Renat,
I think few people buy SCSI RAID systems any more because they are so
expensive, and the reliability and speed of SATA RAID is quite good.
we use SATA raid systems hung off of a dedicated server, fed over a
gigabit ethernet, and find that this gives us quite good performance.
Local hard drive would obviously be faster, but that's not a scalable
solution.
cheers
russ
On Mar 29, 2005, at 4:04 PM, Renat Yakupov wrote:
> Hello SPM users.
> This quite off topic, but I was hoping you could give your opinion or
> share
> your experiences with me.
> We are thinking about upgrading our processing workstation. And we are
> thinking of buying RAID5. The question is, if the CPU speed and RAM is
> not
> an issue (I think we will get a cluster of a few BLADE servers),
> between
> SATA or SCSI RAID5, would any of them be significantly faster than the
> other, or would any of them be so slow that there would be no point in
> getting a lot of computational power? Also, given it is SATA or SCSI
> RAID5
> and ethernet bandwidth is not an issue, would setting it up as a local
> hard
> drive or in a network attached storage system be significantly faster?
> This is all related to doing usual fMRI preprocessing and analysis.
> Thank you.
>
> Regards,
> Renat.
>
>
---
Russell A. Poldrack, Ph.d.
Assistant Professor
UCLA Department of Psychology
Franz Hall, Box 951563
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563
phone: 310-794-1224
fax: 310-206-5895
email: [log in to unmask]
web: www.poldracklab.org
|