Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Saving takes on an SSD as long as on an HD  (Read 5311 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7648


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2013, 10:46:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

It really depends on what the bottleneck is. I seldom have seen raw disk speed as a bottleneck. If it takes PS 5 seconds to create a file it matters little if the disk can write in 0.1 or 1 second.

I usually check disk bandwith using activity monitor or just using dd: time dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile bs=1024k count=1000


bigmacpro:MasterBackup ekr$  dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile bs=1024k count=1000
1000+0 records in
1000+0 records out
1048576000 bytes transferred in 9.389418 secs (111676359 bytes/sec)

bigmacpro:OWCBD ekr$ sudo  dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile bs=1024k count=1000
Password:
1000+0 records in
1000+0 records out
1048576000 bytes transferred in 3.953733 secs (265211639 bytes/sec)

First sample 4TB HGST disk

Second sample SSD

Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: December 29, 2013, 10:51:56 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2013, 11:50:52 AM »
ReplyReply

@Steve Yes I sometimes use google translation for making less mistakes Undecided. And I think 'SAT600 Jack stand' must be 'connection'. Sorry for my bad English.
I sent you a private message for downloading the file i used to compare the time between your and my pc. The company Ikbenstil.nl who made this PC is pretty good in The Netherlands. They make according magazines the fastes and quietest computers and they always help me immediatly if I need help. This is the fourth compter they buid for me.

Yes, of course I want to configure the PC if that helps.
But where is the bottleneck? Sorry Erik, I don't understand what you are writing but I can ask tommorow the computer builder. Testing with HD tune shows very good benchmarks for de SSD >520 MB/s and 200 MB/s for the HD
And as I wrote before, copy and paste is very fast between the drives in explorer.
Logged

degrub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2013, 01:09:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Based on the system report, the Intel RST driver  and Marvell driver for raid have been updated on the ASUS support downloads ( to version 3.8.0.1106 for Intel and 1.2.0.1039 for Marvell ). It may or may not improve your system.

Re-reading the report it appears the Raided HD are on the Marvell 6Gb/s link and running at 1.5 Gb/s which is may be about  as fast as the raid 0 configured disks will transfer unless they are 10k drives. The Samsung SSD are running on the 3 Gb/s Intel PCH  link. A single Samsung can easily saturate that doing sequential transfers. If it is doing random R/W transfers, it likely will not.  A raided pair should be able to exceed that.

See what results you get from diskbench for each of your drives.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/5801/samsung-840-evo-500gb-raid-0-ssd-report/index12.html

Frank

Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 29, 2013, 02:45:20 PM »
ReplyReply

@Steve Yes I sometimes use google translation for making less mistakes Undecided. And I think 'SAT600 Jack stand' must be 'connection'. Sorry for my bad English.
I sent you a private message for downloading the file i used to compare the time between your and my pc. The company Ikbenstil.nl who made this PC is pretty good in The Netherlands. They make according magazines the fastes and quietest computers and they always help me immediatly if I need help. This is the fourth compter they buid for me.



Huib -

It's helpful to know English is your 2nd (of 3rd or 4th) language, it allows me to fill in and not take you literally. Thanks.\

I didn't get the file in the PM section.  There was no file and no link/URL.   How did you send it and in what form?

Once I get a baseline with that file I'll have an opinion on reconfiguring.  At a minimum I'd change the RAID0 on your system disk to a single SSD.  I don't see the speed increase for disk I/O worth the risk if one SSD or your RAID goes down, and I don't see it worth the increase of speed to the disk at the expense of taxing the CPU/RAM with the RAID controller.  It just doesn't add up to sound system management IMO.  Now, back before SSD's we used to do HDD's in RAID0 to gain much needed speed because HDD's were a common bottleneck, but with new SSD's this isn't nearly the problem it once was.

By freeing that SATA3/6gbps port (we call them ports, not jack stands) we now have it open for one of your SSD's currently in a SATA2/3gbps port.. but which one I don't know yet.  I'd like to work with that file first.

Let me know about that file.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7648


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 29, 2013, 06:18:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I presume that Photoshop does some processing before saving the image. So the time it takes to save the image is processing time + disk writing time. If disk writing time is short processing time will dominate.

Best regards
Erik


But where is the bottleneck? Sorry Erik, I don't understand what you are writing but I can ask tommorow the computer builder. Testing with HD tune shows very good benchmarks for de SSD >520 MB/s and 200 MB/s for the HD
And as I wrote before, copy and paste is very fast between the drives in explorer.

