Building a Desktop Number Cruncher

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom
  • Start date Start date
T

Tom

I want to build a good desk top number cruncher. Primary usage is a C
based program that performs the mathmatical calculations used to map
out a topology of various parameters. I do not need high end graphics.

Is a motherboard such as the ASUS P5K3 Delux a good choice?

http://computershopper.com/reviews/asus-p5k3-deluxe-motherboard-review

The above motherboard accepts up to 8 gigabytes (4 x 2) of DDR3 memory
at up to 1,600 MHz.

Considering Vista Ultimate 64-bit is able to support up to 128GB of
memory ...

http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.aspx?qid=4251

.... what motherboard/memory card combinations should I consider that
could go beyond the above motherboard's 8 gig limit?

I am currently looking at Intel Quad CPU's ... but understand that for
pure number crunching tasks there are other issues (i.e. L2 cache)
that enter into the performance calculation. Perhaps I should consider
an AMD configuration?

A dream set-up would be a multibladed server with lots of cores
working independently ... but for now a quad core desktop would really
be stretching my available funds. The ultimate would some research
super computer!!

Looking into DDR3 memory modules and latency issues >>

http://www.kingston.com/hyperx/products/ddr3_faq.asp
---------------------------------
Below is from above site:

Q. What latencies will standard DDR3 DIMMs support?

A. JEDEC DDR3 specifications define standard DDR3 CAS Latencies of 7,
9, and 10:
-1066MHz DDR3: CAS 7 (7-7-7)
-1333MHz DDR3: CAS 9 (9-9-9)
-1600MHz DDR3: CAS 10 (10-10-10)

----------------------------------

Seems the higher latency chews up a lot of the higher speed
performance?

Any advice for building a good number cruncher will be much
appreciated.

I will greatly value the input from those with 64-bit experience.

Currently I am stuck in the single core, 32-bit realm and am looking
for the fast lane.

GiGa-Thanks !!
 
Tom said:
I want to build a good desk top number cruncher. Primary usage is a C
based program that performs the mathmatical calculations used to map
out a topology of various parameters. I do not need high end graphics.

Is a motherboard such as the ASUS P5K3 Delux a good choice?

http://computershopper.com/reviews/asus-p5k3-deluxe-motherboard-review

The above motherboard accepts up to 8 gigabytes (4 x 2) of DDR3 memory
at up to 1,600 MHz.

Considering Vista Ultimate 64-bit is able to support up to 128GB of
memory ...
Click to expand...

Don't even consider Vista. Linux will give you more performance,
be totally transparent, and you can have complete source if you
wish. It also costs much less. Nor will it call home and expose
all your secrets. Best of all is the EULA.
 
Don't even consider Vista. Linux will give you more performance,
be totally transparent, and you can have complete source if you
wish. It also costs much less. Nor will it call home and expose
all your secrets. Best of all is the EULA.
Click to expand...


Thanks Chuck --

I have begun researching Linux 64 bit. First article I found dated
back to 2003 ... so there must be a LOT for me to catch up on! I have
never used Linux ... but I keep hearing the phrases of those who do.
Perhaps I should take the plunge. I'd much prefer stability, security,
and performance over aero effects and phone home hassles. The only
hesitation is my total ignorance of Linux. I guess everything would be
new from word processor, spreadsheet, C/C++ IDE, etc. That's a big
bite to take ... but it does look appealing.

Thanks again for the advise.

-- Tom
 
I want to build a good desk top number cruncher. Primary usage is a C
based program that performs the mathmatical calculations used to map
out a topology of various parameters. I do not need high end graphics.

Is a motherboard such as the ASUS P5K3 Delux a good choice?
Click to expand...

First, you should determine which processor architecture
performs best at your particular App. Until you know this,
you can't know if a particular board is the best choice
since it will only support one of several CPU possibilities.

For some uses, including general PC use, a Core2Duo is the
best median-priced option, but when talking about a special
purpose build, Core2Duo may not be the right choice. In
some cases, even the dreaded Pentium4 is a better band for
the buck, but are you looking for best band for buck or best
performance, IOW, what is more important the price or
performance if you had to pick one, and what is the budget
ceiling?
http://computershopper.com/reviews/asus-p5k3-deluxe-motherboard-review

The above motherboard accepts up to 8 gigabytes (4 x 2) of DDR3 memory
at up to 1,600 MHz.
Click to expand...

Ok, but how much memory do you *need* for your special
purpose? Beyond a certain point, adding more memory than is
needed just raises cost and/or requires slower memory
timings that will degrade the performance of the application
by a few percent.

Considering Vista Ultimate 64-bit is able to support up to 128GB of
memory ...

http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.aspx?qid=4251

... what motherboard/memory card combinations should I consider that
could go beyond the above motherboard's 8 gig limit?
Click to expand...

Number crunching seldom needs these large amounts of memory.
Would you be surprised if the typical number cruncher didn't
even need 128MB with WinXP? However, I don't know your
particular application, that will certainly matter.

I am currently looking at Intel Quad CPU's ...
Click to expand...

Why? Is your app quad core optimized? Most number cruncher
apps aren't even dual core optimized. Generally
(historically) someone looking for good number crunchig
would want to determine if floating point performance is
important, what L2 cache size their working code fits
within, and within these limitations, pick the highest IPC
core and highest clockspeed core possible. When doing a
specific thing, the generalized web review benchmarks fly
out the window. It really matters a lot what the specifics
are of your particular task.

but understand that for
pure number crunching tasks there are other issues (i.e. L2 cache)
that enter into the performance calculation. Perhaps I should consider
an AMD configuration?
Click to expand...

You should seek benchmarks of your specific app, or find a
roughly equivalent task keeping in mind issues of floating
point significance (or not), cache size, clockspeed, etc...
then seek benchmarks for that equivalent app on different
CPU designs.

A dream set-up would be a multibladed server with lots of cores
working independently ...
Click to expand...


Really? Can your code accomplish this? If it can't, some
kind of exotic cooling to run fewer cores and insane speeds
would be more effective.


but for now a quad core desktop would really
be stretching my available funds. The ultimate would some research
super computer!!
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. Some tasks depend more on a fast memory
bus, and to make use of parallel processing you would
require code written to do it. IOW, on some supercomputers,
some apps will run slower than on a modern purpose-optimized
desktop.


Looking into DDR3 memory modules and latency issues >>

http://www.kingston.com/hyperx/products/ddr3_faq.asp
---------------------------------
Below is from above site:

Q. What latencies will standard DDR3 DIMMs support?

A. JEDEC DDR3 specifications define standard DDR3 CAS Latencies of 7,
9, and 10:
-1066MHz DDR3: CAS 7 (7-7-7)
-1333MHz DDR3: CAS 9 (9-9-9)
-1600MHz DDR3: CAS 10 (10-10-10)
Click to expand...

I am starting to suspect your post is some kind of
kid's-dream, that you are not serious about really building
a system. You write about PC parts then DDR3 and
supercomputers. If you can divide the work like that, how
about just building separate budget-effective systems.
Three $1,000 systems will have higher performance than one
$3,000 system if you can do this.


Any advice for building a good number cruncher will be much
appreciated.

I will greatly value the input from those with 64-bit experience.
Click to expand...

Why? Do you see a benefit from a 64 bit system? Your post
is far too light on details of your applications
optimizations and requirements.
Currently I am stuck in the single core, 32-bit realm and am looking
for the fast lane.
Click to expand...

If you have no reason to believe these more exotic things
will help, a 32bit single core may actually be the highest
performing solution. It depends entirely on exactly what
you're trying to do, down to the last detail. I'm not
trying to discourage an elaborate cutting edge system but so
far, no details have suggested a gain from these things.
 
Tom said:
I have begun researching Linux 64 bit. First article I found dated
back to 2003 ... so there must be a LOT for me to catch up on! I have
never used Linux ... but I keep hearing the phrases of those who do.
Perhaps I should take the plunge. I'd much prefer stability, security,
and performance over aero effects and phone home hassles. The only
hesitation is my total ignorance of Linux. I guess everything would be
new from word processor, spreadsheet, C/C++ IDE, etc. That's a big
bite to take ... but it does look appealing.
Click to expand...

Just go to ubuntu.com and order the (free) cdrom.
 
Tom said:
I want to build a good desk top number cruncher. Primary usage is a C
based program that performs the mathmatical calculations used to map
out a topology of various parameters. I do not need high end graphics.

Is a motherboard such as the ASUS P5K3 Delux a good choice?
Click to expand...

