If you know SCSI

[brazilio]

I personally use a couple of 15k RPM 73GB scsi disks set up in a raid 1 with some good soundproofing, but all you really need to check is seek times and somewhat pay attention to cache size. Eventually you get onto limited improvements the quicker your disks rotate. And yes, the trick to speeding up pokertracker is to stop using an access db. I'll take SCSI over IDE/SATA any day unless I'm looking for a cheap huge disk array where I've got a good number of failsafes. IDE disks especially are built for desktop use, not longterm hard disk usage. SCSI disks are built for server usage, where access is going to be hard and continuous. The strange thing is, from what I understand the actual platters are pretty much identical, the only difference is the disk hardware, cooling, and some mechanics.

There are some very good SATA disks out that may not eclipse SCSI in quality and performance, but they're certainly a damned good substitute for half as much money.

[fulltilt]

performance wise, u are not going to get a lot more out of scsi than rators in raid 0 for party poker. If u were running a server, thats a differnt story. It is ridiculous to spend so much on scsi drives when u get diminishing positive results for such things as to run poker tracker and 16 tables at once if u want and some other stuff, but u have to have a good proces and a good amount of ram at least a gig.

[NoTalent]

[ QUOTE ]
The real trick to speeding up pokertracker is to get away from access databases.

[/ QUOTE ]

quoted for truth

[astroglide]

i'm speaking from vast experience

if cost is not a concern, you should house your database on a ramdrive or solid state disk

[Terry]

Unanimous against. OK. Let me just hope the nature of my beast allows me to take the advice and not cause me to go ahead and try it anyway. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Ramdisk is an interesting idea, definitely the fastest solution. I haven’t used it for years – something to think about.

Thanks guys.

[MowrMowr]

[ QUOTE ]
There are some very good SATA disks out that may not eclipse SCSI in quality and performance, but they're certainly a damned good substitute for half as much money.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Bremen]

[ QUOTE ]
if cost is not a concern, you should house your database on a ramdrive or solid state disk

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course building a RAM drive to hold the DB would probably require a new motherboard, as many these days have problems with even 2GB :-( Sheesh, my old 440GX board would do 2GB no problem. Stupid timing issues with DDR, bah I say.

EDIT: duh, cost no issue. Well if you really want to spend a buy-in to the big game at Bellagio, go right ahead :0)

FWIW I plan on putting the Pokertracker DB on a RAID5 SATA array when the PostgreSQL implementation is released. I figure I got this hardware raid chip on the mobo, might as well use it :0)

[brazilio]

[ QUOTE ]

FWIW I plan on putting the Pokertracker DB on a RAID5 SATA array when the PostgreSQL implementation is released. I figure I got this hardware raid chip on the mobo, might as well use it :0)

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have a hardware raid chip on your motherboard, you have a shitty software implementation that still uses the processor for raid calculations. And you better check to see if that onboard even supports raid5.

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-in...leDriveVsRaid0

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the link. I've seen you say that many times, but it was good to see some numbers to back it up.

Freakin

[Bremen]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have a hardware raid chip on your motherboard, you have a shitty software implementation

[/ QUOTE ]
you know, I hate it when people are right. This is what I get for not paying attention to the latest hardware. You assume that just because software raid chips didn't do raid5 a couple years ago that anything that does raid5 must be a hardware raid solution. bleh the thing won't even work in a proper OS either (non M$). Time to buy a new motherboard I guess... I could really go for one of those 90 micron Athlon64's :0)