On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, William R Sherman wrote:
> The primary intent was for a Raid-0 filesystem with higher throughput
Ah, ok - I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure (it
doesn't make a lot of sense to do RAID-5 for video capture that
I can see ;)).
> 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
Nice, "cute" (and tiny) thing isn't it? Best money I've spent
in a long time.
> 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?
Sort of ;)
DV is ~3.5MB/s (and that includes the 48k PCM audio). End of
discussion - it's not variable so it's easy to calculate the
discspace needed. Works out to about 12GB per hour. Not
variable at all. You could do raid-5 at that rate if desired ;)
A notebook drive can handle DV's requirements (indeed, a friend
of mine does captures via a Canopus and Cardbus IEEE1394 card
when the family is using the main system)!
A 200GB drive holds a *lot* of DV data (almost 16 hours). It took
quite a while to encode it all as you might imagine ;)
I think RAID is overkill for DV capture. RAID is needed for the
more raw IYUV capture mode (where the data rate can get up to
10-12MB/s) but not for DV.
Put the system/OS on one disc and the capture disc on it's own
IDE channel and away you go.
Cheers,
Steven Schultz
-------------------------------------------------------
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