Logged

degrub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


« Reply #25 on: December 29, 2013, 07:49:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Sequential R/W benchmarks  are usefull for understanding how well the system will perform for actvities like streaming video. Random R/W is usually closer to normal use. Eric is right about if PS is doing a lot of processing before writing out to disk, there my be little difference in the overall time.

Just curious, how did the previous system perform with this PS operation ?

Frank
Logged
Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 30, 2013, 07:31:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Writing
Starting Create File Bench...

Created file: H:\Tijdelijk2\DiskBench1.bin
  Size: 50331648 bytes
  Time: 96 ms
  Transfer Rate: 500,000 MB/s

Created file: G:\tijdelijk\DiskBench2.bin
  Size: 50331648 bytes
  Time: 133 ms
  Transfer Rate: 360,902 MB/s
@ Frank. Thanks I already upgraded all drivers.

@ Steve You write that my builder is an idiot. Please, can you explane this?
@ Erik I also presume that Photoshop does some processing before saving the image. That should means that raid0 SSD not really helps to make you PS computer faster
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7648


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 30, 2013, 07:59:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Having an SSD as scratch drive may speed up Photoshop.

I have checked with what I have (CS5) and a 39MP TIFF at 16bits/channel. Saving it on HD was instantanious. Than I added a layer and saved it again it took perhaps 50 times longer time.

As a side not, SSDs have faster write time, but the main benefit is that they don't have a moving head. Repositioning the head takes lots of time.

Best regards
Erik


Writing
Starting Create File Bench...

Created file: H:\Tijdelijk2\DiskBench1.bin
  Size: 50331648 bytes
  Time: 96 ms
  Transfer Rate: 500,000 MB/s

Created file: G:\tijdelijk\DiskBench2.bin
  Size: 50331648 bytes
  Time: 133 ms
  Transfer Rate: 360,902 MB/s
@ Frank. Thanks I already upgraded all drivers.

@ Steve You write that my builder is an idiot. Please, can you explane this?
@ Erik I also presume that Photoshop does some processing before saving the image. That should means that raid0 SSD not really helps to make you PS computer faster
Logged

Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 808


« Reply #28 on: December 30, 2013, 08:06:19 AM »
ReplyReply

In Photoshop, saving a file is a single threaded operation. This means that it only uses one CPU core to do all the work of saving the file before it writes it to disk. This is not a hard drive vs. SSD or a disk bandwidth issue.

If you're on CS6, you can disable compression in the preferences and that should speed things up considerably. In CS5 there is a plug in available to disable compression.
Logged

Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 30, 2013, 09:30:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Sheldon.  I use Photoshop CC but that will be the same.
So, can I make the conclusion that fast disks is not very important for Photoshop?
Logged

Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 808


« Reply #30 on: December 30, 2013, 09:39:52 AM »
ReplyReply

A fast disk is important for a scratch disk, depending on how much RAM you have and how big of files you edit.
Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 30, 2013, 09:45:43 AM »
ReplyReply

In Photoshop, saving a file is a single threaded operation. This means that it only uses one CPU core to do all the work of saving the file before it writes it to disk. This is not a hard drive vs. SSD or a disk bandwidth issue.

If you're on CS6, you can disable compression in the preferences and that should speed things up considerably. In CS5 there is a plug in available to disable compression.

That's not entirely correct.

I just tested a 3.5GB file saving as a TIF.  Uncompressed to my SSD it uses multi cores, all under full utilization.  Compressed to my SSD it uses a single pegged near 100%, the others idle.  Saving to my RAID0 HDD array, both compressed and uncompressed use multi cores.
Logged

Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2013, 09:54:05 AM »
ReplyReply

 Huh I tried it on both the SSD and HD. Both use only a single core. That is according Sheldon
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 30, 2013, 01:09:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Writing
Starting Create File Bench...

Created file: H:\Tijdelijk2\DiskBench1.bin
  Size: 50331648 bytes
  Time: 96 ms
  Transfer Rate: 500,000 MB/s

Created file: G:\tijdelijk\DiskBench2.bin
  Size: 50331648 bytes
  Time: 133 ms
  Transfer Rate: 360,902 MB/s
@ Frank. Thanks I already upgraded all drivers.

