Machine Requirements - Updated for 2010 - What do you think?

[parsonsv]

I have the option of two machines. I'll have to push my reasons for the 2nd; however, I believe it'll be a better box for handling some of Flare's features (such as auto-suggesting snippets, variables, etc) which takes a lot of hard drive swapping. That being said, perhaps I could do better? If you had the option of the following two machines, which would you choose? Or, would you choose one but swap out a component for something better (such as a different hard drive)? I know there are multiple factors, and yes, I do run a bunch of processor-intensive company software at the same time while I'm documenting, as well as MadCap's capture utility, but I'm mostly interested in your opinion of the best machine for MadCap Suite.

This article appeared in 2008, which seems to equate the Budget machine at that time with the specs I'm listing below (or close) http://madcapsoftware2.wordpress.com/20 ... ion-times/


OPTION 1 - The Budget Machine

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 with VT (3.0GHz, 6M, 1333MHz FSB
Hard Drive: 500GB 7,200 RPM 3.5” SATA, 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with NCQ and 16MB cache
Memory: 4GB DDR3 Non-ECC SDRAM, 1066MHz, (2 DIMM)
Video Card: 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 9300 (2 DVI /1 TV-out), Full Height


OPTION 2 - Enhanced Machine

Processor: Quad-Core Intel Xeon W 3500 2.66 GHz, 8m L3, 4.8GT/s, Turbo
Hard Drive: 500GB SATA 3.0Gb/s with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache
Memory: 4GB, 1066MHz, DDR3 SDRAM, ECC (2 DIMMS)
Video Card: 256MB NVIDIA Quadro NVS 295, 2MON, 2 DP w/ 2 DP to DVI

[Andrew]

I have the option of two machines. I'll have to push my reasons for the 2nd; however, I believe it'll be a better box for handling some of Flare's features (such as auto-suggesting snippets, variables, etc) which takes a lot of hard drive swapping. That being said, perhaps I could do better? If you had the option of the following two machines, which would you choose? Or, would you choose one but swap out a component for something better (such as a different hard drive)? I know there are multiple factors, and yes, I do run a bunch of processor-intensive company software at the same time while I'm documenting, as well as MadCap's capture utility, but I'm mostly interested in your opinion of the best machine for MadCap Suite.

This article appeared in 2008, which seems to equate the Budget machine at that time with the specs I'm listing below (or close) http://madcapsoftware2.wordpress.com/20 ... ion-times/


OPTION 1 - The Budget Machine

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 with VT (3.0GHz, 6M, 1333MHz FSB
Hard Drive: 500GB 7,200 RPM 3.5” SATA, 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with NCQ and 16MB cache
Memory: 4GB DDR3 Non-ECC SDRAM, 1066MHz, (2 DIMM)
Video Card: 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 9300 (2 DVI /1 TV-out), Full Height


OPTION 2 - Enhanced Machine

Processor: Quad-Core Intel Xeon W 3500 2.66 GHz, 8m L3, 4.8GT/s, Turbo
Hard Drive: 500GB SATA 3.0Gb/s with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache
Memory: 4GB, 1066MHz, DDR3 SDRAM, ECC (2 DIMMS)
Video Card: 256MB NVIDIA Quadro NVS 295, 2MON, 2 DP w/ 2 DP to DVI

I don't actually have a quad core processor, but I'd be surprised if you got much out of it in Flare, expecially against a dual-core with a higher clock rate. The video cards are going to be no different for Flare, and the difference in RAM would be negligible. I would probably take the Budget machine, and, if I can, replace the HDD (or better, add a new HDD) that is a decent solid state drive. Doesn't need a whole lot of space (most likely, unless you have many GB worth of projects). That is going to get you a very nice boost in performance with things like scanning your project, compiling, and possibly even transforms (not sure to what extent those are read from the HDD).

[parsonsv]

Let's say I couldn't get a SSD (cause, likely I can't). Would a 10,000 RPM SATA provide any better performance?

[NorthEast]

Let's say I couldn't get a SSD (cause, likely I can't). Would a 10,000 RPM SATA provide any better performance?

It should be faster than a drive of the same type with a lower rpm, all other things being equal. Other things like the cache will effect speed too.

More importantly though, take notice of the SATA type as this determines the drive's max transfer rate - SATA-1/150 (1.5GB/s), SATA-2/300 (3GB/s), and SATA-3/600 (6GB/s) - although this last one's not very common.
So in your examples above, the drive in the PCs is a SATA-300 (3GB/s).

