Hi Stacey, I agree with Will, I was expect a lot more traffic. I might add one more thing: You may also want to let your budget drive the selection process as well. You might have the money for an EMC RAID or you might not, you know? Let some real world decisions guide you, such as:
If don't need a lot of break-neck speed out either the server or the RAID, you can save good chunk of money. And, ensure the solution is open-ended and expandable. That is to say don't get stuck with a device that may be somewhat of a crutch later due to it's' size, OS , or network position. SANs and NASs can be this way if you're not careful. Hope this helps, JEFF Jeffrey Evans Digital Imaging Specialist Princeton University Art Museum (609) 258-8579 On 1/20/07 12:24 AM, "Real, Will" <RealW at CarnegieMuseums.Org> wrote: > Hi Stacey, > I've been eagerly awaiting the flood of responses to this query; surely this > is exactly the sort of thing MCN members are supposed to have some experience > with! Maybe others hesitate to respond, as I have, because it is not so easy > to give an account of our experience that sounds like we had any idea what we > were getting into when we started and implemented our projects. > > In our case, we faced a far more modest project and yet could not fully get > our brains around all of the implications and imperatives for image standards, > workflow, staffing, storage, access, preservation, metadata, and so on. Maybe > that was a good thing because had we really known what lay ahead, we might > have given up in despair. > > We did our project by jumping in and finding out, by doing, what the issues > were. Our image standards changed as our equipment improved, as we scrounged > the necessary funds. As our image standards changed so too our understanding > of our storage requirements changed. The workflow has morphed at least 4 > times. For five years we have been just barely staying ahead of the storage > space limit. By handling storage incrementally we have probably saved money, > as storage has gotten cheaper year after year. However this has not been kind > to our stress levels and has perhaps kept us from considering alternative > approaches. When we started it seemed that the paradigm was offline storage of > master image files on CD, and live storage of derivative images for access by > staff and public. Now just a few years later CDs are shunned, and more and > more of us are storing master images on live servers and in some cases using > DAMS to create "on-the-fly" derivatives for access. Now there is another > delivery format in the mix, jpeg2000, which no one was thinking of using when > we started. In sum, the landscape is ever-changing and it seems one can never > quite settle into a system permanently. Perhaps that argues for a more > open-ended, make-it-up-as-you-go approach, or maybe making plans in 3 year or > 5 year cycles. > > At my institution, unlike yours by the sound of it, the administration was not > fully sold on the value of the project and would certainly have flinched at > any truly sober projection of the actual costs, had we even been able to come > up with it. We had to demonstrate bit by bit that the project was valuable and > doable and fundable (barely). Whether it is truly sustainable is still an open > question, frankly, though I probably should not be admitting that in public! > > I'd love it if others would chime in here. > > Will > ________________________________ > > From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu on behalf of Stacey Herbert > Sent: Wed 1/17/2007 7:44 > To: Museum Computer Network Listserv > Subject: [MCN-L] Query: estimating storage for digital collections > > > > Hello All, > > I'm looking for some advice on estimating storage needs for a large- > scale digital imaging project for the Chester Beatty Library and > Museum. The aim is a comprehensive, archival-quality digital > collection of the holdings. (We do not need to plan for extensive, > ongoing acquisitions). The collection is made up of a very wide > variety of materials, from papyri, illuminated manuscripts, codices > and scrolls, to textiles and other decorative art objects. The > objects themselves also vary greatly in size. My initial, gross > estimation suggests that the completed digital collection could > consist of 750,000-1,000,000 images. If anyone is interested, I could > supply additional estimated details. > > I would benefit from hearing about others' experience: how you have > projected and planned for growth; whether you have sought complete > storage solutions from vendors (at the outset of the project, or down > the road); how closely your estimates matched actual needs, etc. We > are nearly starting from scratch here, in terms of creating a digital > collection, so we have lots of options. > > Many thanks in advance, > > Stacey Herbert > > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer > Network (http://www.mcn.edu) > > To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu > > To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: > http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l > > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer > Network (http://www.mcn.edu) > > To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu > > To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: > http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
