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...