I think I've finally decided to take the plunge and replace the hard drive system in my 7 year old Dell Precision 530. Here's how my system is configured:

1) Windows XP Pro
2) two 2Ghz Xeon processors (each processor has only a single core)
3) 3 GB of RAM
4) four 18GB, 15,000rpm SCSI drives in a Raid 5 configuration (this is my C: drive)
5) external ReadyNAS 2TB Raid 5 array connected via gigabit ethernet

Because the hard drive system in the computer is comprised of four 18GB drives in Raid 5, I have a total of only 54GB available for the OS, my programs, and data. As a result I don't use it for data - all my data is stored on, and used from, the ReadyNAS. Unfortunately, even though it's connected via gigabit ethernet, the transfer speed of the ReadyNAS itself is rather slow - 20MB/sec or so. Because of this, reading and writing 500GB PSD files is painfully slow. Also, my Lightroom catalog (which is stored on my C: drive) is slooow. In Lightroom, there's a delay of 4-5 seconds for every single mouse click I make. Lightroom is so sluggish that it's a real pain to work with.

So, given all this, I'm considering getting rid of the Raid 5 system that's in the computer and replacing it with the following:

1) SATA hard drive controller
2) Fast 300GB SATA drive to hold the OS and my programs
3) The fastest 1TB SATA drive I can get. This will be my data drive
4) Fast 100GB SATA drive dedicated to the Photoshop scratch disk

Does anyone see any problems with this configuration in terms of running Photoshop and Lightroom? Although I'd be losing the RAID capability on the computer itself, I would still back up my data to the ReadyNAS and an additional external Firewire drive (for off-site storage). So I wouldn't really be losing anything in terms of backup capability and data redundancy.

I welcome all comments and suggestions.

Scott

I would use the SCSI drives (very fast) as virtual memory and PS work disk (two drives dedicated for each). Then there is no need for a very fast system drive. As these drives are not new, the probabbility of a failure is now higher, but in this usage it does not matter.

Well, that wouldn't resolve the basic problem I have in that the SCSI drives are only 18GB each. I need more space than they can provide, and I need to move 400GB of data from the slow external ReadyNAS to a fast internal, large capacity drive. And it also seems to me that putting the OS, data, and Photoshop scratch space on physically separate drives will provide the most bang for the buck.

Also, I can't really justify staying with a SCSI hard drive system as SCSI drives are much more expensive and much lower capacity than today's SATA drives. Sure, SCSI drives are faster, but for me that doesn't overcome the added expense and smaller capacity of SCSI drives.

Scott

You don't mention whether you have a dual channel scsci controller, but in either case, I'd recommend that you run a pair off the existing drives as RAID-1 - mirrored for your system drive, giving you excellent read and write performance (you won't believe the improvement over RAID-5). Use another as a swap drive for photoshop. Then add in SATA's to suit your storage needs.

In my experience a fast system drive is critical to good performance!

Unlike other drive controller technologies, scsi controller are capable of bus mastering allowing more than one stream of data to be on the controller bus at the same time. Neither ATA or SATA controllers offer this.

Finally, what L2 cache do your Xeons have? If it's below 1MB, you might just be better of going to Dual core . . . .

-John

The Xeons have a 256K cache. But at this point in time I'm not ready to buy a whole new system. So dual cores are out.

I do have a dual channel SCSI controller, but my existing SCSI drives are only 18GB - not enough to meet my current needs. So to stay with SCSI means spending more for lower capacity SCSI drives than what I can get with SATA.

Scott

Can you add a sata controller and leave the SCSI controller on board. If so then
buy 2 150GB raptors to use as Raid 1 for your system drive and system swap file then use 2 scsi drives for temporary or working data, use 2 scsi drives as ps cache drive and use your NAS as a long term storage and backup.

Tom

PS I love XEONs but you are going to get CPU bound.

Hmm... I'm not sure if my system would support both a SCSI controller and a SATA controller at the same time. I'll have to check into that. Does anyone know the answer to that?

As I said previously, I know SCSI drives are faster in terms of reading and writing than are SATA drives. BUT (and it's a very big but ) my primary consideration is dramatically increasing my storage space at a reasonable cost while at the same time gaining a speed increase over my current Raid 5 setup.

So, if I were to go with the three SATA drives as outlined in my original post, does anyone see any obvious issues or problems using such a configuration with Photoshop and Lightroom?

Scott

Your original proposal is fine.

Only thing I would do differently is to use your SCSI drives in this fashion:

2 for your Windows Pagefile in RAID 0 (striped) and then the same (the other 2 drives) for your Photoshop scratch disk.

It's only 18GB of storage (16 and a bit I guess in reality) but how much RAM are you using? You mentioned 500GB PSD files - surely you meant 500MB? If you truly meant 500GB then you need a new system and need to tell us what you're doing that's making 500GB files :-)

18GB is plenty for Pagefile and PS Scratch and 15,000 RPM SCSI in RAID 0 will be lovely and fast. XP will automatically create additional pagefile on any available HDD (starting with the one the pagefile currently resides on and then going to the OS) in the event that it runs out. This will bring your system to a screaming halt until it's done it (usually) but should never happen. I have a system with 4GB of RAM and with PS CS 3 open with multiple images including 1 x 250MB "open as smart object" with various layers added, Outlook Open, IDImager Open, WinMedia Player Open, a 3D game open and running, IE 7 open and all the other stuff that's tyically going on in the background (at boot, my system has about 15% of RAM utilised of 3.5GB available) I could still only manage to use just under 3GB of pagefile. For that reason, my pagefile is 4GB in size. If you had any concerns, since you have a dedicated drive for it, make the Pagefile a fixed 12GB in size.

In PS, you can change the file info to show you how much PS is paging out, too, and I'm sure you'd find that the 18GB stripe will be plenty.

Oh, I'd also just use a 160GB for the OS and apps, but if you want to go with 300GB there's absolutely no problem - just more space than you typically need when all you have is the OS and your apps and all data and pagefile etc is elsewhere.

I can't see why your system wouldn't support a SATA controller and SCSI controller - your BIOS will just see the SATA controller as a SCSI controller anyway.

Depending on your price point, case capacity and such, you could even consider getting 2 x 1TB drives for your data and running in RAID 1 (relatively cheap SATA RAID controllers with 2 ports are available from quality manufacturers such as Adaptec that support SATA II) giving you redundancy. This doesn't change the need to backup, but it does mean availability of data constantly even if there's a single drive failure.

The combination of the SCSI pagefile and scratch disks, freeing the pagefile from the OS drive, and bringing your data locally through the bus instead of via the network, will make your PC seem like it's 10x faster than it is now. Also, the SCSI and SATA controllers (and SATA RAID if you go that way) will transplant nicely into a new system down the track if you want to go that way (and most new quality motherboards will have various RAID controllers on them anyway, giving you more options).

Finally, take a look at http://www.techbargains.com/hottips/hottip12/index.cfm if you want to get a few more tips for improving your system performance. Also the additional links from that page. As all of the pages say, though, making ANY changes could risk crashing your system if you get it wrong (or even if you get it right) - so I disclaim any and all responsibility in the event something happens. The main secret is that if you don't understand what they're suggesting you do - don't do it.

Hope that helps!

My, it's amazing what a difference a little typo makes (GB vs. MB)! Yes, I meant to say 500MB. Thanks for catching that. And thanks for the additional comments as well - very helpful.

I like your idea of using my existing 18GB SCSI drives for the OS cache and Photoshop scratch space. I've been digging into the specifications of my system and see that I have an Ultra160 SCSI controller integrated on the motherboard. So now what I'm thinking of doing is getting a SATA-300 controller and putting two drives on it - one drive (~100GB to ~300GB) would be for Windows and programs, and the other drive would be a big 1TB drive for all my data. Then, I could put two of my existing 18GB SCSI drives on the integrated SCSI controller - one drive would be for the Windows cache file and the other would be the Photoshop scratch disk. And I'd still have two spare 18GB SCSI drives as replacements if one goes bad.

It seems this would be a cheaper solution than my original idea yet would still achieve what I want to accomplish.

Scott

Scott looks like a good solution. Since you mentioned RAID 5 originally I presumed that you had a RAID controller and that's why I suggested the 2 x RAID 0 setup because striped scratch disks (particularly at 15,000 RPM SCSI) are rather sweet.

If that's not convenient, then the setup you propose in your last is ideal and the SCSI drives will still provide excellent scratch disks at their speed.

Good luck and let us know how it all goes :-)

UPDATE - Jan. 13

Well, I finally completed the organ transplant. I've replaced my 4-drive Raid 5 array with a non-Raid setup in an attempt to speed up Photoshop and Lightroom. Just to summarize, here's what I did:

REPLACED...
1) four 18 GB, 15,000 rpm SCSI drives in a Raid 5 configuration (this was my C: drive)
2) external ReadyNAS 2TB Raid 5 array connected via gigabit ethernet that contained all my data

WITH...
1) 250 GB Sata II drive (Seagate 7200.10). Windows XP and all programs are installed on this drive.
2) 1 TB Sata II drive (Seagate 7200.11). This is now my primary data drive. The ReadyNAS is now used only for backing up the 1 TB drive.
3) Sata II drive controller (for PCI bus).
4) removed the Raid controller card and installed two of my existing 18 GB 15,000 pm SCSI drives on the motherboard's integrated SCSI controller. I put the Windows cache file on one of the SCSI drives and dedicated the other SCSI drive as the Photoshop scratch disk.


Results so far are satisfactory but not overwhelming. I'd give it a grade of B for performance and a grade of A in terms of increasing my in-system storage capacity.

Reading PSD files from the new 1 TB drive is about 33% faster than my old 4-drive Raid 5 array. I see a similar increase in writing speed. Unfortunately, Lightroom is still as slow as frozen molasses. For every mouse click there's a 2 to 5 second delay before there's any feedback or anything happens. I have 18,000 photos in my Lightroom catalog, which is locted on my new Sata drive (C: drive, the one that holds Windows and programs).

I'm puzzled why Lightroom is so sluggish. Any thoughts on this? Would moving my Lightroom catalog off the OS drive help? I have to do something. Lightroom's not usable in it's current state for me.

Forgive me for possibly being patronising, but I am guessing that the reason for the sluggish behaviour is because you are using such an old system. The Xeons were okay at the time, but are absolutely no match for newer processors. No matter how fast the new hard drives are, the CPU and mother board will limit any performance gains and the system will still struggle with todays applications.

Fast Dual core or even quad core systems are now not that expensive and together with your new hard drives would give you the performance you need.

One other thing is that you dont need to go for the very fastest processors as they will always cost disproportionately more, but go for a level or two down, the speed difference is usually small.

The system is only as fast as its slowest components which in this case is your old xeon processors.

Very true, but posssibly more of an issue is having LR run on the C drive.

Moving the Lightroom catalogue should improve performance.

It's also worth, if you haven't already, going through the tweaks from the link I posted (and the links from that site to others) - in particular MSCONFIG to turn off things that you don't need.

That should yield some performance gains, and get the most out of the system.

I'd try purging the cache and letting it rebuild. With 18,000 images, that could take overnight.

Scott,

Instead dumping money into your old Dell, I have a 3 yr old Dell Precision 470 Workstation for sale. Dual Xeon processors, 4GB RAM, 320 GB RAID 0 (dual drives), floppy, Dual Layer capable DVD Writer, and DVD/CD player (2 drives), internal fax/modem. Has PS CS, LR and MS Office and WinXP Pro SP2 installed. System is 64-bit Windows OS certified by Dell.

It works perfectly, but I made the switch to a MacPro 8-core and a MacBook Pro at the beginning of 2007. It's gathering dust, so make me an offer if you are interested.

Cheers!

Bud James
EM: ibike100@verizon.net

UPDATE - Jan. 16

Just thought I'd follow up with what I've done lately.