Before answering any of the other points in your post. Is the number
crunching software multithreaded? If it is written in C, then I would
suspect not, so multiple cores etc is a waste of time!
 
I want to build a good desk top number cruncher. Primary usage is a C
based program that performs the mathmatical calculations used to map
out a topology of various parameters. I do not need high end graphics.
Click to expand...

I will greatly value the input from those with 64-bit experience.

Currently I am stuck in the single core, 32-bit realm and am looking
for the fast lane.

GiGa-Thanks !!
Click to expand...

Giga Hellos Tom,

I have used XP x64 and Vista 64 bit and I like them a lot but there are
some issues that you should consider before you go that route.

Not all hardware has drivers for the 64 bit versions but since you are
talking about building from scratch, you can eliminate those problems up-
front with some research. You would still have to worry though about
drivers for printers, modems, scanners, etc that you already own.

Next you need to find out if the applications that you want to run will
work in the 64 bit version.

Forget 16 bit programs - they won't run at all.

32 bit programs for the most part will run, but verify first. Programs
like firewalls, anti-virus and some games are the most problematic.

64 bit programs will run of course, but are still few and far between.

Since you don't need Aero, XP x64 would probably be a better choice for
you. If you have the right drivers, it is very stable and fast. I don't
know this for a fact, but I suspect XP x64 would run most number
crunching apps faster than Vista 64 bit.

You can still order or download a free trial version of XP x64 at:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/trial.mspx

Try it and see if it works for you. You have 120 days to test it before
it goes into 60 days of 'limited functionality mode'.

As you say, the 64 bit operating systems break the 4 GB barrier, but if
you only need two GB to do your number crunching, 32 bit will suffice.
The 64 bit versions *are* recommended for people just like you who will
be working with large amounts of data like audio/video editing and large
data file manipulation. You didn't mention just how much data you will
be crunching.

You should also consider a RAID 0 or RAID 0 + RAID 1 setup in addition to
a standalone hard drive if you want speed. Your hard drive will be a
real bottleneck when working with large data files. The RAID 0 volume
space is perfect for fast temporary data manipulation. Again, this
depends on just how big these data files of yours are.
 
Before answering any of the other points in your post. Is the number
crunching software multithreaded? If it is written in C, then I would
suspect not, so multiple cores etc is a waste of time!
Click to expand...

Yes, it is multi-threaded. The reason I mentioned the program type was
so that others would realize I was not building a gaming rig or
running a canned application that required a specific operating
system. BTW ... my current favorite book on this topic is Sybex's "C#
Network Programming" by Richard Blum. Even though it is based on C#
and not C++.

The program uses double precision predominately. Thus it takes two
clock cycles to move a single value. I have zero 64 bit experience,
but simply moving values in one clock cycle should drastically improve
the speed.

To run a single thread requires about 0.7 gig of ram including the
full buffering of raw data. A single 2.4 GHz machine requires about 10
hours per window year. Thus a 4 year moving and dynamically optimized
window requires 40 hours each time you move the window.

I'm wanting to build a 4 core system in the $2,000 to $3,500 range and
make smart choices on operating system and components. My guess is
that such a system can reduce my current machine's topology 40 hour
run times down to about 4 hours.

Do I need more than 8 gig of ram for a 4 core system when running my
topology program? No.

I do not know if there is a time penalty for allowing each thread on
each core to share the same buffered raw data. If there is a time
penalty ... each core could independently buffer the same data.
Certainly the number of threads and cores directly impacts the
performance of topology type work. Two gigs of ram would be sufficient
for four threads if no data buffer sharing penalty exists.

My question about addressing up to 128 gig with a 64 bit operating
system is not just a hardware curiosity issue. In the future I want to
run multiple instances of my program in real time data acquisition
mode. Each instance will need approximately 0.3 gig of ram. I could
easily need to run 40+ instances simultaneously and thus will exceed
the typical motherboard 8 gig limit.

I am now becoming very interested in Linux. However, I do also have a
Vista Ultimate question for those with this experience.

-> Can you easily dual boot Vista Ultimate? I'd like to boot in 64 bit
mode for running my topology program and in 32 bit mode to run various
canned applications that I already own. I'm betting someone in here
knows the slickest way to boot in Vista 32, Vista 64, Linux, etc.
Using Partition Magic and renaming the partitions seems clunky ... but
I have never done it. Maybe a Boot Magic program? Any suggestions
along these lines folks?

Thanks again for any help received.

-- Tom
 
Tom said:
Yes, it is multi-threaded. The reason I mentioned the program type was
so that others would realize I was not building a gaming rig or
running a canned application that required a specific operating
system. BTW ... my current favorite book on this topic is Sybex's "C#
Network Programming" by Richard Blum. Even though it is based on C#
and not C++.

The program uses double precision predominately. Thus it takes two
clock cycles to move a single value. I have zero 64 bit experience,
but simply moving values in one clock cycle should drastically improve
the speed.

To run a single thread requires about 0.7 gig of ram including the
full buffering of raw data. A single 2.4 GHz machine requires about 10
hours per window year. Thus a 4 year moving and dynamically optimized
window requires 40 hours each time you move the window.

I'm wanting to build a 4 core system in the $2,000 to $3,500 range and
make smart choices on operating system and components. My guess is
that such a system can reduce my current machine's topology 40 hour
run times down to about 4 hours.

Do I need more than 8 gig of ram for a 4 core system when running my
topology program? No.

I do not know if there is a time penalty for allowing each thread on
each core to share the same buffered raw data. If there is a time
penalty ... each core could independently buffer the same data.
Certainly the number of threads and cores directly impacts the
performance of topology type work. Two gigs of ram would be sufficient
for four threads if no data buffer sharing penalty exists.

My question about addressing up to 128 gig with a 64 bit operating
system is not just a hardware curiosity issue. In the future I want to
run multiple instances of my program in real time data acquisition
mode. Each instance will need approximately 0.3 gig of ram. I could
easily need to run 40+ instances simultaneously and thus will exceed
the typical motherboard 8 gig limit.

I am now becoming very interested in Linux. However, I do also have a
Vista Ultimate question for those with this experience.

-> Can you easily dual boot Vista Ultimate? I'd like to boot in 64 bit
mode for running my topology program and in 32 bit mode to run various
canned applications that I already own. I'm betting someone in here
knows the slickest way to boot in Vista 32, Vista 64, Linux, etc.
Using Partition Magic and renaming the partitions seems clunky ... but
I have never done it. Maybe a Boot Magic program? Any suggestions
along these lines folks?

Thanks again for any help received.

-- Tom
Click to expand...

If youre only interested in running an application, there is no need
for all the extra guff in vista, it would merely consume useful
resources and slow things down.

A single program will see more resources and run a bit better under
win if you use winsolo.


NT
 
Tom said:
Yes, it is multi-threaded. The reason I mentioned the program type was
so that others would realize I was not building a gaming rig or
running a canned application that required a specific operating
system. BTW ... my current favorite book on this topic is Sybex's "C#
Network Programming" by Richard Blum. Even though it is based on C#
and not C++.

The program uses double precision predominately. Thus it takes two
clock cycles to move a single value. I have zero 64 bit experience,
but simply moving values in one clock cycle should drastically improve
the speed.

To run a single thread requires about 0.7 gig of ram including the
full buffering of raw data. A single 2.4 GHz machine requires about 10
hours per window year. Thus a 4 year moving and dynamically optimized
window requires 40 hours each time you move the window.

I'm wanting to build a 4 core system in the $2,000 to $3,500 range and
make smart choices on operating system and components. My guess is
that such a system can reduce my current machine's topology 40 hour
run times down to about 4 hours.
Click to expand...


A four core Intel Q6600, motherboard, and 8GB of non-ECC unbuffered DDR2
PC2-6400 memory can be had for $1400.

Support for >8GB RAM or dual physical CPUs becomes a somewhat different
matter.

Do I need more than 8 gig of ram for a 4 core system when running my
topology program? No.
Click to expand...
My question about addressing up to 128 gig with a 64 bit operating
system is not just a hardware curiosity issue. In the future I want to
run multiple instances of my program in real time data acquisition
mode. Each instance will need approximately 0.3 gig of ram. I could
easily need to run 40+ instances simultaneously and thus will exceed
the typical motherboard 8 gig limit.
Click to expand...


A desktop motherboard will support 8GB RAM maximum. If you plan on
growing to 16GB or more you'll need a workstation or server class
motherboard which means Socket 771 Xeons or Socket 1207 Opterons if you
go with AMD.
I am now becoming very interested in Linux. However, I do also have a
Vista Ultimate question for those with this experience.

