mark

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
2,613
0
20,780
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I cannot decide on the best solution for my needs, I have about 6 hard
drives hanging about all over the place and need to put everything in one
place. To all you people who have lots of large files do you RAID drives
together? and if so what RAID version do you use and do you use hardware or
software/chipset RAID?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

mark wrote:
> I cannot decide on the best solution for my needs, I have about 6 hard
> drives hanging about all over the place and need to put everything in one
> place. To all you people who have lots of large files do you RAID drives
> together? and if so what RAID version do you use and do you use hardware or
> software/chipset RAID?

I just bought a Adaptec 2410SA RAID systems for a client that was
building a Premiere Pro editing system. It was only 600 bucks!

Then I went and bought 4 250GB SATA drives for a total of 1 Terabyte.

It's internal based so you have to have a tall tower, and PC only, but
other than that, it worked pretty good.

-Richard
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Use raid for either redundancy or speed. Drives should be the same model and
size.

If you are running a DV edit system there is little need for a raid array.

I used to use raid extensively in the 90s for audio rigs and early editing
rigs. I have a raid array on a G4/FCP system for Beta capture. Or any other
format that exceeds the data rate of a single drive.


"mark" <mark@localhost.com> wrote in message
news:cv8jgb$cis$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>I cannot decide on the best solution for my needs, I have about 6 hard
> drives hanging about all over the place and need to put everything in one
> place. To all you people who have lots of large files do you RAID drives
> together? and if so what RAID version do you use and do you use hardware
> or
> software/chipset RAID?
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"mark" wrote ...
>I cannot decide on the best solution for my needs, I have
> about 6 hard drives hanging about all over the place and
> need to put everything in one place. To all you people who
> have lots of large files do you RAID drives together? and if
> so what RAID version do you use and do you use hardware
> or software/chipset RAID?

I do only DV capture/editing and don't see the point in
fooling around with RAID. It has no advantages, and several
disadvantages. A clear case for NOT doing it, IMHO.

It is an old solution to an old problem and has somehow
attained a certain "cult status" as being "cool". But it is not
a solution to any problem that I see in any of my editing systems.

If I were doing uncompressed capture, or HD, then a RAID
array might be attractive. Certainly if I were running a multi-
user server with 99.99999% uptime requirements, I would
run RAID 5 where I could hot-swap out a failed drive. But
for everyday DV NLE, it is a solution in search of a problem.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 07:28:24 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

>"mark" wrote ...
>>I cannot decide on the best solution for my needs, I have
>> about 6 hard drives hanging about all over the place and
>> need to put everything in one place. To all you people who
>> have lots of large files do you RAID drives together? and if
>> so what RAID version do you use and do you use hardware
>> or software/chipset RAID?
>
>I do only DV capture/editing and don't see the point in
>fooling around with RAID. It has no advantages, and several
>disadvantages. A clear case for NOT doing it, IMHO.
>
>It is an old solution to an old problem and has somehow
>attained a certain "cult status" as being "cool". But it is not
>a solution to any problem that I see in any of my editing systems.
>
>If I were doing uncompressed capture, or HD, then a RAID
>array might be attractive. Certainly if I were running a multi-
>user server with 99.99999% uptime requirements, I would
>run RAID 5 where I could hot-swap out a failed drive. But
>for everyday DV NLE, it is a solution in search of a problem.

Very strident for incorrect info.

Advantages:
redundancy
speed
ability to make drives larger than physically exist

Disadvantage
cost
others of your "several disadvantages" ? space? heat?
electric bill?


If money were no object I would raid up everything at RAID10 or
RAID30 using 15KRPM ULTRA320s.

I assume, however, that you have a budget. If a 250GB drive is
plenty for you and you don't mind losing everything at a single
point of failure in the case of a crash, a 250GB IDE drive is
cool and cheap. It only takes 1 bay in the case.

However, it is costly and time consuming to back up 250GB. So,
a 4 drive RAID5 with 120GBs gives you some extra speed and some
extra comfort - at an extra cost.