I moved the Lightroom catalog off the C: drive and put it on my F: drive (1 TB Seagate 7200.11 Sata disk). Lightroom performance was dramatically increased and it actually feels snappy. Of course, it could always be faster, but I'm more than satisfied with it now.

I'm also upgrading my two 2Ghz 256K Xeon processors with two 2.8Ghz 512K Xeon processors. It's not a radical jump in speed, but it's the most my motherboard will support. And besides, the price was right - $35 each on Ebay versus $750 each direct from Dell! So I'm hoping I can make this old computer last until its 10th birthday, at which time I'll most likely make the switch to a Mac!!

The increased cache on the upgraded CPUs is the best thing about your upgrade there, Scott. Sure, the 40% increase in straight processor clock is handy, but the cache increase works to improve the main area of bottle neck on any system - getting data to and from the CPU :-)

You could see up to 10-15% overall improvement in computational processing and a very slight performance increase in handling data from your drives (probably not noticeable).

The extra clock speed means extra heat. If I may suggest the following:

Ensure the processors are asbsolutely clean - free of dust, finger print marks etc - handle them with care like a wet print :-)

If they have any old thermal paste on them, it needs to be removed so you have a perfectly clean surface to apply the new paste (which you absolutely should so when refitting the heat sinks - they also have to be clean).

Take the opportunity to vacuum out any dust in the case and on the boards etc BEFORE you remove the current CPUs. Take care not to use a metal end and avoid touching anything (obviously) and have the machine disconected from power. Avoid spinning fans by use of the vacuum - it can create a charge by spinning the motor.

If the fans really need a clean, disconnect them and do it.

A lot of Dell boxes don't have the best ventillation in the world - look to see if you have capacity to add a fan (if needed) to improve air flow. Ideally, you want it coming in the front, across hard drives/optical drives etc, and then through the main body, over the main board and processor heat sinks, and then exhausted out the back. A side fan drawing air into the area of the CPU fans is good too, if possible. CPU fans are designed to suck, btw, not blow, in order to draw hot air away from teh heatsink and create a small vacuum to draw in cooler air from the surrounds in the case.

Checking the power supply fan for dust etc is also important - keeping that cool helps reduce overall case temperatures and it will draw more power with the new processors.

Hope something in there is helpful, and great to hear you're getting some speed now :-)

Oh, yeah, if you're not already using Diskeeper 8.0 I highly recommend it - the pro version is only $100- and performance increase to disk activity from always having all your drives defragged is great.

Phil, thanks for all the great tips. You're right about the heat, dust, and thermal grease. I clean out the dust and re-apply fresh grease once a year.

Interesting that you mentioned Diskeeper. I do have it (the 2008 Pro Premier version) and use it regularly to keep my C: drive defragmented. But the version of Diskeeper I have does not recognize network drives. So previous to this overhaul I was never able to defragment my main data store - the ethernet-connected ReadyNAS. Now that I have all my data on the internal 1 TB drive I'll be able to keep it defragmented and in optimal condition.

UPDATE - Feb. 8

The Final Chapter

Well, it's been a month now since I started the organ transplant, and the patient has finally been released from the hospital with a clean bill of health!

I thought the CPU upgrade was going to be relatively easy - HA! I upgraded to two 2.8GHz-512K L2-400MHz FSB Xeons from my original 2GHz-256K L2-400MHz FSB Xeons, but discovered my motherboard would not support the faster CPUs, despite being told by Dell tech support that it would. So I ended up getting a new motherboard ($50 on Ebay) and installed it. But then I found that one of the 2.8 CPUs was dead. Back to Ebay yet again, this time picking up two more 2.8GHz CPUs. I just got them today and installed them, and everything works! An added bonus with the new chips is that they support hyperthreading, which my original CPUs didn't!

So now I've maxed out the upgrade capabilities of my system. Final result: completely new hard drive system, new motherboard, new CPUs. Despite the time, money, and effort, it was worth it as it'll get me another 2-3 years on this system, at which time it'll be 10 years old and ready for replacement.

My main motivation for the organ transplant was to make Lightroom usable, and in that regard the operation was successful. Lightroom is now snappy and responsive enough that I can actually get some work done with it.