-> Can you easily dual boot Vista Ultimate? I'd like to boot in 64 bit
mode for running my topology program and in 32 bit mode to run various
Click to expand...


Easily. I don't know as though Vista 64-bit is as good as Windows XP
64-bit for your needs. Driver support is so-so in either case. In terms
of functionality Vista offers nothing over XP.


If your current hard drive has free space you can create up to four
primary partitions or three primary and one extended partition from disk
management. When installing MS operating systems start with the oldest
one first. Then install Linux or a BSD. If you don't install in this
order Windows will overwrite the MBR.


Linux/BSD will allow you the option to install a boot manager such as
GRUB when it sees other operating systems.

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/structPartitions-c.html
 
I am now becoming very interested in Linux. However, I do also have a
Vista Ultimate question for those with this experience.

-> Can you easily dual boot Vista Ultimate? I'd like to boot in 64 bit
mode for running my topology program and in 32 bit mode to run various
canned applications that I already own. I'm betting someone in here
knows the slickest way to boot in Vista 32, Vista 64, Linux, etc.
Using Partition Magic and renaming the partitions seems clunky ... but
I have never done it. Maybe a Boot Magic program? Any suggestions
along these lines folks?

Thanks again for any help received.

-- Tom
Click to expand...

Vista's boot manager will recognize previous versions of Windows, though
I haven't tried it running both the 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista at
the same time. Doing that would require two copies/licenses of Vista.
Even though Ultimate Vista has both the 32 and 64 bit DVD's, you are by
EULA restricted to using only one at a time.

I don't know why you would want to do this though other than for
compatibility reasons. A 32 bit program runs in 32 bit mode even on the
64 bit version.

It is best to install Windows in 'oldest to newest' to keep the boot
manager happy. Running XP and Vista on the same PC will corrupt XP's
restore points. There are workarounds for this but not easy to
implement. You have to hide the XP partition from Vista.

You can install Ubuntu/Kubuntu after Windows is installed and the Grub
1.5 boot manager (that might be wrong - it's been a while) will recognize
Vista and allow you to dual boot to Vista or Ubuntu/Kubuntu. I like
Kubuntu since its KDE GUI is similar to Windows. Kubuntu didn't have
support for my modem and I didn't want to spring for a hardware based
modem so I am not using Kubuntu now, but plan to try it out again at a
later time.

You don't want to experiment with configuring or formatting existing
partitions using Grub if you have Windows already installed. I tried
that once and could not boot into Vista using Grub after the Kubuntu
setup was done. Installing Kubuntu after Windows is installed and doing
a normal setup *should* be no problem.

If you are doing anything non-standard, Ubuntu/Kubuntu has the same
configuration issues that Linux has been known for. The learning curve
to install drivers, RAID, etc can be steep for a new Linux user.
 
What you are planning to do seriously suggests that you consider a true
'workstation', instead of a consumer PC. A workstation would use a
workstation rated motherboard, Duo or Quad core Xeon processors, FB (Fully
Buffered) RAM, etc. Consumer model motherobards and RAM (DDR2, DDR3) do not
work with more than a max of 8 GB of RAM. FB RAM will scale up to 128 GB.
 
I want to build a good desk top number cruncher. Primary usage is a C
based program that performs the mathmatical calculations used to map out a
topology of various parameters. I do not need high end graphics.

Is a motherboard such as the ASUS P5K3 Delux a good choice?

http://computershopper.com/reviews/asus-p5k3-deluxe-motherboard-review

The above motherboard accepts up to 8 gigabytes (4 x 2) of DDR3 memory at
up to 1,600 MHz.

Considering Vista Ultimate 64-bit is able to support up to 128GB of memory
...

http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.aspx?qid=4251

... what motherboard/memory card combinations should I consider that could
go beyond the above motherboard's 8 gig limit?

I am currently looking at Intel Quad CPU's ... but understand that for
pure number crunching tasks there are other issues (i.e. L2 cache) that
enter into the performance calculation. Perhaps I should consider an AMD
configuration?

A dream set-up would be a multibladed server with lots of cores working
independently ... but for now a quad core desktop would really be
stretching my available funds. The ultimate would some research super
computer!!