It's not a solution for everyone. I RAID1 my wife's single
system drive just because I know she'll never back it up. And,
if she loses all of her email and the address book she will not
be happy. Just a couple of 40GBers and a $21 raid card. No
speed advantage. However, when she had a head crash it took me
about 10 minutes to get her back up and running with zero data
loss.

YMMV

George Shouse http://www.shouses.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Always a fan of the World Champion Los Angeles Lakers
It must be a Purple and Gold thing.
Thanks for honoring the Original Lakers
http://www.shouses.com
ASBNLL FAQs at http://www.asbnll.com/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"George Shouse" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>If I were doing uncompressed capture, or HD, then a RAID
>>array might be attractive. Certainly if I were running a multi-
>>user server with 99.99999% uptime requirements, I would
>>run RAID 5 where I could hot-swap out a failed drive. But
>>for everyday DV NLE, it is a solution in search of a problem.
>
> Very strident for incorrect info.
>
> Advantages:
> redundancy

a) Depends on which RAID arrangement you use.
Many (most?) people do *not* use the redundant variety.

b) I (and most everyone else here) are capturing from tape.
The ultimate redundancy.

No real advantage to backing up raw-footage files. They
can be quite easily reproduced by running the batch
capture again.

> speed

Conventional hard drives are more than fast enough for
DV capture and editing. Expenditure of resources to make
them even faster appears to be pointless.

> ability to make drives larger than physically exist

I can buy single drives that hold >24 hours of DV
(and several days of MPEG) at my neighborhood shop.
Why would I want to put any more than that on a single
drive (or virtual array)?

If you have some situation that requires more than that,
perhaps you should state your unique conditions.
Otherwise, I maintain that RAID is irrelevant for
conventional DV capture and editing. (Ane even more
so for lower-bitrate use like MPEG, etc.)

> Disadvantage
> cost

Perhaps not if you use a software version.

> space? heat? electric bill?

No, No, and No. equal whether you RAID them or not.

> others of your "several disadvantages" ?

Lower reliability as you add drives you increase the
likelyhood of failure due to any one of the drives
(unless you are running RAID 5 which is overkill
for conventional DV capture/editing usage.)

Unnecessary complexity of configuration.

I still maintain that RAID is not only unnecessary but
disadvantageous for most readers of this newsgroup.

Of course, there are those people who do things like
RAID just so that they can claim, bigger, faster, more
powerfull, for bragging rights. I think it is like people
who pay hundreds of dollars for special paint jobs,
fancy lights, bells and whistles (sometimes literal
bells and whistles). I'll confess that a PC is just a tool
to me. I have no desires to make it into a work of art
or a toy or a bragging point.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I use raid to take 4 "old" drives and make one "new" drive.
WATCH OUT FOR THE +12V POWER NEEDS ( 2A PER DRIVE)


"mark" <mark@localhost.com> wrote in message
news:cv8jgb$cis$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I cannot decide on the best solution for my needs, I have about 6 hard
> drives hanging about all over the place and need to put everything in one
> place. To all you people who have lots of large files do you RAID drives
> together? and if so what RAID version do you use and do you use hardware
or
> software/chipset RAID?
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"George Shouse" <usenet@shouses.com> wrote in message
news:bfvh11d6j3umgges8dg5dsdqn5l9fqrp71@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 07:28:24 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
> <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
>
>>"mark" wrote ...
>>>I cannot decide on the best solution for my needs, I have
>>> about 6 hard drives hanging about all over the place and
>>> need to put everything in one place. To all you people who
>>> have lots of large files do you RAID drives together? and if
>>> so what RAID version do you use and do you use hardware
>>> or software/chipset RAID?
>>
>>I do only DV capture/editing and don't see the point in
>>fooling around with RAID. It has no advantages, and several
>>disadvantages. A clear case for NOT doing it, IMHO.
>>
>>It is an old solution to an old problem and has somehow
>>attained a certain "cult status" as being "cool". But it is not
>>a solution to any problem that I see in any of my editing systems.
>>
>>If I were doing uncompressed capture, or HD, then a RAID
>>array might be attractive. Certainly if I were running a multi-
>>user server with 99.99999% uptime requirements, I would
>>run RAID 5 where I could hot-swap out a failed drive. But
>>for everyday DV NLE, it is a solution in search of a problem.
>
> Very strident for incorrect info.