@ Steve You write that my builder is an idiot. Please, can you explane this?
@ Erik I also presume that Photoshop does some processing before saving the image. That should means that raid0 SSD not really helps to make you PS computer faster

Huib -  No I did not.   I merely agreed with the sentiment of a poster who did and stated I'd choose different words to describe why certain choices were made.  As to why?  How many times do you have to read the same recommended changes or finally believe them?  Many have told you the RAID0 is at the very least ill advised, hooking up fast SSD's to SATA2 ports isn't far behind.  With all the money thrown at this system the builder couldn't find a motherboard with an adequate number of SATA3 ports?  I know they're available, but they cost a bit more.  As your builder to explain that as he spent your money.  I suspect a lot more, but this isn't the point.  The point is to get your system working optimally..    Still looking for that file in the PM section.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 30, 2013, 01:20:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I copied the specification of my Asus X79WS which is not the cheapest.
Intel® X79 chipset :
2 x SATA 6Gb/s ports (gray), gray
4 x SATA 3Gb/s port (black), blue
Support Raid 0, 1, 5, 10
Marvell® PCIe 9128 controller :
2 x SATA 6Gb/s ports (gray), navy blue
Support Raid 0, 1

No SATA2 ports and 4 x SATA3 ports
Do you know a motherboard with more SATA6 ports?
I sent the link for downloading the file in a private message but you probably didn't see it. Please look again.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 01:24:48 PM by Huib » Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 30, 2013, 05:17:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I copied the specification of my Asus X79WS which is not the cheapest.
Intel® X79 chipset :
2 x SATA 6Gb/s ports (gray), gray
4 x SATA 3Gb/s port (black), blue
Support Raid 0, 1, 5, 10
Marvell® PCIe 9128 controller :
2 x SATA 6Gb/s ports (gray), navy blue
Support Raid 0, 1

No SATA2 ports and 4 x SATA3 ports
Do you know a motherboard with more SATA6 ports?
I sent the link for downloading the file in a private message but you probably didn't see it. Please look again.

This one has (6) SATA3 ports which support (2) different onboard RAID's and (4) SATA2 ports that can be used with one of the two RAID's.  4 USB3.0 and 14 USB2 ports.  It appears x79 boards are a bit outdated, but this would get the job done for your setup.

This one has (Cool SATA3 ports (6 internal 2 external) which support (2) different RAID's and more 4 USB3.0 ports (2 internal, 2 external) and 10 USB2.0 (8 external, 2 internal)..

Gigabtyte makes several more with 8 SATA3 ports.  Check out which one best fits your needs.

This one has (Cool internal SATA3 ports and (4) SATA2's, with (Cool USB3.0 ports and (12) USB2.0 ports..   And this company (ASUS) make several more that fit your needed specs.

I found the link.  It wasn't showing in the text, but when I went to Reply w/Quote it was hiding in there.

Save to SSD with no compression  7.8s  and to a RAID1 (2x3tb) 8.2s and for fun to my Synology 1813+ 8.0s.  Let's try it with CS6:  8.0s with SSD, 8.0s with RAID1 and 8.2s to Synology 1813+.  A bit odd.. I have my memory set at 17gs with 32gb installed, so to see how much different this makes I went to 5gb used and got an 8.2 to the SSD and using 25gb 8.4s..  

Most of this time is spent processing the file, only a fraction saving it because the file is relatively small.   Curious what your times were?  Should be a great deal faster.

As far as core usage.. all 8 threads show from 10-20% usage at the most.  Nothing close to maxing out.

I should also add I haven't rebooted in days, so I'm sure leaks have slowed my system down a bit.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 05:23:46 PM by Steve Weldon » Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 636



« Reply #36 on: January 07, 2014, 10:37:17 AM »
ReplyReply



Here it is in black and white:  Your computer "expert" who sold you the machine and I presume made money doing do, did you a disservice at a minimum.  This machine needs to be reconfigured.  If you are willing to do this I'm sure the good folks in this thread can help you get it right.  If not, well.. imagine if your ship is stuck in the ice..

You are being extremely polite and diplomatic, Steve. I think many of us would apply other words to describe the "expert" who configured that Frankenstein system.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 07, 2014, 10:54:46 AM »
ReplyReply

 Undecided If anybody says these words about this system, he also have to tell what is so terrible wrong of this workstation!!!!!!!!!!!!
As far as I can see is Sheldon the only one who makes a good post  / answer in this topic.
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 07, 2014, 11:33:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Undecided If anybody says these words about this system, he also have to tell what is so terrible wrong of this workstation!!!!!!!!!!!!
As far as I can see is Sheldon the only one who makes a good post  / answer in this topic.

Wow..  I hope the members of this forum remember this statement the next time you ask for help. 


I'm starting to understand your system builder now..  Roll Eyes
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 07, 2014, 11:54:43 AM »
ReplyReply

You are right Steve. I apologize all.
But not for the PhotoEcosse and Kaeleare  who wrote very negative about the computerbuilder without writing what so wrong is. That is very easy!
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad