A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Homebuilt PC's
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More HD or more processor



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 9th 08, 06:22 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
PA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default More HD or more processor

Hi,

I am assembling a new PC and have a quick question... Should I put
more money buying a quad core processor and 1 HD 500GB or a dual core
processor and 2 HD 250GB in raid?

I was thinking in the first option, but a friend told me 2 HD working
itogether will make the pc faster.

I use relatively heavy databases and intensive statistical
programming.

Thanks in advance.

PA
  #2  
Old April 9th 08, 06:29 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
JR Weiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default More HD or more processor

"PA" wrote...

I am assembling a new PC and have a quick question... Should I put
more money buying a quad core processor and 1 HD 500GB or a dual core
processor and 2 HD 250GB in raid?

I was thinking in the first option, but a friend told me 2 HD working
itogether will make the pc faster.

I use relatively heavy databases and intensive statistical
programming.


RAID 1 (mirror) will not measurably improve performance. RAID 0 (stripe) will
improve performance, but with a higher risk of data loss from a single HD
failure.

For your database work, you should go to RAID 10 (stripe + mirror) for
performance + data safety, which will require a minimum of 4 HDs. If you REALLY
need the performance, I'd go with 6 x WD Raptor 150s in RAID 10.

Unless your database or statistics program can use 4 cores, or you run both at
the same time, you'll likely be better off with a dual-core CPU at a higher
clock speed.


  #3  
Old April 9th 08, 06:30 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 550
Default More HD or more processor


"PA" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I am assembling a new PC and have a quick question... Should I put
more money buying a quad core processor and 1 HD 500GB or a dual core
processor and 2 HD 250GB in raid?

I was thinking in the first option, but a friend told me 2 HD working
itogether will make the pc faster.

I use relatively heavy databases and intensive statistical
programming.

Thanks in advance.

PA


Your friend is right, but I'd suggest a third option. Go with a cheap 500GB
hard drive, plus two cheap 250GB hard drives in RAID. The 500GB drive is
for backups. I'd suggest Acronis True Image for automatic scheduled backups
of the entire RAID array. -Dave

  #4  
Old April 10th 08, 12:56 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,364
Default More HD or more processor

PA wrote:
Hi,

I am assembling a new PC and have a quick question... Should I put
more money buying a quad core processor and 1 HD 500GB or a dual core
processor and 2 HD 250GB in raid?

I was thinking in the first option, but a friend told me 2 HD working
itogether will make the pc faster.

I use relatively heavy databases and intensive statistical
programming.

Thanks in advance.

PA


Multiple core processors help, if there is thread-level parallelism
or program level parallelism. A quad core would help, as long as
the cores can be loaded well by the programs being used.

As an example, on some games, the loading pattern on quad cores
(and this is with thread-level parallelism), ends up at
100%-30%-30%-30%. Which means one core tends to be loaded more
heavily than the others. There aren't really many situations
where there is "perfect scaling" with the number of cores added.
Understanding how your applications are designed, and whether
they use multiple cores, is how you make the decision to go
with more cores or not.

I presume a database benefits from quick access time, and not
raw megabytes per second. Access time is dominated by seek
time on the hard drive controller. A number of drives have
been benchmarked here.

http://www.storagereview.com/Testbed4Compare.sr

A 15,000 RPM disk has lower seek time than a 10,000 RPM disk.
And SSD (solid state drives, either RAM based or flash memory
based) are faster and more expensive, than regular hard drives.
Being able to accept a smaller capacity storage device, would
make possible the usage of faster solutions.

(A single good 64GB SSD flash drive costs $2000. Good ones have wear
leveling, to prevent wearout of the flash chips due to limited write
life. Some of the tables here, show it is possible to get 10000 IOPS
from one of these drives. This company makes a driver that is
supposed to supplement the poor write performance of SSDs.)

http://mtron.easyco.com/news/papers/...benchmarks.pdf

RAM memory is about $25 per gigabyte now, so to build a storage
device based on RAM, would cost about 64*25 = $1600 for 64GB of
memory parts, without considering the additional infrastructure
needed to make it work. The actual price charged by the companies
making them, is astronomical.

If portions of the database are frequently accessed, then caching
structures can help with that. If the database software has the
ability to cache frequently accessed info in system memory, then
the database performance may improve with time. It is possible
that adding additional memory to the computer, would aid in the
construction of a software based cache. It is better for the
database software to arrange such caching, as it understands the
structures better than any "dumb" RAID card you might add to the
computer.

Paul
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Multi-processor machine, only showing a single processor in OS Trojan Hussar Compaq Servers 3 September 19th 07 02:39 PM
AMD 64 X2 Processor: Any what to tell what program/process is assigned to processor? The Frozen Canuck AMD x86-64 Processors 6 January 19th 06 11:56 PM
Dual Processor or Single Processor with more cache? PartiPooper Intel 3 September 22nd 04 12:46 PM
Dual Processor Vs. Single Processor - Need Advice! Robert General Hardware 2 July 6th 04 09:40 PM
upgraded my processor from an AMD Duron 800 Processor to 2600 niaxous Asus Motherboards 3 January 29th 04 12:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.