An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
The PS3 is great. The technology is superior. 25 GB of space for a game DOES make for better games, when that space is used. (Who wants to put get up and put in another disc when you're relaxing?) Better graphics anyone?
CDs replaced cassettes and DVDs replaced CDs. Who is stupid enough to think that a 25 GB or 50 GB disc is not going to replace a 4 GB disc? What does HD DVD offer, 15 GB to 30 GB? Throw that crap away and give yourself a real upgrade... Honestly, would you buy a 150 GB hard drive or a 250 GB hard drive? It's an equal comparison, in terms of ratio. I guess if you're cheap and you don't want the space, sure, save some money to blow on something else. I'd rather have the best now, personally. I got the 360 the day it was released. It was a shame to take it back to have it replaced 8 months later... Don't even try to say that cheap is better... Perhaps you don't remember the problems that so many people had with the 360?
Ok, just to give some understanding, I block all scripts on all web sites. This prevents pop-ups and other annoying junk that comes about while surfing. Whenever I need to allow the script in order to interact with the site, I can do that. I have to allow 4 sites permission to use scripts in order to use the special tags in my posts...
Ok, now I will show you how funny this looks to me.
Quote:
so the bright blue colour hurts my eyes as much as the sun...
Quote:
you wouldn't place blue on yellow on your website
Quote:
it's not easy to read large blue text on a grey/black background.
Ok, look at all of that. Someone says that blue is bright. Anyone that knows about accessibilty knows that bright fonts are what is wanted on a dark background and dark fonts are what is wanted on a light background. On my site, I use a dark blue on a light yellow background. Aside from perhaps color preferences, it was done correctly on my site. Besides, a few changes in the CSS could change every page instantly. I choose to use Blue and Gold for more than 1 reason. Back to this site, if blue is bright and obviously black and grey is dark, then that is correct, is it not???
Now I'll address some of the other issues that were mentioned.
\"Wow, Protection from SQL injection. Basic PHP Sql injection prevention can be done in 4 lines.. \"
It takes at least one line for the loop. It takes at least 1 line to grab the variable you are going to process. This is where you made your mistake. There are AT LEAST 4 characters that you want to process, so that's at the very least 1 line for comparison. You will also need at least 1 line to start a loop so that you can go through each character in the variable you are processing. You will need at least one other variable to at least temporarily hold the new string in, so there's another line. You will need to change the old value to a new value when you run into characters that aren't allowed, so there's another line... I suggest that you recount. Don't forget to count up the connection string variable and the select statements, as well as all of the other things needed when adding a post to the database.
Quote:
Quote:
Second of all, my color preferences SHOULD NOT affect any other visitor.
Quote:
Well they do. Just as they would to anyone else with relatively normal eyes, it's not easy to read large blue text on a grey/black background.
If my color preferences were only shown on the pages that I VIEW, then they would not be bothering anyone else. Not only did I explain this, but I told you how that it could be done as well...
Quote:
They feel as if we had ftp, database, etc. access it would be a security risk(which I should mention, it is).
If you were using your own server, you would have access to all of that and it wouldn't be a security risk unless you didn't know what you were doing.
First of all, I have to give 4 sites permission to use Script in order to even post. That is a bit ridiculous, but it is understandable on a rented forum.
Second of all, my color preferences SHOULD NOT affect any other visitor. We log in and data is being stored, thus there is no excuse whatsoever that preferences can't be saved. My preferences affecting everyone else is a mistake on the programmer's behalf, whether the program is being rented or is controllable.
Third, I have been in charge of my server for about the same amount of time. How is it that I see these things as a problem, yet you are just realizing it as an issue? If it is an option to use the color, why complain when someone does? It certainly doesn't hurt my eyes, and I'm on the computer all day long.
I don't have it configured as a forum, but I do have a database, a feedback form, and an auto-generated e-mail response, all of which I configured myself, including protection from SQL Injection and other stupid hacking tricks. String manipulation is rather easy. HTML is rather easy. JavaScript is rather easy. Database use is rather easy. Why then are you having troubles?
If you really are able to control the database part of the forum, then you should be able to throw in your own JavaScript to save user preferences in color without affecting any other poster. All you would have to do is disable the other program that handles posts and develop your own to save color preferences as a user preference within the database. It would only have to display that way for 1 person, so an added field to the database could easily decide if the color embedded in the database entry would actually be used or not.
If you really do possess the knowledge to change this, it would obviously resolve any future problems that came about because of it.
Random Write Performance: Very good; again, best if using a larger stripe size and a controller supporting independent writes.
Sequential Read Performance: Very good to excellent.
