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