How to treat a SCSI - any different than SATA? (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Hi, Chuck!

There were probably many options at
my disposal. I chose the Workstation
I did because technically I wasn't going
for a server -- I was looking for something
better than a home computer.

I am not familiar with Windows server 2003.
As far as speed is concerned is it faster
than Windows XP?

Since my Dell is going to be used mostly
as a home computer (storing photos, playing
MP3s) I would suspect Windows XP still has
its advantages as being very media "friendly"
to home users.

 

[ChuckSolo]

Ronald,

Server 2003 is basically identical to XP Professional although it has all the networking components and horsepower to fill a file server role in a LAN environment. All the same software that runs on XP home, will run on 2003 server. A server, by default, is best at storage and sharing of large data files, images, spreadsheet data and databases. You can install any of the media apps indiginous to XP and even share them over the LAN. I was just curious because you basically had them build you a server. Typically, Dell charges way, way more for someone customizing a PC like you did as opposed to just buying a server from the get go. Also, all the disk drives in a server running on a RAIDD, by design, can be plugged in and out of the machine even while it is running. Should one inadvertantly fail, you can unplug it and plug in a new one and you are good to go, provided that you are "mirroring" the drives (a good idea in an environment like yours). Being in my position at work, I have a chance to see the latest and greatest stuff and I can tell you that a Dell server that can host up to 50-100 users at a time would probably cost you less than what you are paying for your custom workstation, and be more efficient. Many people are afraid of the word "server." Keep in mind that ANY PC can be used as a "server." A machine dedicated to that role though has software and hardware enhancements that allow it to share information quickly and securely over a network. As for Server 2003 being faster than XP, it has to be if it is being asked to deliver files to "client" machines.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Chuck,

Just priced a server on Dell's site with
basically the same configuration. It was
a good few hundred dollars more expensive.

The small business edition of Windows Server
2003 was $500 alone.

 

[jeff.m]

you would only have needed standard edition anyways, not small business. but, server2003 has a LOT less support for drivers especially on hi end video and sound cards b/c that's not typically what a server would be used for. the server OS isn't optimized for playing music videos. it's built for serving data. i really doubt you'd be setting up a domain with more than 5 computers at your house. XP pro is really superior for what you're going to be using the computer for IMO. hot swappable drives are good and all, but again, i don't think they're necessary for what you're going to be doing. if you're getting hot swappable drives then you might as well go all the way to raid-5. and you don't really want to do that.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Whatever price I quoted was the cheapest
Windows server package they had.

I understand the advantage of running a
server with that software, but as Jeff stated,
XP will the drivers I need and all the media
capabilities I need.

Thanks for all the suggestions thus far.

 

[ChuckSolo]

Well you may be right, I guess I am used to getting pricing on more than one server at a time. The last servers we bought included the OS at no charge. My main purpose in responding to your thread was that you basically had them build you a server confuguration so I was just curious as to why you didn't just order one. BTW, if this is going to be a simple home PC, why would you even want a RAIDD? I guess I tend to look at things from an IT perspective on an enterprise level and not so much a home user's aspect. And you do know that you CAN get XP with a server right? Also, I believe that the extra few hundred dollars they would charge is because a server has a more robust power and cooling source than the normal PC. With those dual Xeon processors, make sure that you keep that thing cool!!!!

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I wanted a SCSI drive for the 10,000 RPM access time.

I originally went with a 300GB single drive.

Members of this and other forums urged me to
go with dual SCSI drives in a raid setup. I was
told it would be faster.

 

[Chris]

What I do wonder is what apps you will have that will see the beenfit of dual processor. While XP Pro will take advantage of it at the OS level, at that point, you're talking a very small overall impact. The biggest benefit is with applications that specifically take advantage of multiple processors. Even in an ideal situation, you're increase isn't twice as fast, rather about 144% of standard (that's if -all- running apps assume multiprocessor efficiencies with none using SSE).

This is largely because of the fact that unlike Opteron based setups, Intel's memory controller, even though it is DDR2, is seperate of the CPUs, therefore, the CPUs share a common data bridge.

