Digital BW, The Print

Austin Franklin wrote:

 >I also don't know if all versions of Windows can address that much memory.
 >I know I have 2G on a Win2k Professional computer, and it seems to 
"see" all
 >of it, so with W2kP 2G is not an issue...
 >
 >
No more than 512mB AFAIK on a Win9x box... There are workarounds to this
limit, but they are not foolproof.. They wouldn't work on my system...
  However NT based systems 2K and XP have no problem..

 >And, BTW, I wouldn't recommend spending the money on a Xeon.  It only has
 >larger cache, and that probably doesn't help with PS.
 >
 >
 >
Agreed... Dual  PIIIs (the fastest ones your dual m-board can handle)
are much more cost effective...

You've REALLY got to properly set your WINDOWS  AND  PShop memory...

Windows (we are speaking NT here) should be set to use a FIXED size
page/swapfile in a multiple of 2-3 times your system RAM (for large
amounts of ram -- over 1gB -- under 1 gB I recommend 3-4 times system
ram)... You need that to go on a separate disk if possible (7200 or
10,000 rpm min with fast seek times..), if not use at least a separate
partition.

DO NOT USE NTFS FOR THE SWAP/PAGE FILE -- IT INCREASES SYSTEM OVERHEAD..

For swap/page partitions use FAT32 over 2gB and FAT under 2gB partition
size (FAT does better with small numbers of  large files, but has a 2039
mB max partition size..)..  Keep as few disks NTFS as possible -- the
security features eat performance so don't use it on a standalone or
small office machine at all....

With large amounts of RAM you need to tweak Windows to run processes in
  RAM instead of swapping them out.. There are tweak pages around the net
that explain the registry changes... I don't want to give them here, as
I don't want to hear about people messing up their registry..

Try starting here:
http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/memory-win2k/2kmem-3.shtml

You also need to give PShop it's own scratch disk(s) on separate
drive(s) or partition(s)... Same rule as for the swapfile... Use your
fast disks for this..

Keep the swap/page and scratch disk(s)/partition(s)  defragmented and
clean..  I recommend Executive Software's Diskkeeper (don't believe
those who say NT doesn't need disk defragging)..

The scratch disk(s) should have free space equaling 5-6 times  your
typical large image size..  (The size as shown by PShop when you are
working on  an image -- not the saved size).. I use  2gB of scratch
space on a 7200 rpm drive and have my data drive set as the third
scratch partition in case I run out of space..

Again USE FAT for these disks..

NEVER have a pagefile, swapfile. or scratch disk on your boot drive if
you can avoid it..

Since with large RAM numbers, a lower percentage of RAM is taken up by
system resources, you can give PShop a higher % of available RAM.. (From
the PShop prefs)

Make sure your RAM and swap/page disks are NOT being checked for virii
  or protected by Norton Protection (Undelete software).. It'll slow them
way down..

You can alter the "priority" of PShop from the task manager OR you can
change it's default priority in the registry (I don't recommend the
latter unless you intend to lower it's priority)..  Yes, you can change
the priority while PShop is running (if you find you want more or less
cpu cycles devoted to it)..

PShop was designed to use its own memory management because Windoze
could not address enough RAM or efficiently swap the amount of data
necessary..  Of course, that was then, this is now -- it needs its
memory model redone now...

Make sure Ultra DMA capable disks are actually using it... Check them in
device manager..

Another thing..  When PShop crashes or locks up it will often leave
behind a scratch file --  ~PS*.tmp.  You need to periodically check your
scratch disk(s) for these buggers and delete them if they are there when
PShop is NOT running.

If you are doing RAID striping, the actual file systems you may be able
to use, FAT, FAT32, NTFS, etc.. may be predetermined -- I don't need to
hear about that...

One final thing, even with AGP video boards... Unless you do a lot of 
gaming or 3d work keep them set to maximize performance..  Turn off 3d 
menus and shadows, in Windoze, etc..  That stuff just slows down the 
system..

Keith




</div>

Keith writes:

> Keep as few disks NTFS as possible -- the
> security features eat performance so don't
> use it on a standalone or small office machine
> at all....

I disagree.  Lose power at the wrong time on a FAT system, and you lose
everything.  NTFS is much more resistant to corruption, and is generally
much more solid overall.  The processor time required to handle the file
system is insignificant compared to other consumers of processor resources.

