xfs on a raid0 is great! I could capture uncompressed HD with the blackmagic card easily. For workloads without too much sequential data reads (not our case), flashcash is great (just buy an ssd and patch the kernel): https://github.com/facebook/flashcache
I'm using cinelerra today and always I use it I remember how great it is! > Hello Tim I was wondering about some détails. > > On 500 Go SATA drive, the 300 Go backup space is it a primary or a > logical partition to be the best ? If it's logical, /usr folder goes > there automatically. If it's a primary partition it's a free > space. Is there a specifique mount indication for this space ? > > When you say 2 Go for SWAP, 250 GO for RAID10 and 50 Go for RAID0, > you mean also the order of partitions ? I put the swap at the > middle. May be better at the beginning because the drive is faster ? > ... > > On 250 Go RAID10 i put /home on a primary partition. Don't need to > be a logical partition I hope. > > For the swap quantity : The former installation 10,04 had put > automatically 12 Go swap for 6 giga byte RAM. Shall I remain with 4 > Go or put some more ? > > I don't know the mount point for RAID0 shall I leave "none" or what > instead ? > > All mount options were set to relatime. is it a good choice or > better leave them on "default" ? > > Thanks for these informations in advance. I think this is it. Then > it will work when I workout the DHCP on my installation :))) > > I think Linux may be the solution for Alzheimer. You learn everyday > ... new things :)) > > Haldun. > > On 03/05/2012 20:33, Tim Copeland wrote: > When you say ATA I am assuming SATA. A quick note for those with > PATA (IDE) drives. In order to get proper performance > out of any given RAID set, every drive in that array must be on a > separate IDE channel. i.e.. you should not have 2 drives > attached to the same IDE cable and be in the same array. > > Also no matter how many drives you place in an array, and no > matter how fast those drives are, maximum IO throughput > is still limited by maximum system bus speed. > > Another thing I need to point out. Linux supports partition level > RAID. This means you don't need to configure the entire > drive to be part of a single array. You can have each partition on > a disk assigned to a different array and/or none at all. > > The short answer to your question is, yes, your suggested setup > could work as you describe. > > I don't know any thing about your work flow or the scale of the > projects you have planned. > Creating a RAID 0 from 2 300 Gig drives would give you just under > 600 Gig of space. That is a huge amount of space > to simply use as a temporary work area. It also sounds to me like > all your work will be done in Linux, and the only reason > you keep Windows around is for convenience. If that is the case, I > would not worry about backing up any window stuff. If > you do use Windows for work and need to backup its data you'll > need a solution outside of this suggestion. > > Here is what I would do with the hardware you describe. > > Partition the 500 Gig ATA drive into 3 partitions. > 100 G , 100 G , 300 G > Install windows to the first 100 G partition > Install Linux to the next 100 G > Use the 300 G as backup space > > partition both SAS drives > 2 G , 250 G , 50 G ( or what ever space remains ) > set the 2 Gig partitions as swap ( make sure to set the same pri= > in fstab ) > assign both the 250 G to a RAID 10 and set that to mount as /home > with ext 4 file system type > assign both the 50 G to a RAID 0 to use as temporary high > performance /work space > > Then configure your backup solution to backup the /home to the 300 > G partition on the ATA drive. > > That would give you this. > > Windows = 100 Gig > Linux = 100 Gig > swap = 4 Gig > /home < 250 Gig - ALL important data lives here > /work ~ 100 Gig - do not store here just use for high speed > IO then copy to /home when done > backup = 300 Gig - since /home is RAID 10 backing up here means > you would have 3 copies of important data > > This would keep your data relatively safe and give you the > performance you seek. > Unless you are working with massive files, this setup should last > you a good while before needing > to add more drives. I hope this helps. > > > > On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 13:20 +0200, Haldun ALTAN wrote: > Very much thank you Tim, > > For your time and knowledge about RAID. > > Your information came out at the same moment I was going to ask > a question before I begin my RAID experience. > > My configuration is 2 SAS 300Go disks and a 500 Go ATA drive > which I use for storage. On one SAS I have windows 7 (I use > rarely) and on the other Ubuntu Studio 10,04 which I will up > grade to 12,04 > > I was planning to partition the 500 Go on two to installe Ubuntu > and Windows 7 and use two SAS 300 Go as RAID 0 for quick > projects and back-up on an external drive or another disk > ATA. Further when I can buy some more SAS hard drives i > will try RAID 10 which seems the best configuration. > > Can this plan work ? I mean can I have my OS on a ATA drive and > use two SAS drives for the temporary work on RAID ? if yes > I will begin the experience and find out how to do it > with ubuntu. > > Thanks a lot. > > Haldun. > > > Le 02/05/2012 19:59, Tim Copeland a écrit : > Unless you are planning on spending many hundreds if > not thousands of dollars on RAID hardware, > then you should simply use