|
|
Posted by Richard Crowley on 04/09/07 12:52
"Spex" wrote ...
> St Lucky
>
> You are making a very serious mistake if you listen the the advice you
> have been given so far in this thread.
>
> Crowley obviously doesn't understand nor have any experience in what
> he is advising on.
And "Spex" needs to read messages more carefully.
I clearly made an exception for HD that apparently
escaped his attention.
"Spex" breathless fandom of RAID will seem pretty
hollow when a single drive failure takes out the
entire RAID array. Go back and read P.C.Ford's
message again: $600 + 3 weeks and only recovered
"most" of his files.
It also doesn't help to have a giant virtual disc when
processing video from one file to another. You are just
thrashing TWO drives back and forth (or however many
in your array).
If you must use RAID to get the throughput needed for
HD, then go for it, but it is not without risk. Should I
repeat that sentence so that "Spex" will notice it?
> Use Enterprise quality SATA drives that have much lower failure rates
> and are more tolerant to the vibration of other drives in the array.
> For example;
>
> http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/index.asp?cat=2
Of course, using high-reliability drives will lessen your
chances of drive failure. This has nothing to do with
RAID. It is just expensive. But if your situation can
justify the cost, likely good insurance. OTOH, see the
report on drive reliability published by Google a few
weeks ago. They likely operate more hard drives than
anyone else on the planet.
> Many people are using RAID0 for cutting HD and I am one of those. As
> with any storage medium that is not fault tolerant you must have a
> disaster recovery system in place. I back up regularly to other
> drives so my project data is is mirrored off the array. You should do
> this anyway even if you are using single SATA drives.
Good advice. By using "batch capture" you can eliminate
the need to backup the large video files because video can
be re-captured from the original tapes whenever you wish.
Of course, this means that one always keeps/archives the
original camera tapes. If the video isn't worth the cost of
the raw tape, then it likely wasn't worth shooting in the
first place.
> I know of people who are using 5 and 10 drive RAID0 arrays for cutting
> uncompressed HD who have not had a problem and if they ever did they
> have a recovery system in place.
Note that RAID 5 and RAID 10 are *self-recovering*.
Perhaps "Spex" just forgot to mention that. Recommend
at least reading the summary of RAID technology...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|