If you know SCSI

[waffle]

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

[NoTalent]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

quoted for truth

[hicherbie]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, why sql isnt used still baffles me.
as far as how scsi performs with pt now...im running an x15 and performance is better than with a 7200, but it seems only slightly faster than my buddys 10k raptor. so it probably wouldnt be worth the extra money for just pt use.

i think its just pretty crushing to access that much data at one time...hardware upgrades wont get you there much faster.

[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.

[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 ]

[fluxrad]

If your CPU is pegged, then you're most likely not IO bound. You might check your data transfer rates to make sure you've got things like UDMA enabled (sometimes this gets shut off for one reason or another).

It really sounds like your box is just having trouble crunching the numbers on PT which isn't going to get fixed by a SCSI system, unless you also throw quad Xeons behind it.

Methinks those "database updates" are PT doing all kinds of B-Tree inserts, indexing, etc. Get an Athlon 64 and some SATA drives and be happy w/ the performance you get there


Just my .02

[mason55]

You can buy a solid state HD with a 3.5" interface.

If cost isn't a huge deal this is by far the best bet.