Looking into DDR3 memory modules and latency issues >>

http://www.kingston.com/hyperx/products/ddr3_faq.asp
---------------------------------
Below is from above site:

Q. What latencies will standard DDR3 DIMMs support?

A. JEDEC DDR3 specifications define standard DDR3 CAS Latencies of 7, 9,
and 10:
-1066MHz DDR3: CAS 7 (7-7-7)
-1333MHz DDR3: CAS 9 (9-9-9)
-1600MHz DDR3: CAS 10 (10-10-10)

----------------------------------

Seems the higher latency chews up a lot of the higher speed performance?

Any advice for building a good number cruncher will be much appreciated.

I will greatly value the input from those with 64-bit experience.

Currently I am stuck in the single core, 32-bit realm and am looking for
the fast lane.

GiGa-Thanks !!
Click to expand...

Before going off the deep end and custom-building a single-machine desktop
number cruncher, might I suggest a serious look at Linux, if you can get
your app to the Linux kernel API.

My thinking is, many if not most Linux distros today offer some sort of
distributed computing capability. That being the case, then you might
build a network of some description, either co-located, or perhaps shared
around a virtual private network, and take advantage of several different
machines, rather than one single machine.

The big advantage of course is $$$$ not going to M$ to support their
questionable behaviors.
 
M. Trimble said:
Before going off the deep end and custom-building a single-machine desktop
number cruncher, might I suggest a serious look at Linux, if you can get
your app to the Linux kernel API.

My thinking is, many if not most Linux distros today offer some sort of
distributed computing capability. That being the case, then you might
build a network of some description, either co-located, or perhaps shared
around a virtual private network, and take advantage of several different
machines, rather than one single machine.

The big advantage of course is $$$$ not going to M$ to support their
questionable behaviors.
Click to expand...

Yes, if your number cruncher will have access to many other PCs,
a clustering linux might be an option.


NT
 
Giga Hellos Tom,

I have used XP x64 and Vista 64 bit and I like them a lot but there are
some issues that you should consider before you go that route.

Not all hardware has drivers for the 64 bit versions but since you are
talking about building from scratch, you can eliminate those problems up-
front with some research. You would still have to worry though about
drivers for printers, modems, scanners, etc that you already own.

Next you need to find out if the applications that you want to run will
work in the 64 bit version.

Forget 16 bit programs - they won't run at all.

32 bit programs for the most part will run, but verify first. Programs
like firewalls, anti-virus and some games are the most problematic.

64 bit programs will run of course, but are still few and far between.

Since you don't need Aero, XP x64 would probably be a better choice for
you. If you have the right drivers, it is very stable and fast. I don't
know this for a fact, but I suspect XP x64 would run most number
crunching apps faster than Vista 64 bit.

You can still order or download a free trial version of XP x64 at:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/trial.mspx

Try it and see if it works for you. You have 120 days to test it before
it goes into 60 days of 'limited functionality mode'.

As you say, the 64 bit operating systems break the 4 GB barrier, but if
you only need two GB to do your number crunching, 32 bit will suffice.
The 64 bit versions *are* recommended for people just like you who will
be working with large amounts of data like audio/video editing and large
data file manipulation. You didn't mention just how much data you will
be crunching.

You should also consider a RAID 0 or RAID 0 + RAID 1 setup in addition to
a standalone hard drive if you want speed. Your hard drive will be a
real bottleneck when working with large data files. The RAID 0 volume
space is perfect for fast temporary data manipulation. Again, this
depends on just how big these data files of yours are.
Click to expand...

Pecos -- Thank you !!

I had not considered XP64. Most interesting! Right now it is the front
runner (at least until Vista's SP-1 is finalized - or even better >> 6
months after SP-2). I remain very interested in Linux but find harmony
in the XP64 suggestion.

The memory capacity of the 64 bit operating systems is intriguing and
I am curious what hardware choices are available to max that out ...
but the primary reason I am interested in 64 bit is because in one
clock cycle it can move a double where as it takes 2 cycles for my
current Win2000. I sure hope I am not disappointed to find out 64 bit
does not *significantly* out crunch 32 bit.

I have zero RAID experience but I have searched a bit on dual or
multi-booting with RAID. Whew ... the challenges that others are
experiencing overwhelm me. Not an easy task!!

