormous, and I would have to purchase many many disks to get the write performance of 4-disks in RAID-0. RAID-5 is not a sensible option.

storing backups on RAID is not a great thought indeed

It's going to be done overnight so I don't see the hurry

Alright... I will look at alternative arrangements for the backup drive. But the two of you haven't been very convincing. I still don't see what the big deal is about backing up to a RAID-0 array. If the "backup" array dies, I still have my data drives.

Single 750GB or 1TB drives are way more expensive than getting 2 x 400GB or 2 x 500GB drives. This also makes the backup drive twice as expensive to replace if it fails (versus replacing a single drive).

----------------------------------------

But I would rather not dwell on this issue... my mind is pretty much made up in this regard. I've done a lot of research on it... I'm not rushing in head-first... I know what I'm talking about and I feel confident with my choice of hard drive arrangements. Unless someone can present a convincing argument otherwise, I don't see this changing.

I would be more interested if someone could suggest some cost-effective changes to my original build. That would be helpful.

 

[photographer]

Do I sense some attitude here? Or do you not consider digital imaging to be "work"?

Too much work in fact. I'll stick with film.

I mentioned right at the start that this is mainly a Photoshop workstation for a home office.

I don't play games on my workstations just like I don't use my work cameras for recreational photography.

Do you know how important fast data access is for Photoshop?

Yeah I've used Photoshop a few times.

Just so you know, I had considered RAID-5, RAID-01 and RAID-05 for a few weeks before finally deciding against them. Why? Because I demand a large volume of storage, the read/write performance of more than 2-disks... but I also have a limited budget. My goal is to achieve the speed of about 4 disks.

OK. If you think that arrangement is going to be the best then go for it. Personally I'd run RAID5 if running a RAID at all.

Now, you can roll your eyes and say.....

Having been in computers since 1980 and been a photographer since 1987, I think I know a few things about both. I'm aware of the data transfer capabilities of RAID0 and the performance cost of running a RAID5.

Holy smokes. Never recommend a 3-disk RAID-5 as a storage solution again for applications that demand fast data access. Sure, the read performance of RAID-5 is good, but write performance is just terrible. Write speeds are more important than read speed in Photoshop. The overhead of the parity calculations for RAID-5 is enormous, and I would have to purchase many many disks to get the write performance of 4-disks in RAID-0. RAID-5 is not a sensible option.

Depends on how valuable your time is I suppose. As you noted earlier most of the work in Photoshop is performed in RAM. Saving the file to a RAID5 shouldn't be a concern unless you're working with files well over 500MB.

But I would rather not dwell on this issue... my mind is pretty much made up in this regard.

Okey dokey !