That's really awesome Tim thanks a lot ! \o/ Hurray ! :))
Yes windows is here only for convenience and on this PC I use ubuntu
only for editing vidéo, sound and graphics. I have another smaller
PC for everyday use.
After editing, I transfer the hole project to an external drive.
Keep there for some time and delete after.
I will only put 200 for RAID 10 instead of 250 and 100 for RAID 0
instead of 50 I think this will be enough. And I'll come back to
tell how it works :))
I found these two videos which shows how to install an ubuntu on
RAID0 with an alternate CD.
Well It's not the same thing because I will install ubuntu on
separate drive and only home on RAID10 but it will certainly help to
partition 2 300 Gig SAS disques and assign the partitions during the
installation.
If that helps to anyone here are the links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x2rZe2Z9as (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=_rpHqFPglz0
(part 2)
It's great to be wiyh you guys here !
Thanks to Tim and others who cared about this.
Haldun
Le 03/05/2012 20:33, Tim Copeland a écrit :
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 [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
_______________________________________________
Cinelerra mailing list
[email protected]
https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
|
