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 [email protected]
> > > > > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing
> > > list [email protected]
> > > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
>
> _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
