On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 19:26 +0200, Haldun ALTAN wrote: > 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.
Congratz .. Thats great news. Wishing you the best of luck ... > > 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
