On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 08:45:45PM -0700, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
>
> Is this for protection against a drive failure? DV (or MJPEG)
> capture's data rate requirements are extremely modest (in the
> ~3.5MB/s range - even a notebook drive can sustain that without
> breathing hard).
The primary intent was for a Raid-0 filesystem with higher throughput
(through the SCSI interface, but with inexpensive IDE drives), and
also for a mombo[sp?] filesystem.
Of course, this is based on the fact that another system I use does
this, and when I speced that machine, I was originally planning to
use an LML-33 (which is still there, but hasn't been used in a while).
Also, my mombo fs comprised 3 * 60Gig drives, which today can basically
be matched by a single IDE drive. The downsides were the cost of
the 3-ware, and the fact that the data is actually less safe because
if any of the drives fail, then I basically lose everything. Well,
not the OS, because I have that on a separate, simple IDE drive.
Now, (thanks to this group -- more flattery) I'm using the Canopus
ADVC-100, and I'll probably stick with that (or a similar) solution
on the new system. So, I'm willing to adapt my thinking if it's
a waste of effort to do a RAID-0. Would a Raid-3, or Raid-1 setup
be beneficial? Or would I lose too much bandwidth to even do DV?
And, was there a consensus on the disk bandwidth necessary for
both mjpeg cards vs. DV?
Thanks yet again,
Bill
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Mjpeg-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
