Hello Tim
I installed everything aaaaaaand ....... IT WORKS !!!!!
Everything is visible and done.
THANKS A LOT !
Well now to see the difference i have to compile cinelerra ....
I"ll open another thread for this.
Thanks again I'll make an how to from it to keep it in mind for the
next time. May be I can send it to Grand Ma ? ... :)))
Haldun.
On 06/05/2012 21:17, Tim Copeland wrote:
On Sun, 2012-05-06 at 07:39 +0200, Haldun ALTAN wrote:
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 ?
Hard drives can only have 4 primary partitions. The only reason
logical partitions exist is if you need more than 4. Quite often
automated partitioning wizards will create them by default.
Following the suggestion, all drives have only 3 partitions, so
they
can all be primary partitions if you like.
File systems and mount points don't know about or care about
partition types. They simply see them as storage blocks.
The fact you see /usr is just a default for the wizard. It means
nothing. You can set it to anything you like or make one up.
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 ? ...
Yes that is the suggested partition ordering.
In the old days, having swap on the front of a drive was faster.
Modern hard drive designs use very sufisticated algorithms for
performance balancing.
It really makes little difference these days, but I still feel
better placing the swap towards the front.
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 ?
The standard rule of thumb for amount of swap space is generally
2x the amount of RAM in the system. Though its doubtful you'll
need more than 4 Gig
of swap space, it sure wont hurt setting it to have 6 Gig.
.
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" ?
Leave all settings to what ever your wizard automatically sets
them to, which should most likely be relatime.
The only thing you should do is set the size (letting it round to
boundaries), set the file system type, set the mount point.
Do not change anything else.
Remember that windows if finicky. You MUST install windows to the
first partition on the primary drive.
This would be the mount points I would recommend.
Windows = 100 Gig
/ = 100 Gig - Linux system
/backup = 300 Gig - since /home is RAID 10 backing up here
means you would have 3 copies of important data
swap = 4 Gig
/home < 250 Gig - ALL important data lives here - RAID 10
/work ~ 100 Gig - do not store here just use for high speed
IO then copy to /home when done- RAID 0
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 [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
_______________________________________________
Cinelerra mailing list
[email protected]
https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
|
