|
|
Posted by Spex on 04/09/07 19:01
Richard Crowley wrote:
> "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.
Pot calling the kettle black, more on that later.
>
> "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.
Breathless fandom? Do fuck off!
Yeah the bloke obviously had no backups of his data. He'll never be
without backups or a disaster recovery plan again will he?
>
> 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).
And your point being? Is this an answer to a question that wasn't asked?
>
> 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?
If you like...
>
>> 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.
What does that mean? These drives are designed to be worked in RAID
environments where drive to drive vibration can cause an increase in
errors and temperatures may be elevated. The technology has been handed
down from enterprise SCSI drives.
Using these drives has everything to do with RAID and the drives are not
significantly more expensive than their consumer counterpart. In fact
I'd say they were bloody good value.
>
>> 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.
Why didn't you give that advice to St Lucky before instead of trying to
scare him/her off from using a cost effective solution.
>
>> 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
Since you started out suggesting I read messages a little closer why not
take some of your own advice. I was NOT talking about RAID5 nor RAID10
I was talking about a 5 DRIVE RAID0 and a 10 DRIVE RAID0. Is that clear
enough for you Crowley? If not read it AGAIN...
Not everyone can afford multi-drive networked fibre channel neither do
all projects warrant such an expense. By using a shred of intelligence
you can get the job done without breaking the budget or killing the
project stone dead.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|