On 7 Aug 2007 at 9:39, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
> I'd rather get two 10,000 RPM drives, and RAID 0 them together than
> use a ram disk.
For performance, RAID 1 (mirroring) can get you tons of read
performance if you have a controller that is smart enough to read
from either mirrored volume.
RAID
Eric Dannewitz / 2007/08/07 / 12:39 PM wrote:
>I'd rather get two 10,000 RPM drives, and RAID 0 them together than use
>a ram disk.
Stay away from RAID 0. It isn't for professional use. It will be too
late when one of the two disks goes down. Most of the professional DAW
users who depends on
I'd rather get two 10,000 RPM drives, and RAID 0 them together than use
a ram disk.
A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Lawrence David Eden / 2007/08/07 / 07:59 AM wrote:
Your best bet would be to download the free trial and give it a test drive.
Which one are you suggesting?
Also how much physic
Lawrence David Eden / 2007/08/07 / 07:59 AM wrote:
>Your best bet would be to download the free trial and give it a test drive.
Which one are you suggesting?
Also how much physical RAM do you have? My guess is you need to have at
least 3.7GB (the upper limit of 32-bit system for single caching)
On the subject of Optimizing OS X, some people say if you dedicate a
partition for OS X swap it is supposed to speed things up as well. UFS
formatted partition.
http://www.bombich.com/mactips/swap.html
Then when/if the mac needs to go to virtual memory, it doesn't have to
use the main (and perh
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
http://www.osxfaq.com/tips/ram/index.ws
Great article. It brings up two points that I was mistakenly taking as
given.
The first point is that your system must have plenty of RAM to spare for
a RAM disk. Barring that, it is quite possible--even likely--you will
see no perfo