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>Keith writes:
>
>  
>
>>Keep as few disks NTFS as possible -- the
>>security features eat performance so don't
>>use it on a standalone or small office machine
>>at all....
>>    
>>
>
>I disagree.  Lose power at the wrong time on a FAT system, and you lose
>everything.  NTFS is much more resistant to corruption, and is generally
>much more solid overall.  The processor time required to handle the file
>system is insignificant compared to other consumers of processor resources.
>
>
>
>  
>
Between that and your comment on Ceon vs. non-Xeon,, and refusing to 
compare compatable Xeon and non-Xeon Intel CPUs... You sure you ain't 
working for/with Intel or M$?

Keith
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>Keith writes:
>
>  
>
>>Keep as few disks NTFS as possible -- the
>>security features eat performance so don't
>>use it on a standalone or small office machine
>>at all....
>>    
>>
>
>I disagree.  Lose power at the wrong time on a FAT system, and you lose
>everything.  NTFS is much more resistant to corruption, and is generally
>much more solid overall.  The processor time required to handle the file
>system is insignificant compared to other consumers of processor resources.
>
>
>  
>
Here's my CAVEATs..

1)  Use NTFS on RAID arrays.. Losing power onthose can creat quite a 
mess..  Of course, a UPS probably is a good idea if you are using raid 
and the UPS incurs NO processor hit..  ;-)

2)  For the eternally paranoid, NTFS might be justifiable on "non-RAID" 
Data or Appliucarion drives..

NTFS  IS 1000% pointless for SCRATCH/PAGE/SWAP disks..  I say 1000% 
becuse it will actually COST you performance on those disks (and they 
are essentially operating as virtual memory -- would you downclock your 
RAM?")..  THE ONLY place I would specify NTFS for those drives is say at 
a DOD or other higher security location where one  may want to "lock" 
those disks/partitions..

Using a single file sytem is as brain dead as always using gifs or 
always using JPEGS for eeb pages..  You need to choose the file system 
based upon the use for the partition AND the environment.. NEWER is 
clearly NOT ALWAYS BETTER with WiuTel..

Keith
 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Keith writes:

> Here's my CAVEATs..

Let's skip the geek session, shall we?

Here's what photographers need to know:

NTFS and FAT are two different ways of organizing files on a PC.  They look
the same, but they work differently internally.  If you don't know which one
your computer uses, don't worry about it.  If you are installing a system
and you are asked to choose between NTFS and FAT, I recommend NTFS, as the
higher reliability of NTFS is more important than the slightly better
performance of FAT for someone whose livelihood depends on his computer
(besides, FAT performs less and less well as the size of your hard disk
increases).

Doug I. wrote:

>Keith, I think you've just created the best Mac advertisement yet. I know
>it'd make me want to switch if I hadn't already. Maybe you should forward it
>to Chiat/Day. Ha ha.
>
>;-)
>Doug
>
>  
>
HOW TRUE!!!!

I'm no slave to any hardware or OS platform...

and your comment just made me see the forest for the trees in some sense...

For your average serious amateur or professional user of a PC 
primarily/heavily for PhotoShop, a Mac may be the answer (except if you 
are one of us geeks who builds our own machines from components ;-)  and 
tweaks the system to get the power that all the M$ services and weird 
defaults eat up)...  



Keith
 
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Keith,

> NTFS  IS 1000% pointless for SCRATCH/PAGE/SWAP disks.

Well, not entirely...the fact that FAT is so fragile, and can be easily
damaged may cause you to have to spend time rebuilding the disk etc.  With
NTFS, you are far far far less likely to have to waste time rebuilding your
disk.

> Using a single file sytem is as brain dead...

Why?

Austin

> NTFS is much more resistant to corruption, and is generally
> much more solid overall.  The processor time required to handle the file
> system is insignificant compared to other consumers of processor
> resources.

I completely agree with both those statements, ESPECIALLY the first.  It
seems to be the registry is now the real fragility of W2k, not the NTFS file
system.  IMO, the registry is simply a foolish concept that never should
have seen the light of day.  It is WAY too easy to corrupt, and cause
catastrophic, unrecoverable failure.  Been there, done that.  And...I don't
mean by registry editing, I mean by some fool program writing the registry
and screwing it up.

Austin

Austin writes:

> I completely agree with both those statements,
> ESPECIALLY the first.  It seems to be the registry
> is now the real fragility of W2k, not the NTFS file
> system.  IMO, the registry is simply a foolish concept
> that never should have seen the light of day.

I agree.  It is too critical to the system, and too easy to break.  It's
better than the WIN.INI text file that it was intended to replace, but not
by much.

In general, I'm very wary of any kind of centralized, mission-critical
database file in any operating system.  Databases are just too unreliable
for critical OS use, so the less there are in an OS design, the better.  I
never much cared for the fact that Microsoft Exchange Server used a
monolithic, proprietary relational database, with no repair tools, no
fallback provisions, etc.; and the Active Directory successor is no better.

For reliability, I tend to like the UNIX philosophy of simple flat files.
Yes, it's inefficient, but it's easy to fix, as long as the design isn't too
bizarre (although UNIX does have a habit of putting such files all over the
place, which makes maintenance difficult).

> And...I don't mean by registry editing, I mean by
> some fool program writing the registry and screwing it up.

NT-family operating systems allow permissions to be attached to the
Registry, but because the Registry is such a rat's nest of parameters, very
often just about everyone can write to just about everything by default, so
it doesn't necessarily help much.

Hi Anthony,

> It's [registry]
> better than the WIN.INI text file that it was intended to replace, but not
> by much.

I don't see how it's better, from a reliability standpoint.  At least with
the .ini files, they were first off, individual per application, and second,
were text files.

Pretty OT, so I'm going to pass on any more on this topic.  Seems like we
agree on this one ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Austin Franklin wrote:

>>NTFS is much more resistant to corruption, and is generally
>>much more solid overall.  The processor time required to handle the file
>>system is insignificant compared to other consumers of processor
>>resources.
>>    
>>
>
>I completely agree with both those statements, ESPECIALLY the first.  It
>seems to be the registry is now the real fragility of W2k, not the NTFS file
>system.  IMO, the registry is simply a foolish concept that never should
>have seen the light of day.  It is WAY too easy to corrupt, and cause
>catastrophic, unrecoverable failure.  Been there, done that.  And...I don't
>mean by registry editing, I mean by some fool program writing the registry
>and screwing it up.
>
>
>  
>
Ummm And the quote you just referenced relates "how" to the registry?


Keith
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Austin Franklin wrote:

>Keith,
>
>  
>
>>NTFS  IS 1000% pointless for SCRATCH/PAGE/SWAP disks.
>>    
>>
>
>Well, not entirely...the fact that FAT is so fragile, and can be easily
>damaged may cause you to have to spend time rebuilding the disk etc.  With
>NTFS, you are far far far less likely to have to waste time rebuilding your
>disk.
>  
>

WRONG your page or swap disk should ONLY have one file on it..  The 
Page/swap/or scratch file that's it..  I've never had to rebuild a 
scratch/page or swap disk..  If you run your page/scratch/swap disk  on 
any but its own partition that is a wholly different manner. But, my 
suggestions were made for when they are on separate partitions..

If you run the page/swap/scratch  disk on a disk partition with 
applications or data you are not only asking for reduced performance but 
taking chances with data  integrity..  Anyone doing that deserves 
whatever problems they have.. Computers simply aren't plug and play when 
working with resource hogs like PShop or Premiere.. (Contrary to the way 
they are marketed to the current crop of digital enthusiasts)

>  
>
>>Using a single file sytem is as brain dead...
>>    
>>
>
>Why?
>
>
>  
>
BECAUSE, each file system has inherent strengths and weaknesses..

Just as with film choice, one COULD,  simply shoot Kodak all-in-one any 
iso color negative film.. Scan it, make B&W images, make transparencies 
from a film recorder etc..  However, differing emulsions are more suited 
or efficient at some tasks..

Austin, you really have a production engineer's view of things.. 
 Photography is "realism"..  Now, "why not just use whatever the 
manufacturer trumpets as the best file system?"...  I assume you use 
other than OEM inks and media? You don't simply accept that the OEM's 
representations are correct, do you?  If so, I have some EPSON OEM 1270 
25 year archival ink cartridges to sell you..

Or do you just enjoy playing the "constant devil's advocate"?
 
Keith
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >>NTFS  IS 1000% pointless for SCRATCH/PAGE/SWAP disks.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well, not entirely...the fact that FAT is so fragile, and can be easily
> >damaged may cause you to have to spend time rebuilding the disk
> etc.  With
> >NTFS, you are far far far less likely to have to waste time
> rebuilding your
> >disk.
> >
> >
>
> WRONG your page or swap disk should ONLY have one file on it..  The
> Page/swap/or scratch file that's it..  I've never had to rebuild a
> scratch/page or swap disk..