Sequential Write Performance: Very good\"
http://www.overclockercafe.com/Articles/RAID/ \"RAID 0 is the performance side of the house. RAID 0 or \"striping\" uses two drives in conjunction with one other for speed. Data is divided when it is written to both drives so that the workload is balanced and thus more efficient.\"
(By the way, if the color blue is an option and the font size large is an option, then don't change my posts because none of you have the skills or the ability to change what options are allowed. I could very easily help you with your programming, but it appears that you can't even configure the server. :))
Anyway, bottom line is that you're very uneducated about RAID 0. If you think 2 articles, (1 of which you totally misunderstood), is the basis for believing that RAID 0 offers no performance, then you are the one that is ignorant. I've totally backed up everything I've said. Try to get your foot out of your mouth before you speak next time.
\"Blue, don't even bother arguing with me until you actually read my original post and the links I have provided. Everything you just said I already covered and I am not repeating myself. I even provided links from two of the best review sites there is: Anandtech & StorageReview. Read both of these before you even reply again.\"
First of all, I read that review at Anandtech 6 months ago and I definitely recall calling the editor an idiot that has never used RAID 0. It was quite obvious then, and it is quite obvious now. As far as the Storage review, that was the first one that I read yesterday before replying. I think this must be a case of you not understanding what you are reading becauase I based my argument from the Storage article... The only thing that I've seen as an even valid argument is the page file topic, and I have already covered this twice...
\"You are completely forgetting that, in most situations, seek time is MUCH more important then sequential transfer rate. This is because the heads are hopping all over the place with IOs to many other files. So, in between all such IOs the heads will have to move anyway. Thge actual time spent reading or writing to the disks platter is small compared to the time seeking or writing to its own buffer.\"
It's funny that you would say that I'm forgetting it when I just explained it in my previous post. You would likely learn something if you at least READ my posts instead of assuming that you know it all... You are most definitely wrong, and I would highly recommend that you re-read that Storage article and also do some research about RAID and how it works.
\"As for the reliability thing, that also shows you didn't read my first post. I already explained this.\"
If you have explained this, then why are you stating it like it is of major importance? Obviously it is not.
\"Stop being so close-minded and thinking you are right.\"
lol I don't think I'm right. I know I'm right. Articles are backing me up, as well as benchmarks. You saying that seek times matter more than sequential read times only matters when there are mutliple things that need to be read at the same time that aren't stored in RAM. When you take the Page File out of the equation, that is rare. :)
\"Do some reading and you could actually learn something. I have provided you with a pretty long explanation and a few links. If you are not even going to read those don't even bother replieing to this thread.\"
That's good advice. You should take it. I've made over 2,000 posts while you've made about 300 in your forum? Where's your degree? Where are your builds? Where are your web sites? It looks like someone is behind on their reading, but I don't think that is me...
\"I already said this...\"
Good, then you realize that is the only time when RAID 0 isn't as effective. EVEN THEN, there are still performance gains in some applications. Go back and look at the benchmarks that I posted. Your only argument about it is null and void when taken out of the equation. If it's taken out, then you have no grounds to say that there are no performance gains. You even stated earlier that video editing and encoding offered gains. So, that doesn't count or something? lmao Anyway, you saying that there are no performance gains when there obviously are just doesn't make sense.
To help you to understand what is going on, they are referring to the pagefile being on the same drive. Obviously the pagefile is located in a different location than the program that it is also reading data about. Both of these are being queried at almost the same time because both of them are being called on at the same time. That basically means that the head will be running back and forth between the 2 locations, thus slowing everything down because it has to search for the location every time.
With the page file on another drive, this problem is resolved.
Show me 1 article that says that RAID 0 DECREASES performance more so than increases it, and I might start to believe it... I know that Read speeds are what matters most when running applications that require querying data from the hard drive. If the read speeds are increased, then so is the speed in which the application moves. It's just common sense that pulling data from the hard drive at a faster rate will get it to the processor faster. Even if performance isn't increased for EVERY application used, NO performance is lost. When you DO happen to use an application that benefits from faster Read speeds, then it is worth it.
As far as reliability, who cares? Buy 1 250 GB hard drive. When it goes bad, you lose the entire drive. Lose 2 74GB hard drives in a RAId, and the loss is no greater. Most people don't use more than 2 hard drives, so your complaint of reliability really has no stability. If reliability is an issue, most motherboards allow for at least 4 hard drives. 1 or 2 large storage devices will give you plenty of reliability while a system drive set up as a RAID 0 array will speed up most applications and won't lose any speed when it doesn't.
There is no way that you can convince me that pulling 120GB/s is less performance than a single drive pulling 70GB/s. It doesn't take a math genius to see which is faster.
