SSD general ?, and SSD in a 2008 2.8 8-core?

[bajee]

@Tessalator

Files and mods? you already said you're loading photoshop with ram, only thing left is just move the user profile for photoshop right? You can just use symbolink links to point the user profile to your ram or whatever.

On a side note:

1500 brushes, that's kinda insane, to load those much brushes, you can always organize your brushes and put them in your brushes folder in photoshop, so that you can choose what to load, when you need them and if you need them.

I have lots of brushes too, and its listed in my brushes options in photoshop, and just load them if I like, you can always load, or append the brush btw.

As for plugins, I don't really use plugins, I just use Photoshop's default plugins. Plugins just reuse Photoshop default plugins anyway. I dunno, my mentor taught me that you should always use the default plugins in photoshop, so that you won't have problems or being dependent on using them when you will work on a different computer or work for a day job in your company.
Have been in the design business for 10 years now btw .
==============================

The 2.0ghz comment is just an example. Here's the thing, your system will always be as fast as the weakest link. So if your hdd is your weakest link. It doesn't matter if its 2.0ghz or 5.0ghz machine, because even if you have a faster cpu, and your hdd can't handle it, it will be just fast as your weakest link. After all, sata II interface is just on a 1TB theoretical maximum throughput. I was just asking what cpu are you using in your mac pro but you haven't replied on that, I just wonder why. If you are on 2006 mac pro you would have these possible configurations:

Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors
Two 2.0GHz, 2.66GHz, or 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors

So which one you have?

 

[Tesselator]

@Tessalator

Files and mods? you already said you're loading photoshop with ram, only thing left is just move the user profile for photoshop right? You can just use symbolink links to point the user profile to your ram or whatever.

I might be getting my chain pulled here but...
As I said PS doesn't work like that. It scans folders to know what to load in many cases for example.

On a side note:

1500 brushes, that's kinda insane, to load those much brushes, you can always organize your brushes and put them in your brushes folder in photoshop, so that you can choose what to load, when you need them and if you need them.

I have lots of brushes too, and its listed in my brushes options in photoshop, and just load them if I like, you can always load, or append the brush btw.

As for plugins, I don't really use plugins, I just use Photoshop's default plugins. Plugins just reuse Photoshop default plugins anyway. I dunno, my mentor taught me that you should always use the default plugins in photoshop, so that you won't have problems or being dependent on using them when you will work on a different computer or work for a day job in your company.
Have been in the design business for 10 years now btw .
==============================

That's why I specified these things as distinguishing a pro level setup. For example time is money and no one wants to load and unload brush pallets 10 or 20 times in a given session nor wants to try and remember which files contain which brushes.

The 2.0ghz comment is just an example. Here's the thing, your system will always be as fast as the weakest link. So if your hdd is your weakest link. It doesn't matter if its 2.0ghz or 5.0ghz machine, because even if you have a faster cpu, and your hdd can't handle it, it will be just fast as your weakest link. After all, sata II interface is just on a 1TB theoretical maximum throughput. I was just asking what cpu are you using in your mac pro but you haven't replied on that, I just wonder why. If you are on 2006 mac pro you would have these possible configurations:

Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors
Two 2.0GHz, 2.66GHz, or 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors

So which one you have?

You sure you aren't pulling my chain here? I've answered this twice and additionally presented all the evidence to completely rule out any and all aspects of SATA being culprit.


--
PS: My Safari loads in 1.2 sec.

.

 

[bajee]

@Tesselator

Well if there's someone pulling your chain, its not me. I'm just trying to find out why is your PS so slow, since everything else in your list apps, boots lightning fast.

On a side note, most professional I know and of course myself included, wants brushes that is specific for a project, so if you want brushes you tailor fit your brushes to your specific project.

As I said PS doesn't work like that. It scans folders to know what to load in many cases for example.

If you believe that then read the help file of Photoshop or Google it up. I'm just saying what I know, then if you don't believe me then look it up yourself.

 

[Tesselator]

@Tesselator

Well if there's someone pulling your chain, its not me.

Kewl!

I'm just trying to find out why is your PS so slow, since everything else in your list apps, boots lightning fast.

But there's nothing to find out. We already know why.