Keith, come on.  What I said is NOT wrong.  Because YOU haven't had problems
doesn't mean others haven't.  It's a simple FACT, like it or not, NTFS IS
more robust than FAT...FACT.  No matter how many files are on it, it CAN get
corrupted.

I AGREE that running the page/scratch/swap disk on it's own partition,
that's not what I'm disagreeing with you on, and has no bearing on the
unreliability of FAT.

> >>Using a single file sytem is as brain dead...
> >
> >Why?
> >
> BECAUSE, each file system has inherent strengths and weaknesses..

That's true, but that doesn't mean it's "brain dead".  I agree that using
different partitions is a good thing, or in fact, different hard disks...but
FAT is unreliable and a waste of time, IMO...and I would never consider
using it again.  I've had to rebuild many FAT disks until I switched to NT,
and have had little file system trouble since.

> Just as with film choice, one COULD,  simply shoot Kodak all-in-one any
> iso color negative film.. Scan it, make B&W images, make transparencies
> from a film recorder etc..  However, differing emulsions are more suited
> or efficient at some tasks..

That's an entirely different issue.

> Austin, you really have a production engineer's view of things..
>  Photography is "realism"..

I NEVER said photography is realism.  I said it can be a realistic
representation of reality.  They are two different things.

> Now, "why not just use whatever the
> manufacturer trumpets as the best file system?"...  I assume you use
> other than OEM inks and media?

I use Piezo inks, and only EHWM for my B&W work.  I don't do any color work,
but I do use Epson inks for my color printers.  No need to use any others,
they work just fine.

> You don't simply accept that the OEM's
> representations are correct, do you?

No, of course not...but I use what works for me.

> If so, I have some EPSON OEM 1270
> 25 year archival ink cartridges to sell you..

What I print on my 1270 isn't archival, so make me a good offer ;-)

> Or do you just enjoy playing the "constant devil's advocate"?

When I comment on things, it has nothing to do with playing devil's
advocate.  I speak my mind, and typically, with issues like this, it's from
a lot of personal experience.

Regards,

Austin

Keith,

> >>NTFS is much more resistant to corruption, and is generally
> >>much more solid overall.  The processor time required to handle the file
> >>system is insignificant compared to other consumers of processor
> >>resources.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I completely agree with both those statements, ESPECIALLY the first.  It
> >seems to be the registry is now the real fragility of W2k, not
> the NTFS file
> >system.  IMO, the registry is simply a foolish concept that never should
> >have seen the light of day.  It is WAY too easy to corrupt, and cause
> >catastrophic, unrecoverable failure.  Been there, done that.
> And...I don't
> >mean by registry editing, I mean by some fool program writing
> the registry
> >and screwing it up.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Ummm And the quote you just referenced relates "how" to the registry?

Er, reliability.  Now that NTFS has increased the reliability of the file
system on Windows systems to a point where it's not really a problem any
more, the new bad apple is the registry.  It is the weak link (aside from
very bad code that is) in the Windows "architecture".  I use "architecture"
and "windows" in the same sentence loosely...though I know the "architect"
of Windows NT, Dave Cutler, as he was the architect (not loosely used) of
Digital's VMS...and I know he knows better...

Austin

Austin Franklin wrote:

>Keith, come on.  What I said is NOT wrong.  Because YOU haven't had problems
>doesn't mean others haven't.  It's a simple FACT, like it or not, NTFS IS
>more robust than FAT...FACT.
>
I'm not debating that as factual, I'm saying thar on a scratch/page/swap 
disk the additional robustness is not worth the performance hit..

Actually I've had to rebuild disks and partitions.. In every case the 
real problem was user error of one sort or another (ignoring the virus 
induced partition error/boot sector cases)..  Partitions with less than 
10% free space, swap files on boot-up disks, etc...

As I've said, running PSHop is NOT like running M$ Word, it taxes the 
system..  Run both it and windows using all defaults and you are asking 
for trouble..

>  No matter how many files are on it, it CAN get
>corrupted.
>  
>
sure.. and if one file gets corrupted?


>I AGREE that running the page/scratch/swap disk on it's own partition,
>that's not what I'm disagreeing with you on, and has no bearing on the
>unreliability of FAT.
>  
>
True..

We'll have to just disagree on this..

However, a bunch of incremental (even small)  processor cycle or memory 
hits add up quickly...  Especially if you aren't running a lot of RAM, 
those hits are better off avoided..