Not sure what you think is incorrect about his opinion that RAID is largely
unnecessary for DV editing. I heartily concur.
Raid can offer larger storage sizes but you still need the same number of
drives. If they are fast enough already, there is little reason to
complicate things with a raid. For 99.9% of users RAID redundancy is not
necessary. DV footage can always be recaptured ... I have never ever seen
anyone using anything other than RAID 0 for NLE.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:55:32 GMT, "nap" <gospam@yourself.com>
wrote:

>
>"George Shouse" <usenet@shouses.com> wrote in message
>news:bfvh11d6j3umgges8dg5dsdqn5l9fqrp71@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 07:28:24 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
>> <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"mark" wrote ...
>>>>I cannot decide on the best solution for my needs, I have
>>>> about 6 hard drives hanging about all over the place and
>>>> need to put everything in one place. To all you people who
>>>> have lots of large files do you RAID drives together? and if
>>>> so what RAID version do you use and do you use hardware
>>>> or software/chipset RAID?
>>>
>>>I do only DV capture/editing and don't see the point in
>>>fooling around with RAID. It has no advantages, and several
>>>disadvantages. A clear case for NOT doing it, IMHO.
>>>
>>>It is an old solution to an old problem and has somehow
>>>attained a certain "cult status" as being "cool". But it is not
>>>a solution to any problem that I see in any of my editing systems.
>>>
>>>If I were doing uncompressed capture, or HD, then a RAID
>>>array might be attractive. Certainly if I were running a multi-
>>>user server with 99.99999% uptime requirements, I would
>>>run RAID 5 where I could hot-swap out a failed drive. But
>>>for everyday DV NLE, it is a solution in search of a problem.
>>
>> Very strident for incorrect info.
>
>
>Not sure what you think is incorrect about his opinion that RAID is largely
>unnecessary for DV editing. I heartily concur.
>Raid can offer larger storage sizes but you still need the same number of
>drives. If they are fast enough already, there is little reason to
>complicate things with a raid. For 99.9% of users RAID redundancy is not
>necessary. DV footage can always be recaptured ... I have never ever seen
>anyone using anything other than RAID 0 for NLE.

The poster did not specify that this is for DV NLE. It could be
where he puts files that he just finished transcoding overnight.
It'd be nice to have some speed and redundancy for that. It
might be where he stores all of his captures. Even though the
tape is great backup, it is still faster to swap out a hot spare
than to recapture everything from the camcorder.

YMMV

George Shouse http://www.shouses.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Always a fan of the World Champion Los Angeles Lakers
It must be a Purple and Gold thing.
Thanks for honoring the Original Lakers
http://www.shouses.com
ASBNLL FAQs at http://www.asbnll.com/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <111i88i67jos59b@corp.supernews.com>, rcrowley7@xprt.net
(Richard Crowley) wrote:

<snip>
Fully agree with all you say. At the lower end of the market, RAID is just
snake oil. In mirror mode you're not really gaining anything as you are
twice as likely to suffer failure (2 drives) and recovering is rarely as
easy as it should be. The theory that you just replace the duff drive and
reboot rarely works in practice. If you for the speed option, if a drive
dies, you lose the lot.

RAID is great in the SCSI world where RAID 5 controllers are robust,
intelligent but alas very expensive. Almost without exception, the IDE
ones are just junk.