If you believe that then read the help file of Photoshop or Google it up. I'm just saying what I know, then if you don't believe me then look it up yourself.

Of course I did that before I even posted. There's no such thing. So I can't guess what you're talking about without further explanation. Wanna elaborate?


♲

 

[bajee]

@Tesselator

I already told you its in your Users folder. I don't know why you even bring this up as you're saying there's no such thing, did you really look in your users folder?

Anyway here's a 2 second Google search for you,

Functions, names, and locations of preference files in Photoshop CS3
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/401/kb401600.html

 

[Tesselator]

Creating a new OS X User Profile isn't useful. PS as I told you will scan it's programs folder and re-add all of the plug-ins. Initializing plug-ins as I said is where it's spending most of it's time when loading. It doesn't really matter tho because either way I'm not interested in doing this.

 

[bajee]

Dude, what's up with the attitude? Why do you even bothered asking me for a link or guide on the user profile that Photoshop reads? You can't do a 2 second Google? You just want to correct me? LOL

Here I'll put PS in the RAM Disk right now and see how long it takes to load from there:

---> I replied here maybe you forgot the user profile that PS, coz you pretty sure of yourself that SSD or the raid is not the bottleneck. coz you're pretty sure, a 1 second load time would be impossible no matter what, coz the average you have on the RAMdisk is 12 seconds, which is obviously you don't know what you are talking about. Because you are wrong on both accounts. You don't know how PS works, and you obvioulsy wrong about SSD and Raid being the bottleneck.

Yup, that's the answer right there. Got a URL for it?

Then you admitting you are wrong here right? You are asking a url on a the user profile, even though you already claimed you put PS in your RAM Disk right and benchmarked it; And you were saying I was wrong about the load times I gave you because as you said impossible. Now admitting to your misinformation, you are just asking about the user profile.

You keep asking me for a 2 second google?? I'm at lost here. First you disapprove my claims, saying its impossible (no such thing as 12 second boot coz your ramdisk boots PS at 12 seconds), now you're asking me for help on User Profile. Then after giving you a link, you say it doesn't work that way, WOW, don't ask if you already KNOW brother.

By the way, I am not suggesting creating a new User Profile, I'm just saying to have a symbolic link on the adobe folder of your user profile folder which points to a faster raid setup/ramdisk /ssd or whatever.

----------

I've read the whole thread and it seems you are having issues with other forum posters here, and I think I'll probably side them on this one on you being full of yourself and claiming you know everything and always think is right. Forums are for sharing information, not to claim you are all knowing and always right, there's a difference, I hope you realize it.

 

[seisend]

Since when is the Intel X25 out?
Is there a good chance, that a new model will be out soon? - What do you guys think?

 

[bajee]

from intel's roadmap, around Q4 of 2009

 

[seisend]

Thank you bajee.

Looks like they will update current products...(?) and add new drives with more space.
I am looking for X25-M 80gb.

 

[Tesselator]

Dude, what's up with the attitude?

There's no need to read any emotional content into what I wrote.

Why do you even bothered asking me for a link or guide on the user profile that Photoshop reads? You can't do a 2 second Google? You just want to correct me? LOL

My life ambition to be sure.

---> I replied here maybe you forgot the user profile that PS, coz you pretty sure of yourself that SSD or the raid is not the bottleneck. coz you're pretty sure, a 1 second load time would be impossible no matter what,

With the way I have PS configured. And I didn't/don't want to reconfigure it just to see how fast it will load.

You don't know how PS works, and you obvioulsy wrong about SSD and Raid being the bottleneck.

What I said is correct. You can take it or leave it as you wish.

And you were saying I was wrong about the load times I gave you because as you said impossible.

Are you purposely being dense? I believe you about the load times. Again it's impossible for me on my machine with the way I have PS configured - and I'm not going to reconfigure it. This is the 4th time saying that you know?

The rest of this post is just a personal attack as far as I can see. Not sure why you chose to see things in this light but I hope you get better soon.

 

[bajee]

Well thing is this is an SSD thread, you said you're part, you think you can contribute on this thread more? It's obvious you don't like/use/recommend SSD. Frankly, I'm the one who suppose to ask you "are you pulling my chain here?"

@seisend
you're welcome, to be honest, they keep on improving their technology and its getting cheaper every moment, intel x25-m started around 700$, now its down to $300+, I believe this will continue, as other players in the SSD market will continue to improve their product.

I heard Western Digital will be making their SSDs too . Now why would the makers of Raptors be interested in making SSD?

 

[Tesselator]

I like SSD.

 

[VirtualRain]

Since when is the Intel X25 out?
Is there a good chance, that a new model will be out soon? - What do you guys think?

The X25-M was generally available in Q4 of last year (6-8 months ago).

From the rumor mill...

Intel plans to unleash the latest edition of its X25-M MLC hard drives and this time they are talking about a serious storage update. In Q4 2009 Intel plans to release its first drives based on 34nm flash memory and it plans to release 320GB drive among the 160GB and 80GB ones.

Even the 1.8 inch MCP series currently branded as X18-M will be capable of storing a massive 320GB, again in 34nm.

We are sure that these drives will cost an arm or leg but they should be very fast at the same time. Intel is getting serious about these drives and they have strong partners like Kingston who can definitely push them hard in this market.

 

[nuckinfutz]

I might be ready to jump in with the 34nm Intel SSD parts.
I expect their price to be almost half of what we're seeing today and then fall in a few months to %50 of today's SSD pricing.

So when I can get a 80GB Intel SSD for $160 I'm jumping.

I'd like to see more multibay Macs. It irks me that I have a crappy Superdrive taking up a bunch of space that could be used for another SATA drive bay.

Hell a dual drive system with X25-E running boot and a 7200 RPM drive with the User folder would be perfect.

 

[Tesselator]

I'm waiting for the 320GB model to be $250 ~ $300.

How long do you figure I have to wait?

 

[Trev311]

I'm waiting for the 320GB model to be $250 ~ $300.

How long do you figure I have to wait?

I assume you were being sarcastic...

Newegg currently sells the 160 GB model for 619USD and the 80 for 314USD. Now if Intel releases the 320GB in Q4 at the 160GB price point and pushes the others down and keeps the current pace of every Q4 then you'd have to wait until Q4 2010. Which really doesn't seem like too long, and hopefully that is an overestimate and prices will be much lower much quicker.

 

[nightfly13]

...I'd like to see more multibay Macs. It irks me that I have a crappy Superdrive taking up a bunch of space that could be used for another SATA drive bay.

You know that it's possible and relatively easy and cheap to change this out yourself, right? You have to live without the Superdrive - or use it externally - but you can have 2x internal hard drives on any modern Mac except the MBA.

http://newmodeus.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=220

 

[seisend]

Thank you Virtual Rain and bajee.

Well, Im gonna buy the X25-M if there will be no new model until august. I want to buy a new mac pro then (2.26-8core/6gb). This is what I wanted:



Bay1. SSD 80 GB - System HD (OS X and Windows OS installed - and some important applications like logic, photoshop etc. without librarys !

Bay2. HDD 1000 GB - Application HD (Applications from OS X)

Bay3. HDD 640 GB* - Multimedia HD (Sound/Video librarys and stuff)

Bay4. HDD 1000 GB - Windows HD (Windows Applications)

external HDD Lacie 1TB ( Backup HD from the Multimedia HD)



*standart Mac Pro drive, the other 1TB drives will be WD Caviar Green or something...

I think I will have nice speed in loading important programms and a fast startup and also much of space.

What do you guys think?

 

[Tesselator]

Looks good to me. You'll have a much faster system overall if you use the same sized drives (hopefully 1TB or 1.5TB) in Bays 2, 3, and 4 and then create a RAID0 stripe out of them.

So it would be:

Bay 1 = SSD
Bay 2 = Stripe Member 1
Bay 3 = Stripe Member 2
Bay 4 = Stripe Member 3

You'll get 270 ~ 400 MB/s or more out of it instead of 50 ~ 90 MB/s

 

[nanofrog]

Drop the SSD in the empty optical bay. It saves the need for an adapter that allows it to work in one of the HDD bays ($48.50).

Bays 1 - 4; 4 identical drives in RAID of your choice. RAID 0 would give the greatest performance, but a backup is a necessity for any form of RAID, not a luxury.

Put the 640 in an external case for backup. Rather small, but still useful. Better yet, get an eSATA card, and a Port Multiplier enclosure for greater capacity for backups. Add drives as needed.

 

[Tesselator]

...but a backup is a necessity for any form of RAID, not a luxury.

As it is for single drives and SSDs too!

 

[seisend]

Yeah, thanks for your quick answers. So I don't really know much about RAID. I didn't had RAID before. So with RAID0, I would splitt my Files in to several harddiscs.(?). RAID0 gives me no Backup and RAID0 works wihout a RAID Card too, right?

So would it look like that:

(placed in opticaldrive2)

SSD - 80 GB - System HD (OS X and Windows OS)

Bay1. HDD - 1-2TB Macintosh HD (Applications and Librarys) RAID0
Bay2. HDD - 1-2TB Macintosh HD (Applications and Librarys) RAID0
Bay3. HDD - 1-2TB Macintosh HD (Applications and Librarys) RAID0
Bay4. HDD - 1TB Windows HD (Windows Applications installed)

external Backup HD - 640 GB (Backup or something)
external TimeMachine HD 1-2TB (Backup of RAID0 Bay1-3.)

Am I thinking the right way? will this be much better solution?

One more thing (@ Tesselator):

You said, this would give me like 270 ~ 400 MB/s more Speed. So that would make no sense buy an expensive X25-M SSD with 250MB read speed.

THANK YOU !!

 

[omikjam]

Everything is fast, programs start close to instantly, except hogs like office 2008 and firefox, but even they start fast(er). I'm running an Intel 160GB X25-M on my macbook, and finally the computer can keep up with me (no disk trashing)

Transmission can fully utilize my connection now, finally.

 

[Tesselator]

Yeah, thanks for your quick answers.

NP

So I don't really know much about RAID. I didn't had RAID before. So with RAID0, I would splitt my Files in to several harddiscs.(?).

Use folders for the categories you originally listed instead of drives is all. RAID0 is very easy to set up. Install the drives, open Disk Utility.app, click on a drive, got to the raid menu and add the other drives into the set by dragging, Select "Stripe Set" and maybe change your RAID Block size - done.

RAID0 gives me no Backup

Nothing I know of will give you a backup.

Single Drives - No
SolidState Drives - No
RAID0 - No
RAID1 - No
RAID5 - No​

You have to manage that on your own. It's not as bad as it seems tho. You only need a BU drive to be as big as the select data you wanna backup.

and RAID0 works wihout a RAID Card too, right?

Yes, MP supports RAID0 and RAID1 in software. As I've seen it's very fast and unless you need RAID5 or want more than 6 drives in a stripe (or set) then there's really no need for a card. At least for speed it'll be near identical.

So would it look like that:

(placed in opticaldrive2)

SSD - 80 GB - System HD (OS X and Windows OS)

Bay1. HDD - 1-2TB Macintosh HD (Applications and Librarys) RAID0
Bay2. HDD - 1-2TB Macintosh HD (Applications and Librarys) RAID0
Bay3. HDD - 1-2TB Macintosh HD (Applications and Librarys) RAID0
Bay4. HDD - 1TB Windows HD (Windows Applications installed)

external Backup HD - 640 GB (Backup or something)
external TimeMachine HD 1-2TB (Backup of RAID0 Bay1-3.)

Am I thinking the right way? will this be much better solution?

Me likes! Looks like a nice setup!

One more thing (@ Tesselator):

You said, this would give me like 270 ~ 400 MB/s more Speed. So that would make no sense buy an expensive X25-M SSD with 250MB read speed.

THANK YOU !!

You're welcome.

Well that's what the last 4 pages of this discussion have been about. Basically for my part the questions are: Are SSDs a good upgrade? Are they the best upgrade? Are they worth it? The data implies Yes, No, No, respectively. Some fans/users have stepped up with their feelings on both sides of the numbers as well.

Also I meant that a 3-Drive RAID0 will give you a 270 ~ 400 MB/s average. Not extra, in addition to, over something else. I guess that's about right too when looking at the 1TB Drive (and larger) RAID sets posted in the XBench thread. Here is my own data from a 3-Drive 1.5TB RAID0 using Samgung's EcoGreen F2 drives.