Keith



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Austin Franklin wrote:

>When I comment on things, it has nothing to do with playing devil's
>advocate.  I speak my mind, and typically, with issues like this, it's from
>a lot of personal experience.
>
>  
>

Your word is certainly good enough for me...

Not that it matters in the big scheme of things..

Just felt I should make that clear..

Keith
 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Austin Franklin wrote:

>..though I know the "architect"
>of Windows NT, Dave Cutler, as he was the architect (not loosely used) of
>Digital's VMS...and I know he knows better...
>
>Austin
>
>
>  
>

Smack him for me once in awhile.. LOL

Keith
 
 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2002, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >..though I know the "architect"
> >of Windows NT, Dave Cutler, as he was the architect (not loosely used) of
> >Digital's VMS...and I know he knows better...
> >
> >Austin
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Smack him for me once in awhile.. LOL

Keith,

It's not his fault.  He only has so much he can control...and it's a real
shame.

Austin

VMS was a very good OS - especially for real time data acquisition and 
processing systems. It's throughput rate was much better than UNIX in 
these applications. It wasn't that VMS was a bad OS or that Dec 
computers were bad, the Dec management was the pits. They literally not 
only couldn't see the workstation revolution brought on by Sun, Apollo, 
etc., it was they fought it to their death.

Dec was a classic example of a computer that was getting squeezed from 
the top because the Cray were dropping in price and from the bottom on 
performance by the workstations and chose to dig in and defend an 
obsolete technology.

The last great holdout for VMS was the US DOD and now they are running 
UNIX on their Alphas.

Truman

Austin Franklin wrote:

>
> > >..though I know the "architect"
> > >of Windows NT, Dave Cutler, as he was the architect (not loosely 
> used) of
> > >Digital's VMS...and I know he knows better...
> > >
> > >Austin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Smack him for me once in awhile.. LOL
>
> Keith,
>
> It's not his fault.  He only has so much he can control...and it's a real
> shame.
>
> Austin

Hi Truman,

> It wasn't that VMS was a bad OS or that Dec
> computers were bad, the Dec management was the pits.

That's only part of the story...some was quite good.

> They literally not
> only couldn't see the workstation revolution brought on by Sun, Apollo,
> etc., it was they fought it to their death.

You're right, but that was mostly marketing's fault to start with.  They
were fat, dumb and happy...DEC was called "The Country Club", because no one
in the marketing/sales department had to work in the mid/late 80's, early
90's, people were knocking on the door to buy systems.

The other revolution that passed DEC by, was the PC market.  Though DEC did
start a dynamite PC group, and had world class notebooks and servers, and in
fact, in their third year of operation, were ranked in the top three in both
areas...didn't do desktops well at all, and were very bogged down by upper
management and corporate problems...like who got credit for what, buying DEC
made things internally was more expensive then buying them from an outside
vendor, DEC wasn't used to very fast produce development cycles, that the PC
industry required...on and on I could go.

Things were getting FAR better in the last few years, before Palmer sold his
soul...and he was partly one of the major problems with DEC in fact.  He was
only interested in what was in it for him...not what was for the good of the
company, though some stockholders were quite happy with the Compaq deal, as
they bought in at $18, and the acquisition was for one Compaq share and
$30...but...taxes were due at that time...which, I believe, is how they got
the merger past the government so easily.  That merger has caused a huge
slump here in the North East, as Compaq basically closed most everything
down up here, and there are lots of "For Lease" buildings, and a lot of
unemployed people...  Compaq really only wanted Digital's Services
organization...not really anything else, as it was the one thing they were
lacking...  It's all really quite sad.

Regards,

Austin

Keith writes:

> WRONG your page or swap disk should ONLY have
> one file on it.

That is not practical for normal users.

Furthermore, in optimization circles, we do not speak of disks; we speak of
spindles, heads, surfaces, and cylinders.  Sometimes we even speak of
channels and controllers.  To really optimize, you need a separate copy of
each.  But the gain is small in this case, and the overhead and expense of
setting up such a configuration is ridiculously large.

> If you run your page/scratch/swap disk on
> any but its own partition that is a wholly
> different manner.

Running it on its own partition gains nothing, unless the above rules are
followed.  In fact, running it on a separate partition on the same physical
spindle can hurt performance.

System optimization is a complex subject, not to be undertaken lightly.  For
the average user, it is more trouble than it is worth.  If the system is too
slow, just buy a faster system.

Oh, and P.S. ...obviously I've recovered ;-)