Iain Laskey
Practical PC Online www.practicalpc.co.uk
 

john

Splendid
Aug 25, 2003
3,819
0
22,780
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:111i88i67jos59b@corp.supernews.com...
> "George Shouse" wrote ...
> > "Richard Crowley" wrote:
> >>If I were doing uncompressed capture, or HD, then a RAID
> >>array might be attractive. Certainly if I were running a multi-
> >>user server with 99.99999% uptime requirements, I would
> >>run RAID 5 where I could hot-swap out a failed drive. But
> >>for everyday DV NLE, it is a solution in search of a problem.
> >
> > Very strident for incorrect info.
> >
> > Advantages:
> > redundancy
>
> a) Depends on which RAID arrangement you use.
> Many (most?) people do *not* use the redundant variety.
>
> b) I (and most everyone else here) are capturing from tape.
> The ultimate redundancy.
>
> No real advantage to backing up raw-footage files. They
> can be quite easily reproduced by running the batch
> capture again.
>
> > speed
>
> Conventional hard drives are more than fast enough for
> DV capture and editing. Expenditure of resources to make
> them even faster appears to be pointless.
>
> > ability to make drives larger than physically exist
>
> I can buy single drives that hold >24 hours of DV
> (and several days of MPEG) at my neighborhood shop.
> Why would I want to put any more than that on a single
> drive (or virtual array)?
>
> If you have some situation that requires more than that,
> perhaps you should state your unique conditions.
> Otherwise, I maintain that RAID is irrelevant for
> conventional DV capture and editing. (Ane even more
> so for lower-bitrate use like MPEG, etc.)
>
> > Disadvantage
> > cost
>
> Perhaps not if you use a software version.
>
> > space? heat? electric bill?
>
> No, No, and No. equal whether you RAID them or not.
>
> > others of your "several disadvantages" ?
>
> Lower reliability as you add drives you increase the
> likelyhood of failure due to any one of the drives
> (unless you are running RAID 5 which is overkill
> for conventional DV capture/editing usage.)
>
> Unnecessary complexity of configuration.
>
> I still maintain that RAID is not only unnecessary but
> disadvantageous for most readers of this newsgroup.
>
> Of course, there are those people who do things like
> RAID just so that they can claim, bigger, faster, more
> powerfull, for bragging rights. I think it is like people
> who pay hundreds of dollars for special paint jobs,
> fancy lights, bells and whistles (sometimes literal
> bells and whistles). I'll confess that a PC is just a tool
> to me. I have no desires to make it into a work of art
> or a toy or a bragging point.

I like RAID-0. It's twice as fast when working with large files.

You could say I don't need a sport's car because my family
car can do the state limit. But if you can afford a sport's car...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>> Of course, there are those people who do things like
>> RAID just so that they can claim, bigger, faster, more
>> powerfull, for bragging rights. I think it is like people
>> who pay hundreds of dollars for special paint jobs,
>> fancy lights, bells and whistles (sometimes literal
>> bells and whistles). I'll confess that a PC is just a tool
>> to me. I have no desires to make it into a work of art
>> or a toy or a bragging point.
>
> I like RAID-0. It's twice as fast when working with large files.
>
> You could say I don't need a sport's car because my family
> car can do the state limit. But if you can afford a sport's car...

I rest my case.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:53:20 +1000, "John"
<knight_js.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I like RAID-0. It's twice as fast when working with large files.
>
>You could say I don't need a sport's car because my family
>car can do the state limit. But if you can afford a sport's car...

First you need to get the sport to agree to sell it.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>I like RAID-0. It's twice as fast when working with large files.
>
>You could say I don't need a sport's car because my family
>car can do the state limit. But if you can afford a sport's car...



I drive a sports car and raid: both are fast!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 2/21/2005 9:10:43 AM, Big Bill wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:53:20 +1000, "John"
> <knight_js.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I like RAID-0. It's twice as fast when working with large files.
>>
>>You could say I don't need a sport's car because my family
>>car can do the state limit. But if you can afford a sport's car...
>
> First you need to get the sport to agree to sell it.

:)
--
Homer: "Sometimes I think we're the worst family in town."
Marge: "Maybe we should move to a larger community."

Now playing: "Steely Dan - Bodhisattva"