SCSI or RAID 0 for digital image editing?

[Deadtrees]

I need to upgrade my computer so I can do some intensive digital image editing. Since I have ultra2-lvd/se adaptec SCSI card, I was thinking about getting a SCSI HDD. However, SCSI HDD is way too expensive.
I don't know much about RAID 0 setup, but I heard it's pretty fast, and cheap.
Should I go for RAID 0 setup?

 

[T9D]

..

 

[Pariah]

It would be more cost effective, and better performing to buy as many 512MB DIMMS as your board will hold.

 

[T9D]

..

 

[Scitex]

If you're using Photoshop you could also benefit from a small fast drive on a separate bus to use as a scratch disk......

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: xerosleep
^^^ I agree there, get as much RAM as possible.

But you'll still want to save a load large pictures and files as fast as possible so RAID 0 is still a good idea.

A 5MP camera produces a 2592x1944 file. Storing that RAW in 32bit is about 20MB. You don't need RAID to load a 20MB file. 160GB of storage for photo editing is pretty extreme too. Assuming 3 DIMM slots, 1.5GB of RAM is all you'll need for all but the most demanding tasks and should eliminate the HD from the equation.

 

[T9D]

..

 

[Pas2002]

More ram and a raid 0 would be the best

a raid with 4 hard drives would be very fast two, 4x WD400JB (western Digital 40GB special edition (8mb Cache)) these are very fast hard drives $66 each (4x=$264) at newegg. Or if you can afford it try the 60GBSE $78 (4x=$312) or even the 80GBSE for $83 (4x=$332) all at newegg

if you cant decide the size of HDD you want check out the specs on the Main web page, multiply the ransfer rate (not the ata 100 or 133 (try buffer to disk or whateve they have))by 3-3.5 for raid 0 with 4 drives or multiply by 1.5-1.75 for raid 0 with 2 dirves. this gives you a close guess of the performance.

 

[sharkeeper]

4GB+, SCSI RAID, SAN, 10Gbps LAN, etc.

That's usually enough.

-DAK-

 

[nater]

Go for the best of both worlds and do SCSI raid