The Dev has spoken! Where to put WoW folder! Acard wins!
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...034803&sid=1#0
Quote:
Hi Samdeathwkzz,
The game requires all of the files to be present at the time the game loads. All data is scattered all over so you can't really throw parts of World of Warcraft onto a RAM disk. Maybe you'll encounter a mob in Eastern Kingdom or a player with a certain pet that makes use of an expansion file. You can still use one copy of the game to launch multiple instances so if you have enough RAM to do that, more power to you. If you do not have enough, you'll have to use a different storage medium.
High speed SSDs (especially if they're in a stripe RAID) with large read numbers are great for the game and can help you load things quickly. Hard drives aren't bad either.
World of Warcraft uses occlusion but I'm not sure if it preloads player data that are close to you.
Occlusion:
In computer graphics, the term is used to describe the manner in which an object closer to the viewport masks (or occludes) an object further away from the viewport. In the graphics pipeline, a form of occlusion culling is used to remove hidden surfaces before shading and rasterizing take place.
Basically this means that Silencer is correct that you want media that has low access times over media that has high transfer bandwidth.
So, a pair of cheap 36G raptors in raidzero is not sufficient, but you can use that for basic WoW storage at little cost.
Then you need to get in order:
12-24G System Ram (I7) is best. (this solution is like 6 months away)
2 Acard in 4 raid0 ram (the $400 Card) is 2nd best. (acard infos here: ACard ANS-9010 RAM Drive) (this solution is actually available now.)
1 Acrad in 2 raid0 ram (the $400 Card) is 3rd best.
Intel SSD 4th (some infos here: Running 5x WoWs on a capped server using the latest intel X25 SSD), given that you can get the Acard for about the same price this solution seems unwise).
Other SSD 5th (if cheaper then Acard - should be). Some infos: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...h,2127-10.html
2 more raptors for 4X Raid0 is cheap mans solution 6th (way cheaper but access times way worse then Acard).
Notice on the Acard you dont use the CFL or whatever that is just have the wow folder in the two cheapo raptors and read the whole folder to the Acardd before you start wow and read the whole folder back to the raptors when you end, I guess one raptor is just as good as two and a lot safer.
So just take that list and buy the best you can afford. End of story.
KEEP IN MIND this infos in MORE important then your CPU or your Video Card, those two (if decent) are not the bottleneck its getting infos from the wow folder to your system ram and/or video card that is more important. In other words going from raptors to SSD or Acard will help your fps more then going from dual to quad cores or going from a 9600 to a 280.
Ok here is a .11 ms access time ssd drive for $165 (i.e. for wow about as good as the Intel SSD): This seems a very very resonable and cost effective solution. Better to go to the Acard if you need more then 16G or you have the $400 (plus $12 per G of ram).
http://www.sandisk.com/OEM/ProductCa...A_5000_25.aspx
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Sandisk-SSD-...3A1%7C294%3A50
RE: The Dev has spoken! Where to put WoW folder! Acard wins!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=177166#p ost177166
Basically this means that Silencer is correct that you want media that has low access times over media that has high transfer bandwidth.
So, a pair of cheap 36G raptors in raidzero is not sufficient, but you can use that for basic WoW storage at little cost.
Erm... not sufficient for what, exactly? o.O
Most people here are running 4/5 instances of WoW on a single computer that isn't anywhere near to cutting-edge specifications. While I feel that it's best to avoid cutting corners in building a multi-boxing rig, I also think that you need to figure out a point of diminishing returns. You alluded to this when you said get the best you can afford, but I do not think that that is necessarily the best approach. I think the best approach is to determine what you want to be able to do, then consider which is the most reasonable solution. ie, if you want to run four 800 x 600 tiled windows on a 1600x1200 display and you want all of the effects cranked up, you'll need more processing muscle than someone with the same setup who has the graphics cranked to minimum.
But I think there's a point at which spending more money for the ultimate setup only gets you a very small incremental improvement, and after that you're just wasting money. If you have the cash to burn and/or really want to go that route, I understand (I like to splurge on hardware myself). But I'm not sure just how much improvement you'll get from four striped 10k raptors over a much more modest setup. I get good performance running with a couple of inexpensive 400GB SATA drives, with each one hosting two full WoW folders. I could probably squeeze out more performance from striped SSDs or a fast RAID array, but it would make almost no difference in terms of what I'm trying to accomplish with my group. It's fun to know that you're running that much horsepower under the hood, but it's not terribly practical IMO.
When/if I redo my multiboxing setup, I'm likely to go with four inexpensive SATA-II drives instead of a single high speed RAID array. If I stop being lazy and decide to run everything out of a single WoW directory, then it's likely that I'll stripe two inexpensive SATA-II drives. Either way, it would work for me without being unreasonably expensive. I think any multiboxer should look at it that way-- where is my performance "sweet spot"? After that, if you are inclined to spend money for high-powered hardware, more power to you (literally, even!).