[RamonS]

Any faster hard drive will provide better performance. But keep in mind that the 10k SATA drives and the consumer SSD drives are about the same price. If you want to go for drive speed you better get some less expensive drives, but four of those and run a striped mirror.
As mentioned before, Flare doesn't make use of multiple cores because the way .NET is designed it cannot. Therefore a dual core will be as good as a quad core for Flare. Keep in mind that you need a 64bit OS to make use of the full 4 GB of RAM. If you run sth like Windows 7 64 bit then 4GB RAM is almost pushing it. In any case, spend the 40$ for Macrium Reflect to make backups (although, for a desktop OS you can also use the free version) and make backups yourself (the IT guy won't do it).

Aside from that, look at an AMD based system. You get the same processing power for way less money. Intel is just horribly overpriced. I'd go with an SSD, you get a 128GB drive for 180$, a 300GB 10k drive clocks in at twice as that. If you can get as much RAM as the box fits. Other than that, the rest is gravy. Let me guess, you cannot mix and match and it is one of these cases where you either buy Dell or nothing? If it is Dell, definitely buy a backup system. Your hard drive will crash within a week if it isn't already broken out of the box. The rest of the system will fall apart soon after. We got Dell at work and they drop like the flies, but they are indeed dirt cheap (no wonder, they get built in a Chinese sweat shops where the workers throw themselves off the roof because they can't stand working there).

[Andrew]

As mentioned before, Flare doesn't make use of multiple cores because the way .NET is designed it cannot.

Simply false. It has nothing to do with .Net. You can spawn threads and execute them in parallel using .Net. If Flare takes no advantage of multiple cores, it's because it wasn't developed that way.

If you run sth like Windows 7 64 bit then 4GB RAM is almost pushing it.

If by "pushing it" you mean "barely enough" then that's also completely false. 4GB is plenty if Flare is what you are running. Whether or not you'd need more is a function of what *else* you are running, and if you need more than 4 GB, you are running memory monsters (very large data applications, etc.).

If it is Dell, definitely buy a backup system. Your hard drive will crash within a week if it isn't already broken out of the box. The rest of the system will fall apart soon after. We got Dell at work and they drop like the flies, but they are indeed dirt cheap (no wonder, they get built in a Chinese sweat shops where the workers throw themselves off the roof because they can't stand working there).

Backups are good advice, no matter what, but Dell is just fine. And if you think you can get anything but a locally-made PC that *isn't* made in China, you're in for a rude surprise. And even if you buy one assembled in the USA (or Europe), all the components came from China or Malaysia.

[parsonsv]

Yes, it is a case where we're leasing machines from Dell.

The machines are Windows, 64-bit. They decided to order three configurations - one for developers, one for QA, and one for everyone else. Somehow, the technical writers got included in the "everyone else" category, and I'm bucking that right now! It'll be hard to get changes, so I'm coming to you guys to provide me the backup I'll need - so, THANKS

I was just thinking - maybe the solution here is to order the standard box, which is what we're getting, but have them add a second hard drive to it. a 32 GB SSD is going to be under $100. We could then install MadCap on the SSD and run it from there, and all our huge subversion checkouts and most of our other software could go on the standard SATA hard drive.

Do you know if there are any issues about mixing the type of hard drive? Can you see a problem running two in the box - one that's SATA and one that's SSD?

[Andrew]

Adding a second drive (an SSD) is exactly what I'd recommend. That way, you have big, slower, cheap storage in the form of a HDD (hard disk drive) for most things, and fast, small, expensive storage in the form of an SSD (solid state drive) for your Flare projects.

The key is to have your projects on the SSD. Flare being there may be a bonus, but the files on which Flare is doing all its work are your project files, and those are the ones that really really need to be faster.

If you use an SSD on Windows Vista, you may need to turn off automatic defragging, and you should probably turn off system restore (have IT do this if you're not sure how). If it's Windows 7, just turn off system restore (Windows 7 already knows to turn off defragging on SSDs).

[parsonsv]

Thank you so much for all your responses!

[RamonS]

You are developing documentation, so you should get the developer box...although, given what QA tasks involve and assuming someone asked QA it may be that the QA box is even better (I run at least one VM locally and have three instances of SQL Server when testing).
In regards to the SSD, you want the OS, Flare, and your project files to be on there. If anything I'd kick Flare to the slow drive, the application files may not get accessed that often compared to the project files.
Good luck with your Dell, believe me, you need it.

[parsonsv]

So, I had a convo with IT about putting a second hard drive into the box (I found a 32GB SSD could be purchased for under $100). I got a confusing answer (see below). Does everyone agree?


He said that I could get an SSD that size for that price, but the problem with those is that they are slower than a SATA drive usually and that to get one that will be noticeably quicker and provide what I want will likely run between $150 -$300.


Is that a fact? Am I looking at brands here too and some might say SSD but actually be slower than a SATA?

[RamonS]

I haven't had much hands-on experience with SSDs, but there are speed differences. Manufacturers should provide information for sustained read / write speeds (don't bother with peak speeds, that shows only how fast the cache is). As far as I know, standard mechanical drives top out around 700 Mb/s peak, because you cannot get the data faster off the platters than that. Obviously, the higher the rotational speed the faster the drive, also, a larger cache generates some better performance. I quickly looked around and folks say that the Seagate Barracuda XT ST32000641AS is currently the fastest 7k2 rpm drive. Seagate lists the specs with 600 Mb/s for peak I/O and 138 Mb/s for sustained I/O. So the SATA III bandwidth of 6 Gb/s is mainly unused. The fastest SATA hard drive I could find specs on is the Western Digital VelociRaptor 10k rpm, 32 MB cache, 2.5" (comes in a 3.5" package, where the one inch difference is used for heat spreaders). Based on a benchmark by Tom's Hardware this one clocks a sustained I/O of 776 Mb/s and peaks at over 1200 Mb/s. These drives are designed for raw speed. I couldn't find a 15k SATA drive, those are only available in SAS for enterprise storage. Given the price ranges that we are looking at I figured that is pointless to throw that into the mix. You'd need an SAS controller, which isn't cheap and I have only seen that in high end workstations and servers.
WD also makes a 300 GB version of the VelociRaptor and that one clocks in around 180$ a drive. I took that price level as a guide and looked for the fastest SSD I could get for that money. I didn't make a dissertation out of this, but found the OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD2-2VTX50G, which is regarded as one of the fastest SSDs in that price range. Based on the specs I got from OCZ that drive has a sustained write of 250 MB/s. To compare the Byte needs to be converted to bit, so the 250 times eight gives 2000 Mb/s. And that is SUSTAINED speed! So that gets you twice the speed of the fastest SATA drive on the market (I assume). Of course, there is a capacity difference between the OCZ SSD and the WD HDD, that isn't something to ignore.
Also, my number crunching is based on various hardware reviews that did not specify if their M in Mb or MB is "em" or "mi" (1 048 576) or "mega" (1 000 000). At these levels this makes a difference, unfortunately I wasn't able to properly account for it.
I also checked the claims of your IT folks and looked for the cheapest and cheesiest (speak slowest) SSD that I could find. I omit the manufacturer here, but that SSD has sustained I/O of 75 MB/s (600 Mb/s) and yes, that one is indeed slower than the VelociRaptor, but this is comparing apples with oranges to prove an IMHO weak point. And despite being crap for SSDs that drive is still roughly as fast as the fastest SATA HDD.

In summary, I have no idea what your IT dudes are talking about. Even with some very generous fudge factors applied, any SATA SSD you can buy in the given price range will be faster than any SATA HDD. My guess is that they are envious of the box you might get, because they likely don't have the arguments to demand getting a rocket as desktop PC when all they do is answer email, order parts, and remote desktop into servers.

You can take a look yourself and check the numbers. I wouldn't tell the IT guys that you pulled those from some dude on a tech writer forum, but go to the manufacturers sites to get the specs (in case of WD you have to send them an email and ask, the numbers weren't on their site, which is why I got them from a different and typically reliable source). Check out newegg, tigerdirect, pricewatch, pricegrabber, and such for pricing and take a look at the Dell site yourself, especially for their special deals. Do not go through an employee portal for the company discount. We have such "discounts" and I can get the same Dell box from Dell cheaper from the regular site than from the employee "discount" site. Go figure!

C'mon IT folks and managers, we are talking about 200 bucks here. For a mid-size company this is peanuts. Anyone in the right mind would drop the few hundred bucks to get a happy employee. Crappy tools make crappy work, good tools make good work.

[wbrisett]

As mentioned before, Flare doesn't make use of multiple cores because the way .NET is designed it cannot.

Simply false. It has nothing to do with .Net. You can spawn threads and execute them in parallel using .Net. If Flare takes no advantage of multiple cores, it's because it wasn't developed that way.

I have zero insight into the whys, but one thing I have learned is that having multicore systems (I have a quad core system) is useless with Flare. Well, not exactly useless, but Flare itself doesn't use the additional cores that I have verified via monitoring tools.

My advice, get a fast system that you can install a true 64-bit system on (XP or 7), then install as much RAM into the unit as you can and Flare will be about as fast as you can expect. We have a 12 GB 64-bit system that can build some of our large help systems in about 1/2 the time as our faster processing, but less capable (32-bit, less RAM) systems can. I suspect this might have to do with memory/hard drive swaps more than anything else.

Wayne

[RamonS]

As mentioned before, Flare doesn't make use of multiple cores because the way .NET is designed it cannot.

Simply false. It has nothing to do with .Net. You can spawn threads and execute them in parallel using .Net. If Flare takes no advantage of multiple cores, it's because it wasn't developed that way.

I got that information straight from MadCap. Besides that, multiple threads have nothing to do with multiple cores. You can have multithreaded apps running with said multiple threads on a single core system. The key is how the programmer decided to set up the processes to run. The ability in .NET to program parallel processes is available since about two years and in the beginning it was released as a preview only. Only since .NET 4 it is a full part of the package. All that predates Flare code that is originally based on .NET 2.0. OK, there are libraries available for .NET 2.0 that help with multicore programming, but those are from 3rd parties and from what I read are very challenging to use. That said, yes, you could spawn multiple threads since the beginning of .NET, but running them truly in parallel on different cores (means without time multiplexing) is new to .NET.

If you run sth like Windows 7 64 bit then 4GB RAM is almost pushing it.

If by "pushing it" you mean "barely enough" then that's also completely false. 4GB is plenty if Flare is what you are running. Whether or not you'd need more is a function of what *else* you are running, and if you need more than 4 GB, you are running memory monsters (very large data applications, etc.).

Very large data applications? Just add MSSQL with even a small app and a good chunk of memory is gone. Typically, the TW has the application to document installed on the system (there are exceptions!). My experiences with W7 64 bit are that 4 GB is needed. Anything less gets dicey. Yea, sure, you can run W7 with less, but who sets up a system and runs nothing else but W7?

If it is Dell, definitely buy a backup system. Your hard drive will crash within a week if it isn't already broken out of the box. The rest of the system will fall apart soon after. We got Dell at work and they drop like the flies, but they are indeed dirt cheap (no wonder, they get built in a Chinese sweat shops where the workers throw themselves off the roof because they can't stand working there).

Backups are good advice, no matter what, but Dell is just fine. And if you think you can get anything but a locally-made PC that *isn't* made in China, you're in for a rude surprise. And even if you buy one assembled in the USA (or Europe), all the components came from China or Malaysia.

Maybe you use different Dells than I get my hands on, but we constantly have burnt up power supplies, crashed drives, failing hard drive controllers, or other issues. I didn't mean to suggest that every component from China is of dismal quality, but the factory site where most of Dell's and Apple's stuff is hammered together was covered extensively in the media the past weeks. Since then the shoddy quality is not a surprise anymore. You get what you pay for and in case of Dell their stuff is dirt cheap.

[Andrew]

So, I had a convo with IT about putting a second hard drive into the box (I found a 32GB SSD could be purchased for under $100). I got a confusing answer (see below). Does everyone agree?


He said that I could get an SSD that size for that price, but the problem with those is that they are slower than a SATA drive usually and that to get one that will be noticeably quicker and provide what I want will likely run between $150 -$300.


Is that a fact? Am I looking at brands here too and some might say SSD but actually be slower than a SATA?

Yes, there are some very slow SSDs out there -- some even slower than HDD (incidentally, both SSD and HDD are "SATA" -- SATA is a data transfer interface, whereas SSD vs. HDD is the storage technology itself). If your IT guy says you need to spend a little more to get the speed increase, I say do it. Hopefully, they will not quibble over a couple of hundred dollars (when you amortize that over the life of the machine, you're talking $50 - $100 per year...you probably get paid more than that over a few hours, so it doesn't have to save you much time to be economical).

[parsonsv]

Wow - thanks everyone! I really appreciate the advice. I'll do a little number gathering and present my case.

And yeah, I probably got paid enough doing this current research to have purchased the appropriate SSD for all my team. Why or why do technical writers have to PROVE themselves? Sigh.

p.s. thanks for the distinction between hdd, ssd, and sata.