Linux RAID. My personal experience > matches what others have documented > around the web. Linux RAID is not only more flexible, but > substantially faster than commodity controller > cards. Not only that, but in some cases Linux RAID is on par > with the performance of the expensive hardware > solutions. > > Chances are good that 99.999% of the readers following this, > should only be considering RAID levels 0 or 1 or 10. > Other RAID levels have their places in corporate environments, > but are little use to normal users. For instance, > RAID 10 on 4 drives gives better performance and protection > than RAID 5 on those same 4 drives. The reason > corporate environments use RAID 5 is because it scales well > for those environments. > > This may be old hat for many readers, but for those new to > RAID. > 0 = some times referred to as "Striped" . Very fast > performance , storage capacity is slightly less than the sum > total. > Very dangerous because a single drive failure will cause > total loss of all data. > > 1 = mirrored data is duplicated across all drives or > partitions. The IO performance is the same as if using just > one of those drives. > Total storage capacity is slightly less than the size of a > single drive or partition. > Much safer because complete copies of the data exist, and > data is safe if a single drive failure occurs. > > 10 = This combines both 1 and 0 together. This gives the speed > and performance of 0 with the redundancy of 1. > Total storage capacity is less than the size of a single > drive or partition. > Much safer because complete copies of the data exist, and > data is safe if a single drive failure occurs. > > I cant stress enough. > Unless you only want to use RAID 0 as a high performance > temporary work space, I would recommend RAID 10. > In addition, I still recommend having a solid off site backup > solution in place. This protects your data from > lightning, > falling trees, flood, and theft. The list goes on ... > > > > > On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 09:12 +0200, Haldun ALTAN wrote: > I looked for XFS file system mine is ext 4. I have > to make some more readings to understand the how > to. > > I checked for Raid enterprise. Is that about are the Intel > solutions ? Is that means separated hardware > solution. > > Thanks, > Haldun. > > Le 02/05/2012 00:49, E Chalaron a écrit : > Well, > > Raid 0 is fast especially on XFS filesystem... You will > see the difference. > However... If one disk packs up... that's it... > As for me it is not a problem : data are not supposed to > stay, I grab frames, process, export then > delete. > And if trouble happens : I rescan. Yes a pain but not > dramatic. > > Counterpart of XFS : it gets fragmented. So you need to > look after that. > There is a lot of tools for XFS. > > > http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/my-own-xfs-jfs-ext3-benchmark-809670/ > > Maybe a redundant array on XFS liek Raid 5 or 10 as > suggested. But get your Os on a separate drive. > That will save you some big problems if a disk goes wrong. > > More important than speed, I found that Raid enterprise > edition of drives are way better. > > > Cheers > E > > > On 05/01/2012 11:27 PM, Haldun ALTAN wrote: > Thanks Edouard > No not yet. I thought 10 000 tours and SAS will be > enough. And I hesitate between RAID 0 or 5 don't > know exactly which one will be better ... > > Thanks a lot. > Haldun > > Le 01/05/2012 02:50, E Chalaron a écrit : > Haldun > Did you set up your 2 drives as Raid 0, you may well > have a bottle neck there if not. > Careful that you may need a dedicated drive for your > OS. > > cheers > Edouard > > > On 04/28/2012 04:28 AM, Haldun ALTAN wrote: > Another great bunch of thanks to > Rafealla and her grandma's advises without which > i couldn't make the last work where > DNxHD was not fluid enough. So i > did it with proxy editing and that > was great. I could use 6-7 video channels > without any problème and render with DNxHD > version on mjpega to get HD with > handbrake. > > Anyway proxy is great even if you have to do > everything twice at tjhe end you earn a > lot of time when you're editing. > > in fact I don't understand why it's so slow. I > bought recently a second hand PC with > two xeon 5460 3,1 ghz 4 cwith 6 > go ram and nvdia quadro fx4600 > and two hard drive sas 10000 tours with 300 go each. > cpu is working 100% memory is saturated at 6 Gio > > Tell me just if it's normal that i have to wait 6 > minutes for 1 min vidéo on > background rendering with jpeg > quality at 20 % ? > > Thanks > > Haldun. > _______________________________________________ > Cinelerra mailing list > Cinelerra@skolelinux.no > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > > _______________________________________________ > > Cinelerra mailing > list > Cinelerra@skolelinux.no > > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > > _______________________________________________ > Cinelerra mailing > list Cinelerra@skolelinux.no > > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > > _______________________________________________ > Cinelerra mailing list Cinelerra@skolelinux.no > > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > > _______________________________________________ Cinelerra > mailing list Cinelerra@skolelinux.no > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list Cinelerra@skolelinux.no https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
