Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Good options for a new desktop PC.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,118

    Default Good options for a new desktop PC.

    Hi guys,

    I'm building a new PC for my living room. I will use it mainly for non-FPS gaming and image & video editing.
    These are the parts I'm thinking to use.

    Case/Motherboard/PSU: SZ86R7 which comes with motherboard and 500W PSU (I've already bought it).
    Proccessor: i5-4590
    RAM: 2x8 Crucial Ballistix Tactical.
    1 MSATA SSD: I haven't decide yet which one.
    HDD: 2XIntenso 4 TB 7200 RPM
    Graphics Card: I'm thinking to go for a Radeon R7 260X or for an old 6770 (I'll use the radeon drivers).

    On the MSATA I'll install the system. The two hard disks will be used separately, not in RAID. One will be for home and one for other things.
    I'm thinking to use XFS for the three disks but I have never used it in SSDs so I'm not sure if it is the best option.
    I don't think I'll use UEFI so no need for advanced partitioning.
    I'm going to install Chakra Linux (I love how KDE looks in my 50" monitor )

    Any advice is welcome.
    Last edited by Apopas; 10-06-2014 at 05:14 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,107

    Default

    Just a few test cases but looks like XFS is faster in some applications than ext4
    http://www.percona.com/blog/2012/03/...vs-xfs-on-ssd/
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag..._315_ssd&num=2

    and this page is probably worth a read
    https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php..._of_Filesystem

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,118

    Default

    Thank you Luke_Wolf!
    I had in mind that XFS was fast but this latest phoronix benchmark, which shows XFS to not win a single test, fill me with doubts.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    Thank you Luke_Wolf!
    I had in mind that XFS was fast but this latest phoronix benchmark, which shows XFS to not win a single test, fill me with doubts.
    Well, if you only care about speed then I'd suggest you use JFS or F2FS on the SSD, But if you want to use the features of XFS, then I don't see any reason to not use it. It may not be the fastest filesystem, but it isn't slow either.
    Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 10-06-2014 at 02:04 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ua=42 View Post
    I suggest having the 2 hard drives in raid 1 (mirroring) for your personel documents/videos/pictures. For added safety.
    I have an external hard disk where I keep scheduled backups but maybe I'll do mirroring for my whole /home as you say. Is possbile in raid for the two disks to have different filesystems?

    Also, consider using btrfs, it uses allot less ram compared to xfs.
    But its still very slow compared to the other filesystems.
    I'm thinking to use F2FS for my SSD.
    Last edited by Apopas; 10-07-2014 at 10:27 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,675

    Default

    You should use UEFI and disable CSM, which requires a gfx card with UEFI GOP mode, but use Nvidia with Maxwell - much less power required. Your 4 TB drives require GPT partitions. I am not fully sure what is best for SSD but ext4 is definitely the choice if you want to be able to fix filesystem errors. I currently use btrfs with lzo compression on one SSD but it happend a few times that btrfs was corrupted and could not be fixed that it was mountable again. UEFI only requires a 100 mb fat32 partiton, basically it is not necessary to be GPT, MBR with primary partition is also possible, but GPT is simpler and could use any partiton. gpart can convert MBR to GPT if needed.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Kansas.
    Posts
    294

    Default

    When in raid 1 (mirroring) read speeds are faster (theoretically twice as fast, in practice... somewhat less ) . Since it can read files from both disks at the same time. Write speeds will stay about the same though.

    Btrfs is slower than xfs, but it isn't allot slower (Some benchmarks it performs the same, on others there is a 25% penalty). Xfs acheives its speed by using allot of ram for file caching. So its a tradeoff.

    I don't know about xfs, but raid 1 is dead simple in btrfs. It is only a couple of commands to set up manually and you can change the size/drives/etc on the fly with a few simple commands.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •