42
Replies
In case you were wondering whether there are alternatives for this case, well there are. See http://www.mountainmods.com/index.php
And if you are wondering whether there are solutions if you need even bigger raid arrays with your system, look at http://www.aberdeeninc.com/abcatg/petarack.htm
For some pictures of what THAT looks like, see http://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/582-petarack-petabyte-sas.html .It was not only price, but also size that decided me against this solution. I could not fit it under my desk 
but it gives one more storage.
If you want to go even more extreme, look at: http://www.ncsa.illinois.edu/BlueWaters/ which also uses Tesla acceleration, as well as 400PB storage.
Harm Millaard wrote:
With increasing numbers of disks the benefits of water cooling diminish, because the disks all make noise and there does not exist a cooling block for disks, so fans are still required there.
There are plenty of options for water cooling disks. Here is a link to a few:
http://www.aquatuning.us/index.php/cat/c106_HDD-waterblocks.html
Harm Millaard wrote:
Pro's of water cooling:
- It saves the sound of at least one fan on the CPU cooler, possibly two in a push-pull configuration.
- It saves the sound of the video card fan, if there is a cooling block available for the video card in use.
Con's of water cooling:
- It is far more expensive than air cooling and not much better.
- It still requires fans for the radiator(s), negating the advantage of no CPU or video fan.
- It adds the sound of the pump.
- It is a difficult and time consuming job to install and requires more maintenance than air cooling.
- It requires a large chassis, or external housing and the clutter that brings.
While I agree with most of your reasoning above, I disagree with certain points. And since so many people look to you for guidance, I feel obliged to point out the part that is just opinion. Water cooling IS more expensive than air cooling, and IT DOES take more maintenance and more time to install. I think everyone would agree with those points. Whether a large chassis is a negative or not, I guess depends on viewpoint. You've already clearly proven that you are ok with a large chassis. 
You either needed the large chassis, or would have had to use external housing and the clutter that it brings, for all those disks. But you understood that the additional disks bring additional performance for you, so you are OK with the large chassis. Its the same with water cooling.
I think the comments regarding sound and performance above are somewhat misleading. Water cooling can achieve far superior results to air cooling, and it can do so at much quieter levels, even when considering the pump (which is inaudible when decoupled). The whole point of water cooling is cooler temperatures and quieter operation. And the reason we want cooler temperatures, is the ability to achieve higher overclocks of CPU and GPU's. I think the wonderful PPBM results you have overseen prove how important processor speed is to good Premiere performance. Overclocking your CPU will get you better results, and water cooling will allow better overclocks than air. Water cooling will ALWAYS have an advantage over air, because it has the ability to take heat and move/spread it over large surfaces that are not surrounding the components you want to cool. And because the water has already moved the heat away from the componenet (CPU), and I can use very low RPM fans to move the heat away from the radiator and out of the case. Water cooling is better performance, at quieter noise levels, than air. When done right. I guess anyone could point to a really bad water build, or a bad air build, and try and form conclusions. But I think I'm staying pretty factual when I state that water cooling will get better performance than air cooling, at quieter noise levels. But it does come at a price, which is the cost involved and the maintenance. Some of us will be ok with that trade-off. And I guess I could also make the argument that if my CPU and GPU are running cooler because of my water cooling, they will last longer than if they were air cooled, and that these savings would offset any additional cost of water cooling.
Enjoying the article so far!
Thank you for the constructive comments. Much appreciated.
I quite agree with your statement that higher overclocks are achievable with water than with air. But with reasonable overclocks in the range of 4.0 to 4.8 GHz the temperature differences between water and air are negligent, it is beyond that range that water cooling is showing its teeth. But my consideration is the mechanical noise of 24+ hard disks in my setup that outweighs the low RPM fans for the radiator(s).
I looked at your link, but how do you cool all these hot-swappable drives in these cages with water?
Jim,
lol....I use the paperclip trick all the time when testing fans. for two PSU's in the same case, i'd do something a little more elegant, but the same rough idea. using the same method, you can wire the second PSU over to the same two wires on the first PSU that you would have shorted, and the computer power switch then controls both PSU's. becoming more common that it used to be. i'll probably wire it myself and sleeve it, but there are a host of vendor solutions available now for less than $20 bucks that do the same thing. Here is a link to a review of a few of these vendor solutions if you're interested:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/08/24/black_art_dual_psus_in_your_enthusiast_pc/1
And yes, I think we both value quiet performance. With the build I'm working on right now, I'm even going to do my primary storage as an SSD array. I know that there will be lots of people that immediately poo-poo that idea in this forum. And I'll readily agree its not the cheapest way to do things....but I think my 8 to 10 disk SSD raid 5 array will be faster than many other HDD arrays that have even more disks. But....we'll see when I'm done. I'll post some benchmarks.
AdChoices