\"QUOTE It proves that I'm very knowledgeable about computers and that my knowledge surpasses yours.
Wow, your joking, right?\"
I never joke about my intelligence and what I know about computers. I'm not some punk kid that has learned a few things from a web site. I will soon have a Bachelor's degree in Computer Information Systems. That doesn't mean that I know it all, but obviously the skills I have proof of count for a lot. All I've seen out of you is some talk and a couple of links.
Quite frankly, most of the other links that I looked at while browsing for benchmarks showed that, while the performance gain was not huge, it was still there and there was definitely no loss in performance.
Anyway, this argument is going nowhere. You should have stepped up to the plate a while back. Look at benchmark results and time comparisons, and you'll easily see that RAID offers more performance over a single drive. In many of the arguments presented, it was said that it would be best to have the page file on another drive. That means that optimal performance would come from having the page file on a single drive and having the system set up in a RAID 0 array.
I can tell you first hand that my PC loads Windows faster with a RAID 0 system array. If you think otherwise, then you are doing something wrong or have a slower PC where you don't notice the difference...
\"First of all, why are you typing in big, blue letters?\"
1. Have you ever listened to that song called, \"Blue\"? 2. I bet you can easily see which part of the post is mine and which is quoted. ;)
\"First I never said \"RAID-0 offered no benefit.\" RAID-0 does offer benefits, but the majority of the people that use it use it for the wrong reason and will not benefit at all from it.
Yes, when using a RAID-0 array your sustained transfer rate is increased by a lot, but the fact of the matter is that, in most situations, the drive spends the vast majority of the time reading and writing to its own buffer. The majority of the rest of the time is spent positioning the actuator to the read/write location. The actual time spent reading and writing data to a drives platter is pretty minute.
So, really the increase in sequential transfer rate does not translate to an increase in performance in most situations. RAID-0 may help substantially when doing something like video editing.. e.g. taking uncompressed video such as DV and adding/splicing/editing one or more addiitonal tracks will generally benefit from RAID0, but not necessarily by a huge amount. In this case, the ideal setup is to have the source files on one RAID0 array, and the target drive as another RAID0 array on another adaptor (a completely seperate bus).
If you are transcoding video, e.g. from avi/mpg - (and I wont ask what, or where from, but shall we say files around the 700mb mark from various usenet groups!) - to (s)vcd/mpeg2/dvd-mpeg, then RAID0 will be of no benefit. The disk drive will be waiting on the CPU to transcode the data. The only possible exception is when both source and target are on same drive, which is a daft idea and one is better off copying the source file to C: drive is that is the case.
When it comes to things like gaming, RAID-0 will offer little or no benefit and even in some cases may decrease performance because of the worsened seek times. The reason for this is because each drive has to seek to their portion of the data. Seek time is the dominating factor in most situations, because of this RAID-0 is bad for the OS (it is filled with small files) and the pagefile which is only read or written to in now larger then 64KB chunks.
RAID-0 may offer a performance advantage in some games, though. Such games benefit from RAID-0 because the maps are essentiall just large bitmaps and the higehr sequential transfer rate while using RAID-0 helps in this situations. This is because the hard drive is reading one large data file in a linear fashion as opposed to the heads having to move rapidly back and forth to access many different files. FPS games really would not benefit, and as I said, it may decrease performance because of the worsened seek times.
You also have to put into consideration that RAID-0 significantly reduces performance. The failure of ANY disk will result in the complete loss of all data on the array. This doubles the probability of failure. A short-term glitch in the controller, cable or drive can cause the drive to be struck from the array, resulting is the loss of data. With a single drive, the system would retry a few times, abort the request, and probably get valid data on the next read. This SIGNIFICANTLY increases the probability of failure. In larger RAID-0 arrays, this is the largest cause of array failure.
There is also other things which may not be as important, but could be considered drawbacks by many. Such things include increased noise levels and power consumption.
RAID-0 does have its advantages in some areas, where the data files are huge and/or data requests are highly sequential in nature. However, data requests are not in most situations. So, don't assume RAID-0 offers a huge performance advantage just because of the increased sequential transfer rate. Using a RAID-0 array also significantly reduces reliability. So, RAID-0 appropriate for CERTAIN USES (where fast data transfer on large blocks of data I/O is important), but is a waste for most.
Do you want some more info to back up what I am saying if you do not belive me? Here you go: QUOTE If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop. http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101
QUOTE The enthusiasm of the power user community combined with the marketing apparatus of firms catering to such crowds has led to an extraordinarily erroneous belief that striping data across two or more drives yields significant performance benefits for the majority of non-server uses. This could not be farther from the truth! Non-server use, even in heavy multitasking situations, generates lower-depth, highly-localized access patterns where read-ahead and write-back strategies dominate. Theory has told those willing to listen that striping does not yield significant performance benefits. Some time ago, a controlled, empirical test backed what theory suggested. Doubts still lingered- irrationally, many believed that results would somehow be different if the array was based off of an SATA or SCSI interface. As shown above, the results are the same. Save your time, money and data- leave RAID for the servers! http://storagereview.com/articles/200406/20040625TCQ_6.html
QUOTE I noticed no change in load up times across the board in the games ( except for Far Cry). Stipe size made no real difference in how long it took to load the levels. As to how Raid-0 stacks up against a single raptor... the only difference is in the benchmark scores... other then that.... in real world use... there is NO REAL IMPROVEMENT in load up times. http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=310250\"
http://www.barefeats.com/hard38.html
\"Ok, what does this prove?\"
It proves that I'm very knowledgeable about computers and that my knowledge surpasses yours. :)
\"How are any of us ATI fans? In this thread Predator and I have been saying ATI wins in D3D and nVidia wins in OpenGL. This is a proven fact. Anybody who says nVidia is better then ATI (or vice versa) is just plain ignorant.\"
It looks like it from the way many here are saying how the x1800xt is beating 7800GTX in SLI.
\"Look at any benchmark of an OpenGL game (Doom 3 maybe?) and nVidia will win. Look at a D3D benchmark (HL2 maybe) ATI will win. Of course, when comparing cards that are comparable in performance (not 6800GT vs X700 Pro).\"
I guess you don't even want to consider resolutions, power used, and heat?
\"It proves nothing. PCGEEK was trying to argue that ATi does not perform better in D3D games. Other benchmarks mean nothing when it comes to this discussion.\"
Well, if it isn't written in the thread, then I can't see it...
\"Also, I was talking about HWA as a whole. Seriously, when I go there I really don't see many intelligient posts at all. There may be a few very intelligient people there, but I am talking about the forum as a whole. I never said any particular person there (besides PCGEEK in the past) didn't know what they were talking about.\"
It doesn't look like you go there very much. You certainly didn't show up to debate the RAID 0 issue and it looks as if you don't even know me, so it doesn't look like you have much to go on.
\"It was MUCH more then one or two threads. The majority of the posts there back up my conclusion.\"
lol There are some misinformed posts, but saying that an entire forum is filled with uneducated posts is uncalled for. If you can't back that up, then don't say it.
Hi Super! It's good to see you again. It looks like you're still doing good. How's the house?
I came here with the intentions of fighting, but things don't look too bad. Perhaps it was cleaned up? I don't know, but it fires me up when people say that I don't know what I'm talking about. I've spent too much time learning to put up with that.
\"but you come in with no prior knowledge of the argument that was here before with PCGEEK.\"
I can't find that anywhere in this thread.
I was told that there was someone saying disrespectful things about people at HWA, so I came to see what was being said. When I read this thread, I noticed that it was true and there could possibly be even more things said that were \"cleaned\". I just thought that I would make an appearance and ask you to put your skills where your mouth is. If you can talk the talk, then walk the walk. PCGeek's scores with his 6800GT beat my x850 xt, so that should tell you something... Considering that I still have the card, you can't say that I'm lying. Check my web site pics if you don't believe me. You'll see the arctic freezer cooler on it in the blue PC.
Anyway, don't talk about people you don't know. They just might show up.
\"No offence to the actual forums you visit, but I have visited HWA, which I see you post a lot at and I have tried to find intelligient posts and every topic I check out has a whole bunch of people who have no idea what they were talking about. I especially liked the topic predator posted about RAID-0 where everybody there clearly showed they had no idea what they were talking about.\"
I remember that discussion. Someone was saying that RAID 0 didn't offer any performance gains and that person was from another forum. I take it that was someone from here? Anyway, that is a joke and it is obvious that there is at least 1 person here that has no clue what they are talking about.
Anyway, my ears were burning and I wanted to confront the person that said that no one at HWA has any idea what they are talking about. My web site is located on MY computer that's sitting right beside me. I configured it as a server. I built the web pages. I built the CGI scripts. It also contains pictures of the new computer that I've recently built and the earlier PC that I modded. You can find my site here:
From what I see here currently, I have found a rented forum on a rented server and a bunch of ATI fans that are not accepting the fact that NVidia blew ATI out of the water.
As far as this particular debate goes, I want to see real results and not talk. It seems that's all ATI is good at. If they knew what they were doing, these promised products would have been here back in April...
