That awkward moment...

[Emo_Saur_]

This was such a quality thread it's incredible.

[fido123]

Originally Posted by OnixRose

RAM: 6 gigs of mushkin ridgeback i think, regardless it's not enough

Anymore RAM would not yeild in ANY performance increase what-so-ever!

Originally Posted by OnixRose

HDDs: 2 750g western digital caviar blacks 7200rpm in raid 1

Take this OUT of RAID 1. RAID arrays are suppost to be used across multiple hardrives and your 2 drive setup doesn't count. This might be causing a lot of your problems.

Originally Posted by OnixRose

In response to my initial "I'm bitching on a forum" OP, it could very well be that I need to update something and should probably just shut my comp down, or my web browser is a POS, or I have 115 tabs open right now, whatchu know about a workload son?

Having that many tabs open is utterly ****ing retarded and could well be causing your lag. Also restarting your computer every once in a while if you're running Windows isn't a bad idea either.

Originally Posted by OnixRose

oh shit that's what I meant, though to be fair I haven't been on MC in a long while either. But I'm fairly certain I've tried to fix settings in flash as well. Tried multiple browsers etc.

Use Flash 9 etc etc and everything a whole bunch of other thread's say I'm not too knowlegeable about.

Originally Posted by OnixRose

My issues with things could stem form virtual memory allocation i guess, I also have strange problems with programs and installations due to my OS being on a separate drive. That makes no sense, I shouldn't have problems, but I do.

Virtual memory IS SHIT. DO NOT USE VIRTUAL MEMORY. This is VERY WELL causing your lag along with everything else you're doing. Virtual memory uses your hardrive for RAM which is not NEARLY as fast as RAM itself. Virtual Memory should ONLY be used if you don't have enough RAM and you do. If you don't you're doing something horribly wrong like keeping 150 tabs open. Also I have a SSD too and keep all my games I'm not currenlty playing and stuff like that on another hardrive. Even after a format I don't run into any problems other than it needing to do a first time setup and stuff like that.

Also you don't need another HDD to boot Ubuntu. If you want to save space on your SSD and I assume you do you should just shrink your NTFS partition on your HDD (Righ Click 'Computer --> 'Manage' --> 'Disk Managment' --> Right Click your 1TB or w/e partition and click 'Shrink' --> etc) and give yourself some space (~100GB if you want to be super comfortable cause I know people like to save shit to their desktops and shit although Ubuntu can read/write to and from your Windows partitions.

[dragonmegaXX]

My computer has similar specs and I got it for $600 from costco and got a free HD 23' monitor thrown in for free.

[xXAll-ProXx]

I paid paid like $800 for my computer and FFR never lagged on it :/

[Sweet_Feet]

Originally Posted by dragonmegaXX

My computer has similar specs and I got it for $600 from costco and got a free HD 23' monitor thrown in for free.

God Bless Costco.

[jimerax]

for me Core2 + WinXP PC runs FFR better than Core i7 + Win7 PC does (even with the same flash version).

[ninjaKIWI]

Originally Posted by fido123

Take this OUT of RAID 1. RAID arrays are suppost to be used across multiple hardrives and your 2 drive setup doesn't count. This might be causing a lot of your problems.

lmao WHAT. RAID 1 and RAID 0 are perfect for 2 drives. Do you really know anything about RAID? Especially since it's RAID 1 rofl.

[fido123]

Originally Posted by ninjaKIWI

lmao WHAT. RAID 1 and RAID 0 are perfect for 2 drives. Do you really know anything about RAID? Especially since it's RAID 1 rofl.

I didn't read the rest of your post so if you said any other dumb stuff I'm sorry for not correcting you.

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

In RAID 1 (mirroring without parity or striping), data is written identically to multiple drives, thereby producing a "mirrored set"; at least 2 drives are required to constitute such an array. While more constituent drives may be employed, many implementations deal with a maximum of only 2; of course, it might be possible to use such a limited level 1 RAID itself as a constituent of a level 1 RAID, effectively masking the limitation.[citation needed] The array continues to operate as long as at least one drive is functioning. With appropriate operating system support, there can be increased read performance, and only a minimal write performance reduction; implementing RAID 1 with a separate controller for each drive in order to perform simultaneous reads (and writes) is sometimes called multiplexing (or duplexing when there are only 2 drives).

He has one SSD I'm going to guess is ~60-100G and a HDD which IIRC is 1TB+. RAID 1 would be great if he had 2 1TB hardrives for increased performance and if a nice safeguard against a crash. Trying to mirror a 1TB hardrive with a 100G SDD (Which I assume isn't in RAID 1 and therefore isn't doing much anyway) is just asking for problems. RAID 0 would also mess things up. With a SDD you want to have certain things on the SDD, and everything else on the HDD. Perhaps you should learn more about computers before you talk down on people for being stupid when you're wrong yourself.

[ninjaKIWI]

Originally Posted by fido123

He has one SSD I'm going to guess is ~60-100G and a HDD which IIRC is 1TB+. RAID 1 would be great if he had 2 1TB hardrives for increased performance and if a nice safeguard against a crash. Trying to mirror a 1TB hardrive with a 100G SDD (Which I assume isn't in RAID 1 and therefore isn't doing much anyway) is just asking for problems.

He has two 750GB drives in RAID 1, with his OS on the 64gb SSD. You didn't even read his post did you?

[fido123]

derp missed that. Sorry. Thought he only had 1.

That awkward moment...