SignBurst PCs
New Member
The RAID question is a complex one and Choucove has some great insight (as usual).
To answer the question "What is RAID?": Redundant Array of Independent Drives. That sounds more complicated than it is. It is simply a way to combine multiple hard drives into a single "array" in order to increase performance or achieve redundancy. We use RAID to go faster than if we used a single drive or create "copies" of our files to protect us against a single drive failing. There are many different types of RAID and they achieve speed, redundancy, or both.
While Choucove prefers a single SSD over a RAID configuration, I differ in opinion slightly. In my experience, with our graphic workstations, there are significant advantages of a RAID 0 (zero) configurations with very slight or minimal disadvantages.
Let's start with the disadvantage first:
RAID 0 (zero) is utilized for increased performance, not redundancy. In RAID 0, we combine two (or more) drives together to create a single array. An array, in practice, is used the same as a drive. For example, we can use it to create a C:/ drive and install Windows, Photoshop, Flexi, etc. The disadvantage is that if either of the two drives fail, we lose all the information on both drive. There is no duplication of files or redundancy there. Now, this sounds like a potential nightmare, but in my experience, with modern, RAID purposed drives and RAID controllers, this is a very minimal issue. In even simpler terms, if you were using a single drive and one drive failed, you would lose all of your data too.
Some of the advantages are:
1. Cost. Until the price of SSDs comes down, the cost per GB of capacity is extremely expensive compared to traditional hard drives.
2. Capacity. This goes along with cost. The cost of higher capacity SSDs is still very expensive. While there may be an argument to be made about using an SSD for a boot drive (see more in #3), the cost of a large SSD “scratch disk” would be considerable. We are finding that many of our customers are using several hundred GBs of "scratch" space in Photoshop. That could really break the bank if you were using SSDs.
3. Predictability. Traditional hard drives are a known quantity. What I mean is that they are predictable and stable. The drivers are also stable and proven. SSDs, while becoming more widespread, are still a little unpredictable and nowhere near as stable or constant as a traditional, platter hard drive. They can do odd things and can require more troubleshooting and maintenance than traditional drives. The performance of some SSDs can degrade over time as well, especially is TRIM utilities are not supported. This may not be a big deal for a techy, but could lead to be a headache for the average user. Heck, I am a pretty tech savvy individual and SSDs have given me a headache on more than one occasion. As time goes by, we may very well see more stability and predictability in SSDs, but for now, I am not convinced that they are the way to go.
As far as video cards go, I believe that Choucove is right on track. For most applications, integrated video chipsets are more than enough and provide high resolutions and vivid colors. But in the world of graphic design, Photoshop, and huge files, a dedicated video card is a must. In addition, we have found that not all cards are created equal in applications that can utilize the GPU (video card), such as Photoshop CS4 and CS5. It can be really frustrating building an awesome design system only to find that the latest and greatest video card (or drivers) is wreaking havoc in your design software. I know this from first-hand experience. As far as “higher end” cards go, you probably aren’t missing anything. Those really expensive cards generally are the latest and greatest and have benefits to extreme gamers or 3D graphical designers. That tech will quickly trickle down to the mainstream cards, but you still probably won’t need it.
To answer the question "What is RAID?": Redundant Array of Independent Drives. That sounds more complicated than it is. It is simply a way to combine multiple hard drives into a single "array" in order to increase performance or achieve redundancy. We use RAID to go faster than if we used a single drive or create "copies" of our files to protect us against a single drive failing. There are many different types of RAID and they achieve speed, redundancy, or both.
While Choucove prefers a single SSD over a RAID configuration, I differ in opinion slightly. In my experience, with our graphic workstations, there are significant advantages of a RAID 0 (zero) configurations with very slight or minimal disadvantages.
Let's start with the disadvantage first:
RAID 0 (zero) is utilized for increased performance, not redundancy. In RAID 0, we combine two (or more) drives together to create a single array. An array, in practice, is used the same as a drive. For example, we can use it to create a C:/ drive and install Windows, Photoshop, Flexi, etc. The disadvantage is that if either of the two drives fail, we lose all the information on both drive. There is no duplication of files or redundancy there. Now, this sounds like a potential nightmare, but in my experience, with modern, RAID purposed drives and RAID controllers, this is a very minimal issue. In even simpler terms, if you were using a single drive and one drive failed, you would lose all of your data too.
Some of the advantages are:
1. Cost. Until the price of SSDs comes down, the cost per GB of capacity is extremely expensive compared to traditional hard drives.
2. Capacity. This goes along with cost. The cost of higher capacity SSDs is still very expensive. While there may be an argument to be made about using an SSD for a boot drive (see more in #3), the cost of a large SSD “scratch disk” would be considerable. We are finding that many of our customers are using several hundred GBs of "scratch" space in Photoshop. That could really break the bank if you were using SSDs.
3. Predictability. Traditional hard drives are a known quantity. What I mean is that they are predictable and stable. The drivers are also stable and proven. SSDs, while becoming more widespread, are still a little unpredictable and nowhere near as stable or constant as a traditional, platter hard drive. They can do odd things and can require more troubleshooting and maintenance than traditional drives. The performance of some SSDs can degrade over time as well, especially is TRIM utilities are not supported. This may not be a big deal for a techy, but could lead to be a headache for the average user. Heck, I am a pretty tech savvy individual and SSDs have given me a headache on more than one occasion. As time goes by, we may very well see more stability and predictability in SSDs, but for now, I am not convinced that they are the way to go.
As far as video cards go, I believe that Choucove is right on track. For most applications, integrated video chipsets are more than enough and provide high resolutions and vivid colors. But in the world of graphic design, Photoshop, and huge files, a dedicated video card is a must. In addition, we have found that not all cards are created equal in applications that can utilize the GPU (video card), such as Photoshop CS4 and CS5. It can be really frustrating building an awesome design system only to find that the latest and greatest video card (or drivers) is wreaking havoc in your design software. I know this from first-hand experience. As far as “higher end” cards go, you probably aren’t missing anything. Those really expensive cards generally are the latest and greatest and have benefits to extreme gamers or 3D graphical designers. That tech will quickly trickle down to the mainstream cards, but you still probably won’t need it.
Last edited:
