Questions about FAST data access, and 64 bit proc's

[upgrdman]

Some questions:

First, I'm don't like waiting for my HDD to get data. Looking at my
CPU/Memory/HDD/Ethernet monitors (live) a decent amount of time seems
to be waiting for the hdd. Can anyone reccomend a good way to get very
fast data access. I'm thinking hard drives would be the best bet...I'm
not sure how fast something like a cluster of SD/MMC/SM etc cards as a
HDD would be. So I'm looking into SCSI 15,000 RPM hard drives. I don't
need anything big, becuase I plan to use my 250GB UDMA133 IDE HDD for
personal file storage. On newegg I found a decently priced SCSI HDD...
18.4GB 3.3ms seek time 8MB buffer:

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=22-116-138&depa=1

And it's only $154 (USD). Seems like a really good deal, even if it is
OEM...it still has a 5 year warrenty. Oh and I have a
question...NewEgg has two versions of the drive: a "SCSI Ultra 320 68
Pin" and a "Ultra320 SCSI 80 Pin" version. Which is better....the
specs seem the same for both except for that SCSI interface. I don't
know a whole lot about SCSI, and I will probably have to buy a new
controller card anyway, since the one I have now probably doesn't
support either of those interfaces. Would a hard drive put much of a
strain on either of those two interfaces, or is like the IDE B.S.
where even with ATA133/SATA150, the drives don't ever come close to
fully using it, except for short bursts. Would the price difference
between SCSI controllers for either of those interfaces be
significant? I work at McDonalds for minimum wage, so my goal for this
project is sub-$300 for HDD (or other fast, rewritable, and 10-20GB,
data storage method) and controller cards, etc.

---------------------------------------------------

I'm looking into AMD's 64 bit consumer level processors, and I think
I'm gonna buy the cheapest 939pin 64 bit AMD proc I can find. From
what I hear, the 939pin socket is what AMD seems to have settled on
now, and I don't want to have to buy a new motherboard every time I
want to upgrade my CPU. So am I right in assuming that the 939 socket
will be the one to go with?

From what I hear, all new AMD proc's will be multiplier locked, with
the exception of the FX line? Am I correct?? I plan to overclock my
processor a little, and plan to use water cooling. I am also new to
overclocking, but I do understand the premise, and that you should do
it little by little, and over a long time, to check for stability
issues etc. So can anyone reccoemend a web site or page specificly
about overclocking the FX line of AMD proc's? I can google around, but
any reccomendations would be greatly appriciated.

Oh I almost forgot. I use linux, which DOES have a non-beta x86-64
version out already... most benchmarks I see for the CPUs don't run it
in 64 bit mode...anyone know if running it with 64bit apps would
increase the gap (in a good way) of performance? I would assume so,
but most of cpu-intensive stuff I plan to do doesnt really need 64
bits.... gaming and 3D rendering with Blender (blender3d.com). I will
be compiling everying with 64 bit optomizations (I use Gentoo Linux)
so hopefully it will be at least a little faster than it would be,
when just in the 32 bit mode...but can anyone confirm?? Even WinXP
users...anyone know if the 64bit beta seems to run faster than the
normal 32 bit version of XP?

Long post, sorry, but Thanks,

--Farrell F.

 

[Conor]

Some questions:

First, I'm don't like waiting for my HDD to get data. Looking at my
CPU/Memory/HDD/Ethernet monitors (live) a decent amount of time seems
to be waiting for the hdd. Can anyone reccomend a good way to get very
fast data access.

RAID array set up in striping mode.

I'm looking into AMD's 64 bit consumer level processors, and I think
I'm gonna buy the cheapest 939pin 64 bit AMD proc I can find. From
what I hear, the 939pin socket is what AMD seems to have settled on
now, and I don't want to have to buy a new motherboard every time I
want to upgrade my CPU. So am I right in assuming that the 939 socket
will be the one to go with?

No. Forget it for now. Live with what you have for another 6 months.

Oh I almost forgot. I use linux, which DOES have a non-beta x86-64
version out already... most benchmarks I see for the CPUs don't run it
in 64 bit mode...anyone know if running it with 64bit apps would
increase the gap (in a good way) of performance?

Mainly with memory intensive apps.

 

[John R Weiss]

First, I'm don't like waiting for my HDD to get data. Looking at my
CPU/Memory/HDD/Ethernet monitors (live) a decent amount of time seems
to be waiting for the hdd. Can anyone reccomend a good way to get very
fast data access. I'm thinking hard drives would be the best bet...I'm
not sure how fast something like a cluster of SD/MMC/SM etc cards as a
HDD would be. So I'm looking into SCSI 15,000 RPM hard drives.

Fastest will be a RAID 0 (striped) array of 2 to 4 U320 drives. Almost as
fast and much more secure would be a 4-drive RAID 5 or RAID 10 array. For
optimum performance you need a 64-bit PCI bus; anything on a 32-bit PCI bus
will be choked by its 133 MBps shared bandwidth.

The Seagate Cheetahs are arguably the best performing/most reliable drives
around; you get what you pay for.

You'll also need a RAID controller, which ups the price ante...

"SCSI Ultra 320 68
Pin" and a "Ultra320 SCSI 80 Pin" version. Which is better....the
specs seem the same for both except for that SCSI interface.

One uses the 68-pin standard interface; the other uses the 80-pin Wide SCSI
interface. I don't think it makes any perceptible difference in other than
enterprise server environments.

Would a hard drive put much of a
strain on either of those two interfaces, or is like the IDE B.S.
where even with ATA133/SATA150, the drives don't ever come close to
fully using it, except for short bursts. Would the price difference
between SCSI controllers for either of those interfaces be
significant?

No single HD will come close to even ATA133 speeds. The 15K Cheetahs are
advertised at about 80 MBps max for a single drive. My current RAID 0 SATA
WD Raptors run about 56 MBps sustained in the benchmarks I've run, and the
single 10K RPM Cheetah on a 32-bit U160 card sustains 45 MBps.

You'll have to decide what is the best cost/performance trade is for you. A
SATA controller on a PCI card in an older machine will have the same
limitations as any other PCI card -- the 32-bit PCI interface. A new
motherboard with on-board SATA will likely be faster, but at a cost. SATA
drives based on IDE hardware will be no faster than their IDE brethren,
though you may gain performance in any interface with a RAID 0 controller.

In general, IDE is cheapest, SATA next, SCSI most expensive. Performance
potential essentially follows the price.

So am I right in assuming that the 939 socket
will be the one to go with?

At this time, yes.

From what I hear, all new AMD proc's will be multiplier locked, with
the exception of the FX line? Am I correct?? I plan to overclock my
processor a little, and plan to use water cooling.

I thought you were on a minimum-wage budget...

Oh I almost forgot. I use linux, which DOES have a non-beta x86-64
version out already... most benchmarks I see for the CPUs don't run it
in 64 bit mode...anyone know if running it with 64bit apps would
increase the gap (in a good way) of performance?

Theoretically, 64-bit apps should run faster on a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit
system. However, who has any of those for the consumer market yet?

 

[dg]

significant? I work at McDonalds for minimum wage, so my goal for this
project is sub-$300 for HDD (or other fast, rewritable, and 10-20GB,
data storage method) and controller cards, etc.

Jesus christ, what is keeping you from a real job? Stop worrying about
your hard drive and apply for some jobs. I know people making $100k+/year
working in IT who couldn't type the message you just did. Maybe you were
joking about Mcdonalds or maybe you are psycho and thats why you don't have
a better job, I don't know, but the mcdonalds thing really stuck out.

--Dan

 

[upgrdman]

Jesus christ, what is keeping you from a real job? Stop worrying about
your hard drive and apply for some jobs. I know people making $100k+/year
working in IT who couldn't type the message you just did. Maybe you were
joking about Mcdonalds or maybe you are psycho and thats why you don't have
a better job, I don't know, but the mcdonalds thing really stuck out.

--Dan

LOL, I do really work for McDonalds and no I'm not a psycho or have
a record or anything like that. I'm just quiet, and have poor people
skills (but working on registers at McD's has helped quite a bit...and
I've realized how dumb people really are too...haha.) Im 18, and its
my first job. I've had this job for just under two months now, and
after my college classes start later this month, I will probably look
into the Carrier Center and try to find a better job...heck almost any
other job would be better.

As far as my computer skills already... good at HTML (by hand), and
know a little CSS, PHP and MySQL...but the PHP and MySQL skills are
new, and only from reading a few books on it...no real expierence yet.

My main goal is programming, which is why I'm taking an intro couse to
programming ay my local junior college. It's on C++, which is a good
language. I shouldn't have any troubble with that, as I'm used to most
of the programming concepts and general syntax due to PHP and some
very basic C coding I have done in the past (barely anything other
than Hello World so far though, due to lack of time.)

My hobby is 3D graphics...I use a program called Blender... and you
can see some of my stuff on my website, which by the way, currently
has a horrid, crappy, and non-CSS/DHTML design at the moment...but
it's at: http://www.cgartwork.com/gallery.html

OK I'm going off on a tanget...any way after I work at McDonalds for a
little while longer, I will start looking for a better job. I don't
wnat to quit yet, because I want at least *something* to put on a job
application as prior job expierence.

--Farrell F.