No doubt about it, Ron, it will be a very nice PC. But a 3.6G P4 or a 3800+ AMD will run faster in most applications you're talking about because they are not natively written for multi-processor design (example: you'll get almost no benefit in things like ITunes, LAME, and especially programs like WindowBlinds, which not only takes no advantage of multi-processors, but because it impacts at the kernal level on WinXP Pro, it lowers XP Pro's multi-processor effeciencies).

I'm not saying this to be a downer, just wanting to make sure you realize what you're getting into. Yes, your SCSI RAID0 will be fast (and then, when a drive dies, or goes out of synch and you lose all you data, you'll be unhappy and that will be the best "speed enhancement" of your PC, giving you a great throughput of incoming data.. but realize, the E7525 isn't going to access the U320 card through a PCI-Express x10 slot, or even a true PCI-X device, so full throughput is faster then the 133Mhz bus that PCI-X will provide it, so you get clipped there.. so it will be faster then SATA, but not as blindingly faster as you'd think.. (also, you're boot time will be slower, not faster, because upon each boot your RAID will have to initialize first a ROM from a PCI device, and second, it will verify the RAID). Once it's initialized though, this sestup (raid SCSI) will be faster then anything else out there, especially in moving data from drive to drive around, for video editing and large file move purposes, it will be the cat's meow. I just noticed you mentioned boot time, and that will be the area it really doesn't help you at all.

I'm betting your boot time will be significantly slower then a standard PC.

Just a heads up

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Chris,

That is a bit of a downer.

I don't know what to think anymore.

I know I didn't want a plain computer like
I have had for years. I already have a P4
at 3.06GHZ and going to P4 3.60 doesn't seem
to be a huge increase.

I started thinking of going with an ALIENWARE
and an AMD-FX55 processor, but those systems are
made for gaming, and well, I am just not a gamer.

What it all boils down to is that I want a
POWER PC. I don't want to go Mac, but I want
something that high-end computer users would go
for in the PC line --- a dual-processor workstation.

You are actually the very first person that has
told me that this system might be slower than a
normal desktop (especially in boot-up). I respect
the honesty, and I believe you are telling me the
truth.

Really, besides going Mac, what were my other
options? I want a system I can load two dozen
programs on at once and not feel a hint of
sluggishness. What other system would have done
it just as effectively?

I may have till Monday to cancel the Dell I have
on order and scramble for another Dell system. I
just want to be certain that I'm making a mistake
going with this configuration.

 

[Chris]

Well, I just want to say: while boot time will be slower, while you are in windows, you will have a great advantage with that drive setup. But the initialization time on any RAID form does take a small hit; it's a smaller performance gap with SATA because it's integrated into the southbridge, slightly longer with an external device (like SCSI) because it has to initialize the BUS, then the ROM, then the RAID first, before boot continues.

Once you are inside windows, your performance with multiple apps on this will be very good; but if none of them natively support multi-processors, your best case scenario is roughly a ~20% improvement over a single Xeon 3.2G (which would mean, in many cases, apps would be faster with a single 3.6G instead of 2xXeons)

Because Xeons share the same common memory pool, they have some advantages and disadvantages. For encoding applications that do use multiprocessors (Aavid, Adobe Premiere, etc.) you'll get a nice improvement (about 40%).

I think what you really need to do is come up with the 10-12 apps you're going to use on a daily basis, that you want to have loaded up all the time. Using a E7525 chipset on your MB, you get some good advantages and a few disadvantages, but you may either see all of one/none of the other or vice versa.. a lot of it depends on what you expect to do.

My gut feeling tells me, unless you come back with a few very specific apps, if you're just doing daily work in XP Pro, the big benefits of dual Xeons won't come into play.. and something like an FX-55 or a P4 3.8G would be faster for you in most applications.

This is, without seeing your app list, just a basic idea.

I do not want to turn you away from SCSI in general, though.. I also have a rig in my house that is SCSI-U320. However, I don't want you thinking boottime is going to be lightening fast. Dell is basically using an NCD-T board with an Adaptec U320 controller. And even with their new logic, you're still talking about an extra 20-30 seconds onto boot time before your drives even spin up to be read.

If you are committed to the Dual Processor workstation, this is a good one, but I'm struggling to think of what advantage for the apps I think you're running you'll get. If you were to tell me you ran SolidWorks at your house, or Aavid.. or you were serving SQL, I'd tell you it's a lock. But I just don't think that's what you're after. And if one of your big apps is something like Internet Explorer or Firefox with multiple windows, you're getting no advantage (at all) from multiple processors, as they aren't natively multithreaded and the OS will only push overhead..

Anyway, let's figure out what apps you are using.

 

[KenLeBlanc]

OK, here are 2 points.

1. In my opinion you shouldn't be concerned about boot time. Leave your computer on 24 hours, 7 days a week. XP is so stable that it doesn't need to be rebooted. Once you get all your apps on it, there should be no need to reboot. My work computer was on for 3 months without a reboot and it was running fine. Only reason to shut down would be to save power but if you can afford a PC like that I'm guessing you aren't concerned with a few dollars of electricity.

2. Don't tell someone stuff that makes them feel bad about a recent purchase. He's excited about his purchase and he should be.

 

[ChuckSolo]

Ron,

Chris is making valid points. The dual processors was another aspect of your setup that was making me wonder about your choices. In a client/server environment and if you were running say an Oracle Database (that can take advantage of dual processors), then I could see the dual setup, but Chris is right, most of your off the shelf software isn't gonna take advantage of the dual processor setup. The RAIDD is definately gonna take time to boot up. Even in a server the RAIDD takes a while to initialize. When up though, it screams. You do know that there are drives besides SCSI that will do 10,000 RPM right? Ron, I can see that you want a computer that will be out of the ordinary and have a certain "WOW" factor and believe me I think what you want is what you want. Being an IT professional though, and seeing you as an "end" user, I really think you are going way, way overboard. A really fast processor, a very, very high end sound/video card combo, fast drives(HDD, CD,DVD, etc.) and scads of RAM (anything over 4 gigs though is not going to be utilized very efficiently if at all), and a really BIG monitor, are what you really need. Remember, we are still only talking a PC here. And you are right, going from a 3.0 to a 3.6 GHz processor isn't going to show you much. I've been in the IT game since 1981 and you can only go so far in upgrading a PC until the cost/benefit advantages really drop off sharply. As a strong PC (NOT WINDOWS) advocate I really see that you do indeed need the strongest MAC (gulp) you can afford. In the graphics world they still rule.

 

[Chris]

While I generally agree with that, and try to point out the highlights. However, when I look at what someone is trying to do, I think it's a disservice to not be honest. Ron is about to spend a lot of money with very set goals. I see what Ron is going into, and one of the worst things about a large purchase is quick "buyers remorse".. that is to say, I want him to understand all the positives (and there are plenty) as well as to make sure he has expectations in line with what he's buying.

I know this sucks in a sense (I always hate it when I post in say, the hardware forum "hey, bought the Denon 3805" and people immediately post "it sucks".

However, in this case, it's not that at all.. this machine, as configured will be very, very fast. However, dependant on his apps list, he may find himself much better off to get a single Xeon 3.6G and save the money vs. a dual 3.2.

Ron has been very forthcoming posting all of the options he's looked at and why. As to his search for something that will open apps breathtakingly fast, a RAID-0 configuration @ 10k U320 will definitely do that. But as to his boot time (I concur with you, just leave it running; I haven't rebooted my prime PC in two weeks, only for updates) I think you're better off knowing as to where you get the advantage (once you're inside of windows) rather then having high expectations.. if the first time you turn on the PC and it takes a while to load, you immediately start out thinking something is wrong; in this case, I think it's important Ron be aware that it doesn't mean anything is wrong with his PC, that's the nature of the game, and the benefit will come into play later.

I always feel it's better to let people understand the technology they are buying. Not as a way to shoot it down; I've never found any system without some pros/cons.. but so that when they get it, the understand it's strengths and weaknesses. Ron's configuration will be lightening fast in data transfers; the dual processor will definitely benefit any apps he uses that are designed for it, and it will handle basic tasks better then what a lot of the people here on the forum use for desktops.

But, when I see someone post that they are buying this with expectations of faster WindowBlinds and quick boot times, I know that when they run this machine the first time, they might say "OK, I'm not sure where the benefit is..". This is a big money decision; checking off of Dell's website, I'm seeing about ~$4k. So, you're buying a box using the Dell PERC controller, which has one of the longest boot times in the business, (although it's windows performance is incredible, and it's 2k3 Server drivers are exceptionally good; as well as Linux support) and you post that one of your concerns is quick boot times.. More then that, you've got some items listed here that just don't seem to fit what he's after.. the Nvidia card in question here (at $450) is a fantastic, point accuracy card for OpenGL acceleration; it's what we roll out in systems designed for MasterCam and Camworks, etc. where accuracy is important. From a CAD point of view, it's genious. From a home user point of view, not so hot.. The QuadraFX 1400 is a part comparable to a Nvidia 5950 card, with a better accuracy placement driver and logic; for simple desktop use, a card like a 6600GT is almost twice as fast at about 1/3 the cost.

I debated today as to whether or not I'd say anything; but I've known Ron for 8 years now, and I remember years ago when he looked for something similar. I just felt that it's good to just offer the information so he understands what it is he's buying so he can say "this is the big benefit."

I'm not saying "oh, this is bad" because it's not, it's a screamer of a machine for the right apps. I'm just looking at his expecations, and wondering if he's aware of what the realities are. What Ron has put together is about exactly the workstation configuration we recommend for our CAD clients.. it is incredible in that application, and I do mean incredible. Solidworks? Brilliant. MasterCam? Genious. But from Ron's descriptors in this thread as well as the two others he has participated in, I don't think he's doing CAD, and I think the applications he's after will not benefit him as much.

We go through tens of thousands of PCs a week where I contract with, and with my own client base, we do everything from movie studio work to CAD design to just home usage for execs, etc. I'm not trying to say "this is terrible" I'm just saying "Ok, does this really fit what you are trying to do" and I'm not so sure.

 

[Mike Voigt]

I remember some apps allowed you to set the processor number you wanted them to run on. Is it perhaps possible to split the load of programs between processor by giving them some sort of extension, or using a batch file to run it?

I used to have a dual processor system, and like Chris said, there was little benefit. Dual P3-450s; a single P3-550 was faster... and the 2.4 I have been running is much faster still...

I also agree with the statement of running it 24/7. I run Win2K, and it is steady as a rock. I have been forced to reboot perhaps half a dozen times in 3 years... so maybe once every 6 months.

More importantly, if you're going to run any system 24/7, make sure to get a good UPS. Then set up the software necessary to shut down the system more or less gracefully...

Mike

 

[Patrick Sun]

I don't really care all that much about boot times, but it's because I simply leave my PCs on all the time (except if I'm home when a storm comes through town). I rarely reboot my PC unless I absolutely have to do so (like installing updates that require rebooting, but that's very seldom for me).

 

[Chris]

You mean setting processor affinity.

Well, in WinNT 4.0 & 2000, this was a matter of different utilities and options; or a program called SMP Seesaw.

However, under XP, the option does exist to set affinity specifically for a processor. HOWEVER, Microsoft notes (and every test I've done seems to back it up) that you take a fair size hit in performance when you do this:

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...n_process.mspx

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/...870/14870.html

It should "boost" performance, but the reason this doesn't work the same in XP is because the HAL is HT ready, etc. and so the process alwayas "starts" on processor 1, and then from affinity it is "moved over" which some say attributes a performance hit of about 10-20%. So, setting affinity in XP is really not worth a damn in MOST cases. In -some- cases, it can prove useful (example: disk intensive IO utilities, like defragment, etc.) Because affinity normally needs to be attached before hand, and cannot apply to applications which utilize services (see: antivirus, etc.) it's not always the best method. More then that, setting affinity for applications that are single processor designed creates a performance hit against applications that are designed to function as multiprocessor-aware.

Now, Process Explorer will tell you what windows has automatically tried to move around:

http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/fr.../procexp.shtml

It's free, and worth a check.

 

[Thomas Newton]

I suggested considering dual CPUs because Ron said that his #1 priority was processor speed, and that his existing system has a 3.0 GHz P4. Given that, there seemed little point in an upgrade to a faster P4. A single 3.60 GHz P4 would only deliver a 20% boost, whereas with one parallel CPU hog -- or two serial ones --dual 3.20 GHz CPUs could deliver a 50% one (or more).

This assumes that the system performance bottleneck is the CPU speed, and not something like hard disk access, excessive paging, or sucking video down a dial-up modem pipe.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Chris,

Keep offering your opinion.

We have known each other for years and I
appreciate your honesty.

Here are the apps I run (or plan to run):

Startup Apps

Norton AntiVirus
Spybot
Weatherbug
Trillian
Smart Butler
Logitech Mouse
Windows Blinds
Windows FX
Style XP
Rainlendar
Konfabulator
Media Card Companion
Wi-Fi Defense
Mailwasher
PowerDesk 6
ACDSEE
Maxtor One Touch Backup

Normal Apps

Firefox
Microsoft Office
Photoshop CE
Front Page
Neo Burning Rom
ATI TV application (separate card)

 

[Thomas Newton]

Ron,

Thanks for posting the applications list. I realize from this I had misjudged what you meant by processor speed. I have a Computer Science background, so to me, a need for processor speed suggests compute-intensive tasks. Total system performance is what non-experts see, and that depends on many factors. Sometimes the CPU is part of the problem, sometimes it isn't.

There is nothing on the "Startup Apps" list that screams "fast CPU required". With the number of apps you're loading, RAM may be an issue.

If you are doing startup-time virus and spyware scans, you may want to turn them off, and instead have the machine run the scans while you are sleeping. Those type of scans tend to bog down a machine. They keep the disk heads moving (and the disk cache filling with data that will not be used again soon, if my hunch is correct).

On your "Normal Apps" list, Firefox would benefit from a fast connection to the Internet (e.g., DSL or cable modem). PhotoShop would benefit from lots of RAM (I'd recommend at least 1 GB, considering the startup programs and the current low cost of memory). If you're working with high-quality photos, it will also benefit from a large, fast HD. Whether you need a high-end CPU depends on how extensively you use time-consuming filters.

For the rest of the stuff (Microsoft Office, Front Page, Nero Burning ROM, ATI TV), your current system is already overkill.


RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Wait a little longer to buy a new computer.

2. Run virus and spyware scans when you're not using the PC.

3. Get DSL or cable modem service, if you haven't already.

4. If PhotoShop CE seems to be running slowly, or to be causing a lot of disk paging, add RAM, and consider adding a SATA controller & 10K rpm HD. I'd try the RAM first: you want to minimize paging, then decide if the save/load times are acceptable.

5. Consider leaving the computer turned on all the time, with reboots maybe once every other week, or as needed. (Monitors should be off or blank when not in use.)

6. Consider getting a larger monitor or a second monitor if screen real estate is a problem. (If you get a second monitor and need a second video card, the card doesn't need to be anything fancy.)

7. Enjoy.

 

[Chris]

Ron-

Of the apps you list, only 1 understands multiprocessor (Photoshop) and you've got two that perform significantly worse in a true (non-HT) multiprocessor environment (ATI MCE for TV Tuner; WindowBlinds). In the end, you're going to take a performance -hit- rather then a benefit going to dual processor.

The biggest hit will be from the ATI TV application; if you're using the ATI TV Tuner card, and it's not included in this system, realize you're using a E7525 based motherboard, so the standard ATI TV Wonder has some difficulty (note: this is nothing against that chipset, which absolutely is fantastic and one of the first non-serverworks chipsets for the Xeon that truly rocks); you'll really want the ATI TV Wonder Elite or TV Wonder Pro.. no one is really sure of why this conflict is out there, but it's still listed in their OEM product notes, so I'll believe ATI. If you have the USB ATI TV Tuner, you'll need to go on Rage3d.Com and other websites to get the USB fix for Xeon based MBs.. but I'm assuming since you said card, you're talking a PCI card.

Judging from the list you have, you 're biggest benefits are like Thomas notes: RAM and fast HDDs. And your SCSI RAID will roll =very quickly= once you are inside of windows, and will provide a gigantic benefit, especially to Photoshop & Microsoft Office 2003.

One other thing: the Quadra video card you have listed is an card with a ROM designed for 3D OGL accuracy, not 2D flat speed; I'm not sure what you're running right now for a video card, but if you're running a Nvidia 66xx or an ATI x700 card, anything in those series or up is considerably faster in Photoshop.