Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: SSD hard drive for PS scratch disk  (Read 15537 times)
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478



WWW
« on: November 14, 2008, 05:02:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I've had a Samsung 120GB SATA drive on my system for quite a while as a dedicated scratch disk for Photoshop (and a few other select programs like my RIP). I've been watching as SSD drives have come down in price as well as gone up in capacity. It's to the point where I'm willing to plunk down $385 for a 128GB SSD drive. Has anyone tried one of these, especially related to Photoshop, and do you see a worthwhile speed increase? Thanks.

Nemo
Logged

BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2008, 08:10:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: nemophoto
I've had a Samsung 120GB SATA drive on my system for quite a while as a dedicated scratch disk for Photoshop (and a few other select programs like my RIP). I've been watching as SSD drives have come down in price as well as gone up in capacity. It's to the point where I'm willing to plunk down $385 for a 128GB SSD drive. Has anyone tried one of these, especially related to Photoshop, and do you see a worthwhile speed increase? Thanks.

Nemo

Which manufacturer/model are you looking at, Nemo?
Logged
Tklimek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2008, 12:50:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I found this 128GB for $349..... ----> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820183204


Quote from: BruceHouston
Which manufacturer/model are you looking at, Nemo?
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2008, 08:59:46 AM »
ReplyReply

You should read the customer reviews on that drive.  Anandtech has some interesting benchmarks of the new intel drives compared to ones like the one you're looking at.
Logged
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2008, 11:22:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been looking at OCZ, Patriot, Ridata and Tanscend. All in the 64GB or 128GB range.
Logged

nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2008, 02:26:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I decided to bite the bullet and bought the Patriot 128GB SSD drive to use on my PC as my PS scratch disk. (It helped that there was a $70 rebate going on till the end of November, so the cost was the low $300's.) I'll let you know if I can see an appreciable difference. I know working with some of my 1Ds3 images that are enlarged to 200-300MB images that the current scratch disk really drags on the system perfromance. I'll be curious about the difference.
Logged

Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2008, 04:44:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Is it necessary to buy a 128Gb SSD? Isn't a 64 Gb not more then enough to handle even the biggest files?
Logged

nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2008, 12:03:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Good question. Yes, 64GB would probably have been enough. I also use the scratch disk as cache for my RIP programs and Bibble (which I rarely use these days). If I could figure out how to get Windows to use it as its cache, then the 128GB might really be worthwhile.
Logged

Dennishh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2008, 03:50:08 PM »
ReplyReply

According to adobe in their paper about photoshop performance the best set up is a raid 0 stripe. I use two 78gig Western Digital Raptors striped raid 0 that are very fast as the swap disk.
Logged
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2008, 12:54:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I actually use to use a RAID 0 on my system -- till it started screwing everything up (something corrupt kept me from defragging, or fully doing disk/virsus scans, doing complete surface scan CHKDSK, etc.). On top of that, performance had a marginal, real world increse, and in fact, most of the time, I seemed to take a perfroamnce hit. The best thing I did was upgrade to a single 750GB 7200 rpm drive (replacing the two 300GB RAID 0). I couldn't even clone the RAID properly for replacement. I spent a weekend searching for a DOS-based cloning program. Found one and it saved my life.

In the end, for me, I will stay far FAR away from EVER doing another RAID setup.

So, I'll see how the SSD works for my scratch disk. Hopefully, it'll give me a bit of a performance boost in the end. I'm even thinking of replacing one of my "digital wallet" 80GB drives with an SSD, if the unit works in my desktop.
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2008, 02:33:50 PM »
ReplyReply

nemo it sounds like there was something wrong with your controller or drive(s), that's not the typical experience with RAID.
Logged

Dennishh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2008, 04:03:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I have been using raid 0 set ups for years with no problems at all. Try two SAS drives, they are so fast!!!
Logged
johnchoy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2008, 12:06:12 PM »
ReplyReply

If for the fastest of scratch disk, I vote for ramdisk. A workstation with 32 Gb ram can occupied a 24 Gb ramdisk........... and that's my ideal machine

Dennishh, can you please explain more on how to set up a raid 0 of SAS. Is it simply the same set up of raid with SATA but just replacing with the SAS drive ?

Mine is just a desktop computer and not a workstation, Is it possible to utilise SAS raid setup?



Logged

Dennishh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2008, 01:02:43 PM »
ReplyReply

My motherboard supports SAS drives and has raid card built in. The best way though is to buy a SAS raid controller that in most cases will be even faster than the motherboard rout. http://www.google.com/search?q=sas+control...lient=firefox-a  Drives http://www.fujitsu.com/us/services/computi...technology.html
« Last Edit: November 27, 2008, 01:03:07 PM by Dennishh » Logged
johnchoy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2008, 02:04:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My motherboard supports SAS drives and has raid card built in.

Oh! that's mean you're using a workstation motherborad. heh heh.....really envious  

Tried a Single Adata 32 Gb SSD today and found out that a raid 0 from a pair of SATA WD raptor is faster than it.

As u'd said , I believe a raid 0 of SAS should be the fastest...........if ramdisk is omitted . SSD is still not the best for scratch disk.
Logged

Dennishh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2008, 04:37:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Yep, a tyan dual xeon with 16 gigs of memory.
Logged
Serge Ignatkin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2008, 12:39:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Nemo,

so what results did you get with SSD drive?
Logged
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 24, 2008, 01:30:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: SergeI
Nemo,

so what results did you get with SSD drive?

I've had the SSD installed for several weeks now. I'd say it's a modicum faster and more responsive than a mechanical hard drive, but I haven't noticed a HUGE increase in speed. I believe part of that is all the background crap Windows does at times -- like reindexing every bloody file on your system. I turned indexing off, but then searches took longer and Google Desktop decided it couldn't find ANYTHING. But that's beside the point.

I believe it's slightly worth the extra money paid. I find the write times to save a file after numerous changes are decreased. So, I'd cautiously recommend it.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7740



WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 25, 2008, 04:20:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: johnchoy
If for the fastest of scratch disk, I vote for ramdisk. A workstation with 32 Gb ram can occupied a 24 Gb ramdisk........... and that's my ideal machine

Pretty realistic dream actually:

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory

I would probably get those 32GB for my older 8 core MAc pro if my current 16GB could be put to good use somewhere else.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

A few images online here!
Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 25, 2008, 07:12:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I tried on mine workstation with Vista64 / 16 Gb RAM 8 core Xeon the Retouch Artist speed test with changing the RAID of the scratchdisk.
THere was only 1 second difference in making the scratchdisk Raid 0 or Raid 1 (CS4 16 bits)
In the 16 bits CS4 I saw that efficiency stays almost all the time at 100%. But the 8 bits version of CS4 needs the scratch disk much more.
Making in CS4 16 bits the file much bigger (120Mb) makes also very little difference.
So, can I concluded that CS4 16 bits hardly needs the scratch disk? Investing in more memory is much better then investing in a fast scratch disk?
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad