PDA

View Full Version : Ideal computer



Bob Davis
01-18-2012, 11:03 AM
Some time ago I posted a question on this forum about how to improve the responsiveness of the computer that was running our Epilog Helix laser.
Despite having a reasonably fast CPU and video card along with lots of RAM it was unable to quickly display folder contents and open files from the (very large) documents folder. At the time there didn't seem to be much that could be done about it.

I recently replaced the computer and this time used a SSD drive. This is a huge improvement. The computer boots very quickly, Coreldraw X5 or Photoshop loads in just 1 or 2 seconds, folders display instantly and search results are immediate. Almost every aspect of the computer is much more responsive.

If you're looking to update your computer I think you'd be well served to include an SSD. I don't think that you will be disappointed.

Dan Hintz
01-18-2012, 11:11 AM
Fast CPUs and responsiveness don't necessarily go hand in hand... what you need are multiple cores (and an OS that properly handles it). One core handles the constant interruption and traffic from the laser, the other is free to surf the hard drive. If you have multiple cores and still see this slowdown, I suggest the issue is a heavily clogged folder tree and/or a drive that needs a serious defragging.

For static data sets, SSDs are wonderful... but the moment you do a lot of writing, even wear-leveling algorithms can only do so much. Flash simply does not have the cycle lifetime of a ferro disk (yet), so I would worry about sudden loss of large chunks of memory without warning.

Keith Outten
01-18-2012, 12:21 PM
SawMill Creek has been running on two SSD drives for over 16 months.
.

Dan Hintz
01-18-2012, 1:25 PM
SawMill Creek has been running on two SSD drives for over 16 months.
.
Okay, but even database files are typically appended to, rather than deleted/replaced with something else like a cache is. I'd feel comfortable running an OS on them as long as I could put the swap file on a regular drive.

Michael Simpson Virgina
01-18-2012, 6:45 PM
Are you saying the computer performs reasonable, except when you open certain folders with very large files?

When you say folder contents, is it just a list of file names or are you using large icons and you want windows to render pictures or drawings of the contents of those files?

Also you dont say what OS you are running.

Shaun Mahood
01-18-2012, 7:44 PM
Dan, I've had a number of computers at work running their OS on SSDs for the last 2 years or so with no problems yet.

Dan Hintz
01-18-2012, 9:19 PM
Dan, I've had a number of computers at work running their OS on SSDs for the last 2 years or so with no problems yet.
And the 2-2.5 year mark is where you begin bumping up into the wear limit on NAND Flash, assuming a typical use level, of course. I'm not going to get into a battel about this, guys, I'm just passing along my thoughts on the subject based upon my work with Flash-based storage systems that I have designed, from bare chips, for my job. Shortly after starting my current job we transferred a major piece of equipment from platter drives to SSDs... we're paying the price for it now, and these are major medical systems that simply cannot fail in operation.

YMMV, so deal with it at your own risk.

Shaun Mahood
01-18-2012, 10:52 PM
Dan, I wasn't trying to get ino a battle with you, simply relaying my own experience with them on regular PCs. I never know what experience people have, and would definitely consider yours much more specialized than most. I guess I'll see what happens to mine over the next year or so.

Bob Davis
01-19-2012, 1:09 AM
Hi Michael,
What I am saying is that the user experience is likely to be far better with an SSD than with a spinner HDD.
The previous system had a mid-range dual core CPU from several years ago, Win 7, and was entirely adequate at its job, but just a bit frustrating. Slow to display folder contents (set for "details", not icons or content), and a search was quite slow.
We have a lot of .cdr (and .psd and .jpg and email) files saved, and I often use the extremely useful Windows 7 search facility to help track them down when required. This could be 8 or 10 or more seconds on the HDD machine but is instantaneous on the SSD.
I did my homework before getting an SSD. Just like a HDD there is certainly a chance of failure, but I have backups of everything to the old HDD drives in the same cases. I have no doubt that the opinions expressed by Dan are expert and legitimate, but other qualified people have a different view. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/ssds-are-fast-but-do-they-last/3621?tag=search-results-rivers;item19 and http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/01/27/ssds-vs-disks-which-are-more-reliable/ are a couple of references to that effect. I doubt that many comp's used for laser engraving subject their drives to a heavy workload where the wear limit is likely to be a factor in the foreseeable future.
I remember going from a 386 computer to a 486 and being amazed at the speed available. That is the type of improvement I've seen in moving to a SSD.

Rodne Gold
01-19-2012, 1:34 AM
I have found that If you have huge directories with lots of files in the root , they are normally slow to open , the better way to do things is to to nest the mass of files into smaller subdirectories etc. Best improvements on our systems come from better graphic cards and processors (assuming you have enough ram) ... Of course , as the new fast puter gets older and you load other stuff on it or try other stuff , it becomes slow too....

Shaun Mahood
01-19-2012, 1:41 AM
One other thing to look at if you have a directory with lots of image files, if a thumbs.db file exists (Windows XP) then it doesn't matter whether you have your view set to details, it still can be insanely slow to load the list of files. We have one gigantic directory of TIFF images on our work network, and with 40+ people viewing it every month or so someone sets it to thumbnail view and brings things almost to a halt. Deleting the thumbs.db file fixes this problem.

Dan Hintz
01-19-2012, 6:42 AM
One other thing to look at if you have a directory with lots of image files, if a thumbs.db file exists (Windows XP) then it doesn't matter whether you have your view set to details, it still can be insanely slow to load the list of files. We have one gigantic directory of TIFF images on our work network, and with 40+ people viewing it every month or so someone sets it to thumbnail view and brings things almost to a halt. Deleting the thumbs.db file fixes this problem.
Good point... completely forgot about that one. I wish there was a way to lock that bad boy out, too, but only for specific directories.

Also, consider enabling/disabling Windows' search indexing based upon your usage type... for some, it can be an unnecessary dog, but for others it can speed things up quite a bit.

Michael Simpson Virgina
01-19-2012, 11:02 AM
If you have antivirus software running it can slow many tasks, even displaying directories. It depends on the software. Many of them will look at the files when you open directories.

Most will let you turn off watching certain directories. This can speed things up.

I have to aggree with DAN on SSD drives though. While they have gotten better with the MTBR. They still dont have the longevity of a spinning drive. Dont get me wrong. If you are on the go and have a laptop, they are are great and can out last a spininging hard drive in a mobile situation. I thnk you are asking for long term trouble using them for storage on a desktop machine.

A couple years ago I built a Files Server machine and it has two Raid 5 arrays (8 drives). They are lightinging fast and self reapairing. IE if a drive fails I mearly slip another drive in its slot and it will fix its self. If two drives fail in a single array I screwed.

I do use SSD drives though. I use them in mobile and robotics applications. I also keep complet backups of them, as I do with all my drive (Except the raid).