Does it make sense to consider a removable hard drive configuration?
Relatively small 80 gig, 7200 rpm SATA drives are available for under
$70. One operating system per drive. Not elegant but a stable
solution? That way I can experiment with Linux and get my feet wet
there as well as experiment with XP64 or even Vista eventually.
Approximately $100 per operating system for the drive and a tray seems
a lot better than the nightmare stories I've found looking for dual
booting RAID set-ups. Yikes! I have nothing against knowledge and
making tricky things work ... but beating my head against that wall
makes for flat brain waves? |:)

Anyone have a favorite brand of internal, single drive tray system to
recommend?

I've looked over the IcyDock products:

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2044&page=3

Having never owned a removable tray hard drive rack I don't know if
the above is as good as it gets or not. Seems the reviewer's 79%
rating is a bit low?

I like the idea of the IcyDock External eSATA rack too. Don't know how
many $100 bills I can throw at back up drives ... but having a drop in
replacement drive as a back up sure sounds nice. I'm guessing you can
just Ghost the internal drive onto the external drive for the simplest
possible back up. Beats the heck out of a tape drive .. eh? Or a shoe
box full of CD-RW's. A smaller box of DVDs, or even those new blueray
disks? :)

For now I will probably stick with a single 400 gig secondary hard
drive for data storage that can be shared between various operating
systems. Eventually I'd like to have a RAID configured for data
integrity. The bottleneck for me is the number crunching and not hard
drive throughput. I am more interested in redundancy and hot swapable
drives. There are some really awesome NAS boxes out there. Multibays,
firewire, 128 bit encryption with removable keys, all kinds of goodies
if you have the $$.

Your comments about printers, scanners, etc. are well received too. I
am definitely planning on keeping an existing computer setup to run
older, canned 32 bit applications and my very small collection of
peripherals.

Thanks again for your XP64 suggestion. I find the feed back
encouraging! Makes me anxious to finalize a build plan and get with
it. :))
 
If youre only interested in running an application, there is no need
for all the extra guff in vista, it would merely consume useful
resources and slow things down.

A single program will see more resources and run a bit better under
win if you use winsolo.


NT
Click to expand...

Thanks NT --

I was unaware of winsolo. I did a quick search and found it easily. :)
My guess is that it would be excellent for stand alone and dedicated
number crunching. I need to research it further. If it also terminated
firewall protection ... maybe best to run unconnected to the world? I
am not sure. If *everything* unneeded is shut down ... maybe it is
impossible for network connections to operate too? Thus no outside
threat exists? Very interesting !!!

Your comment led me to do a search on "Speeding up Vista for Gaming".
Several links there and lots of interesting material. Even though I
don't own Vista (not yet) ... getting some knowledge beforehand is a
good thing. :) I'm not really a gamer ... more of a lamer .. hahaha
.... but I do like fast number crunching efficiency.

Thanks again. Excellent tip.

-- Tom
 
Tom said:
.... snip ...

Your comment led me to do a search on "Speeding up Vista for
Gaming". Several links there and lots of interesting material.
Even though I don't own Vista (not yet) ... getting some
knowledge beforehand is a good thing. :) I'm not really a
gamer ... more of a lamer .. hahaha ... but I do like fast
number crunching efficiency.
Click to expand...

Before that read the following URLs. Then avoid Vista like the
plague. Linux is available.
 
<snip>

I began to respond to some previous feed back and got pulled away and
thus delayed. I also did a little researching too ... so my response
would indicate sincerity and show some effort on my end. Once I
responded I noticed some additional feed back and want to thank
everyone again.

Learning that it is "workstations" that allow a system to go beyond
the desktop's 8 gig memory limit is valuable knowledge. I need to dig
a bit into the "fully buffered" ram types for workstations. Perhaps
that is where the "error correcting" types of ram I have seen
mentioned come into play? Thanks!!

I dove off the deep end when thinking RAID and multi-booting various
operating systems. The additional comments about dual or multi-booting
with Linux's Grub and boot manager are a big help. Pulling on a pair
of Ropers is the closest I have ever come to dual booting. :)) Now I
have some confidence I could pull it off by following the OS
installation sequencing suggested.

Thank you all.

Oh ... I'm not wanting to kill this thread!! I am soaking up knowledge
like a thirsty sponge. I just want to throw in some gratitude along
the way!!
 
Pecos -- Thank you !!

I had not considered XP64. Most interesting! Right now it is the front
runner (at least until Vista's SP-1 is finalized - or even better >> 6
months after SP-2). I remain very interested in Linux but find harmony
in the XP64 suggestion.

