Posted by Arny Krueger on 11/05/07 19:13

"Matt" <mttmrrsn.nospamplease@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%AJXi.16619$a9.11006@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
> news:13isi10h03b8oe5@corp.supernews.com...
>> "nappy" wrote...
>>> "nappy"wrote ...
>>>> "Matt" wrote in...
>>>>> "nappy" wrote ...
>>>>>>I just built 25 of these for around $700 each. They rip. We pulled one
>>>>>>out from the render farm and made it a workstation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Asusw P5K-VM motherboards.
>>>>>> Q6600 Intel Quad Core 2.4GHZ
>>>>>> 2G DDR2-800
>>>>>> 160G Sata Drive
>>>>>> InWin MicroATX Case
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add the low profile GeForce of your choice and a 500G Drive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a few of the Dual Quad Core Intel Mac Pro Machines (8 Xeons @
>>>>>> 3GHZ) in our system and the little Asus units render at a little less
>>>>>> than 2/3 as fast as the Intel Macs. Rather than 1/2 as I expected. So
>>>>>> a pair of them at $1400 turned out to be a much better buy than the
>>>>>> Macs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Macs are for sale BTW! If ya want one.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any advantage in using the Western Digital 10,00RPM drives or
>>>>> are SATA 300 drives in RAID 0 enough?
>>>>
>>>> Just guessing here but I would think the RAID would be fine. When I
>>>> setup our raid I set it up for just under 400M/Sec. So it works for
>>>> everything.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ps.. I suspect that even at 10krpm the raid would be faster than a
>>> single drive.
>>
>> But is your application I/O-bound? or CPU-bound?
>> (or something else?)
>
>
> My application is Adobe Premiere (and various other Adobe related
> products). I'm using the 10k drives at the moment for my PD-170 footage
> instead of a RAID but with the need for additional space for HDV content,
> that approach becomes slightly more expensive. I'm considering making one
> of them my system drive in a new build and going with a RAID, but I wasn't
> sure if I could get enough speed out of one for HDV footage... I still
> haven't done all my research yet.
>
> Here are the specs on the 10k drive if anyone's interested:
> Average latency 2.99 ms
> Buffer 16 MB Cache
> Read Adaptive
> Write Yes
> Data transfer rate (buffer to host)1.5 Gb/s (maximum)3
> Drive ready time7.0 sec (average), 10.0 sec (maximum)
> Error rate (non-recoverable)<1 in 1015 bits read
> LBA support Yes
> MTBF 1,200,000 hours
> Rotational speed 10,000 RPM
>
> Seek time
> Read 4.6 ms (average)
> Write 5.2 ms (average)
>
> Track-to-track seek
> Read 0.3 ms (average), 0.6 (maximum)
> Write 0.4 ms (average), 0.75 (maximum)
> Start/stop cycles 20,000 minimum

What I don't see is

Data transfer rate (channel to media)

That's usually the sticking point for audio and video.

[Back to original message]