Re: Processor for photo editting

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rita Berkowitz, Mar 27, 2008.

  1. nospam wrote:

    > no, it's because photoshop has a much better idea of which parts of an
    > image will be needed, depending on what the user is doing. do you
    > think adobe has nothing better to do than reimplement what's already
    > there?


    No, it's because Adobe realizes the idea of a 1.5GB barrier is harder to
    sell to the rubes that just got done paying MSRP for CS3. How many people
    would buy CS3 if they told you that you need a computer with excellent disk
    I/O and SMP? I'll give Adobe credit for following Microsoft's model of just
    throwing more RAM in the box. I guess one can look at RAM, at least in this
    case, as a cheap pacifier till the rube realizes they got no benefits. I
    always laughed at the posts we'd get about people whining about why they
    didn't see any improvement in performance after adding several GB of RAM.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 27, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rita Berkowitz

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    > nospam wrote:
    >
    >> no, it's because photoshop has a much better idea of which parts of an
    >> image will be needed, depending on what the user is doing. do you
    >> think adobe has nothing better to do than reimplement what's already
    >> there?

    >
    > No, it's because Adobe realizes the idea of a 1.5GB barrier is harder to
    > sell to the rubes that just got done paying MSRP for CS3. How many people
    > would buy CS3 if they told you that you need a computer with excellent disk
    > I/O and SMP? I'll give Adobe credit for following Microsoft's model of
    > just
    > throwing more RAM in the box. I guess one can look at RAM, at least in
    > this
    > case, as a cheap pacifier till the rube realizes they got no benefits. I
    > always laughed at the posts we'd get about people whining about why they
    > didn't see any improvement in performance after adding several GB of RAM.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita
    >


    Adding RAM will help with ALL programs, especially if you have a slow
    disk system, and less RAM than your programs/data need. Paging causes a
    MAJOR slowdown on Windows systems. I suspect this is because the access
    isn't DMA, and/or is done 'bytewise'.
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 27, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ron Hunter wrote:

    > Adding RAM will help with ALL programs, especially if you have a slow
    > disk system, and less RAM than your programs/data need. Paging
    > causes a MAJOR slowdown on Windows systems. I suspect this is
    > because the access isn't DMA, and/or is done 'bytewise'.


    Again, this has been covered and is the result of nothing more than poor
    disk I/O.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 27, 2008
    #3
  4. Rita Berkowitz

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    >> Adding RAM will help with ALL programs, especially if you have a slow
    >> disk system, and less RAM than your programs/data need. Paging
    >> causes a MAJOR slowdown on Windows systems. I suspect this is
    >> because the access isn't DMA, and/or is done 'bytewise'.

    >
    > Again, this has been covered and is the result of nothing more than poor
    > disk I/O.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita


    Yes, it IS poor disk I/O, but even the BEST disk I/O is orders of
    magnitude slower than even average RAM access.
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 28, 2008
    #4
  5. Ron Hunter wrote:

    >>> Adding RAM will help with ALL programs, especially if you have a
    >>> slow disk system, and less RAM than your programs/data need. Paging
    >>> causes a MAJOR slowdown on Windows systems. I suspect this is
    >>> because the access isn't DMA, and/or is done 'bytewise'.

    >>
    >> Again, this has been covered and is the result of nothing more than
    >> poor disk I/O.

    >
    > Yes, it IS poor disk I/O, but even the BEST disk I/O is orders of
    > magnitude slower than even average RAM access.


    You are finally catching on. That has never been the argument, which Adobe
    and companies like them want you to believe. And it seems they hooked you
    too. The bottom line here is the better the disk I/O the less RAM you need
    and the time it needs to be tied up storing information.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 28, 2008
    #5
  6. Rita Berkowitz <> wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:


    >> Yes, it IS poor disk I/O, but even the BEST disk I/O is orders of
    >> magnitude slower than even average RAM access.


    > The bottom line here is the better the disk I/O the less RAM you need
    > and the time it needs to be tied up storing information.


    Duh. Obviously, all you need, is disk IO that's faster than RAM.


    Dear Rita,
    would you have some data on the average time to retrive 10MB of
    semi-random data from the disk and the same from memory?

    You may assume a single 1/3rd stroke of the disk head and 1/2
    rotation of the platter before data comes in, if you have no copy
    of the Art of Computer Programming to look up a more complete
    model of disk behaviour.

    Show the complete, relevant math and the URL for spec sheet of
    the hard drives you look at at their manufacturers' websites.
    Please show where, by your model, the USD is better spent at a
    faster disk (which one?) than a USD-identical amount of RAM.


    Additionally, you may try to argue about the access speed and
    costs of using RAID0.

    Additionally, you may try to argue what happens if other
    IO-operations are happening.


    If you decline to state provable facts --- as I know you will ---
    you only prove, again and again, that you spout some rote-learned
    truisms without even remote understanding of the necessary
    preconditions under which they are true.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 28, 2008
    #6
  7. Rita Berkowitz

    Paul Allen Guest

    On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:36:23 -0400, Rita Berkowitz wrote:

    > [...] The bottom line here is the better the disk I/O the
    > less RAM you need and the time it needs to be tied up storing
    > information.


    Ummm, no. The bottom line is that RAM is orders of magnitude
    faster than disk. Improving the bandwidth to the disks is
    certainly a good thing, but adding enough RAM to avoid paging
    will always be a better thing.

    Yes, there is such a thing as massively-parallel storage.
    PNNL is getting astounding storage throughput on their compute
    cluster, for example. They do have the resources of a national
    government to draw on, however. For the rest of us, the first
    strategy is to max out RAM. Then, throw boxes of striped 10krpm
    disks with multiple PCIe controllers at the problem. Then,
    apply for a grant from the DOE.

    Paul Allen
     
    Paul Allen, Mar 28, 2008
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lou

    editting forwarded emails

    Lou, Aug 2, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    453
    Moz Champion
    Aug 2, 2005
  2. Rita Berkowitz

    Re: Processor for photo editting

    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 24, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    452
  3. Rita Berkowitz

    Re: Processor for photo editting

    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 26, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    652
  4. Rita Berkowitz

    Re: Processor for photo editting

    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 26, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    322
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Mar 27, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,010
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page