The memory capacity of the 64 bit operating systems is intriguing and
I am curious what hardware choices are available to max that out ...
but the primary reason I am interested in 64 bit is because in one
clock cycle it can move a double where as it takes 2 cycles for my
current Win2000. I sure hope I am not disappointed to find out 64 bit
does not *significantly* out crunch 32 bit.

I have zero RAID experience but I have searched a bit on dual or
multi-booting with RAID. Whew ... the challenges that others are
experiencing overwhelm me. Not an easy task!!
Click to expand...

You can get a good 250-320 GB SATA II hard drive for less than $75 USD.
Consider getting two identical drives so that you can implement RAID when
you are ready. In a mirrored volume you will end up with the size of the
smallest drive in the array. Two 320 GB drives yields 320 GB of storage.
One 250 and one 320 GB drive will yield 250 GB of storage.

Also consider getting a motherboard with a Southbridge chip that ends in
a 'R', 'DH or 'DO' (except for the ICH5R) if you want to go with an Intel
based board. These motherboards will support Intel's Matrix RAID for
SATA hard drives. See this link for more info:

http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/matrixstorage_sb.htm

This type of RAID is 'fake' RAID as the Linux folks call it or software
based RAID. You might want to consider hardware based RAID if you have
the bucks. It won't eat up CPU cycles which seems to be an important
consideration in your 'number cruncher' setup.

RAID can be a bit of a challenge and isn't for everybody. I have now
experienced most of the downsides of RAID and I have decided that for me
the pluses outweigh the minuses. For more info on the downsides, read
the following:

http://www.pecos-softwareworks.com/foxconn_975x7ab-8ekrs2h.html#RAID
Does it make sense to consider a removable hard drive configuration?
Relatively small 80 gig, 7200 rpm SATA drives are available for under
$70. One operating system per drive. Not elegant but a stable
solution? That way I can experiment with Linux and get my feet wet
there as well as experiment with XP64 or even Vista eventually.
Approximately $100 per operating system for the drive and a tray seems
a lot better than the nightmare stories I've found looking for dual
booting RAID set-ups. Yikes! I have nothing against knowledge and
making tricky things work ... but beating my head against that wall
makes for flat brain waves? |:)
Click to expand...

If you want to go with external drives, get a motherboard with the number
of eSata connectors that you will need for the number of external SATA
drives you will be using.

I personally prefer internal hard drives, but I don't mind getting inside
the case and adding drives nor do I need to move the drive to another
computer.

I wouldn't recommend a separate drive for each OS. I have each OS on its
own partition, not drive. This works just fine for me. I also have a
separate partition for the Apps of each OS and partitions for personal
documents, music and multimedia. This makes it easier to do backups and
maintenance in general. It also keeps the partition that your OS is on
clean and available for apps that have to be installed there.
Anyone have a favorite brand of internal, single drive tray system to
recommend?

I've looked over the IcyDock products:

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2044&page=3

Having never owned a removable tray hard drive rack I don't know if
the above is as good as it gets or not. Seems the reviewer's 79%
rating is a bit low?

I like the idea of the IcyDock External eSATA rack too. Don't know how
many $100 bills I can throw at back up drives ... but having a drop in
replacement drive as a back up sure sounds nice. I'm guessing you can
just Ghost the internal drive onto the external drive for the simplest
possible back up. Beats the heck out of a tape drive .. eh? Or a shoe
box full of CD-RW's. A smaller box of DVDs, or even those new blueray
disks? :)

For now I will probably stick with a single 400 gig secondary hard
drive for data storage that can be shared between various operating
systems. Eventually I'd like to have a RAID configured for data
integrity. The bottleneck for me is the number crunching and not hard
drive throughput. I am more interested in redundancy and hot swapable
drives. There are some really awesome NAS boxes out there. Multibays,
firewire, 128 bit encryption with removable keys, all kinds of goodies
if you have the $$.

Your comments about printers, scanners, etc. are well received too. I
am definitely planning on keeping an existing computer setup to run
older, canned 32 bit applications and my very small collection of
peripherals.

Thanks again for your XP64 suggestion. I find the feed back
encouraging! Makes me anxious to finalize a build plan and get with
it. :))
Click to expand...

You are welcome. Have fun!
 
Back
Top