Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
From: Jan \ (eviltwin69_AT_cableone.net)
Date: Sun Apr 06 2003 - 13:20:45 EDT
Ron,
I was only talking about IDE RAID. SCSI RAID is a whole 'nother
beast. It's just the price that kills. I use SCSI RAID, RAIDZONE IDE
NAS systems, and PogoLinux IDE RAID systems at work but I sure couldn't
afford any of that at home. I was actually wondering what using a
PogoLinux 3800 StorageWare system for audio would be like. Dual
processor, 1.2 TB RAID 5 with a standard RH load on the OS disk. Pretty
expensive experiment though.
Jan
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 18:13, R Parker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> --- "Jan \"Evil Twin\" Depner"
> <eviltwin69_AT_cableone.net> wrote:
> > I agree with Steve, I wouldn't use RAID for the
> > data. Put OS and swap
> > on the first drive and use the other two for audio
> > data only. There's
> > the signpost up ahead... you're about to enter the
> > Linux audio zone.
> >
> > Jan
>
> These are an interesting set of opinions that I don't
> agree with. Well, I do agree when reguarding the
> original writers design requirements. I'm an advocate
> of scsi hardware raid but only for professional
> installations because IMO it's overkill and to
> expensive for individual work stations.
>
> Here's my "active" client count:
> stepdaddy bin # ls /home/studio/clients/ |wc -l
> 35
>
> Here's the data amount for that client array:
> /dev/sdc1 109GB 79GB 25GB 76% /raid5
>
> Everyone of those 35 clients pays my partners and I to
> produce their music. There's probably an average of
> eight songs in each of those 35 client directories and
> an average of 16 audio tracks per song. I'd guess that
> each keeper track takes about an hour to produce.
>
> There are to many examples of musicians that have
> their personal best performance which they'll have a
> difficult time reproducing. My standard for data
> management is that under no circumstances can I ever
> lose any data. The scsi hardware raid gives us
> hardware redundancy with raid 5.
>
> We run three production rooms that symoultaneously
> share the client array. Two of the rooms are fairly
> low bandwidth; mastering--stereo images,
> preproduction--midi and sequencing. The third room is
> doing multiple mono audio channel printing and mixing.
> The multiple mono mixing done with the Macs is via
> 100mb LAN. Otherwise most work in that room is via
> lightpipe. In addition to audio production bandwidth
> usage we run rsync over LAN and we're adding video
> production.
>
> I know how more than a few studios conduct their
> affairs. One example is a friend who during the last
> year lost the production of an entire album and within
> a month of that incident lost a 120gig drive that was
> full of personal artwork and songs. The guy is a
> prolific pianist and song writer. All songs gone!
> Studios that manage their affairs this way will never
> do any important work for me.
>
> I'm not saying that my way of doing things is the only
> way and everyone else is wrong. If I required a
> personal workstation, I'd wholeheartidly follow the
> consensus of this thread. But my circumstances require
> that I look at 35 sets of artists and think about the
> quality of their performances not whether or not I can
> find their data, will the equipment perform and if I
> screw up then two business partners are gonna have to
> find jobs while we repay the debts to our clients.
>
> I'm not sure how I'd manage the volume of production
> that we do within any 24 hour period without hardware
> scsi raid. And I don't care because anything else
> would be penny wise but dollar foolish. I also don't
> know anything about latency with raid. Perhaps it
> applies only to kernel controled software raid. Ardour
> includes a local/native raid 0 implementation that
> shouldn't experience any computational latency.
>
> Anyway I'm filing my disagreement with at least two
> people who's opinions I absolutely respect...I, I, I,
> gotta duck and cringe. :) Guys, with my requirements,
> could it be done better and for less money? It's not
> like I enjoy looking at a four unit rack that cost me
> around $3,000.00 USD for HDDs and power. When looked
> at from a cost perspective, it irratates the hell out
> me.
>
> ron
>
> > On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 09:05, Steve Harris wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 09:26:44 -0500, Chris
> > wrote:
> > > > Maxtor 7200 8megbuffer 80 gb hardrives (2 Will
> > be done in IDE RAID)
> > >
> > > I recommend Seagate Barracuda IV's, very quiet. I
> > wouldn't use RAID for
> > > audio, and especially not hardware IDE RAID - lots
> > of people at work have
> > > had volumes wiped out by dodgy hardware IDE RIAD
> > controllers (even
> > > reputable ones) and if your card goes pop getting
> > the data back can be very
> > > hard.
> > >
> > > Someone (possibly Mark K.) posted bad experiences
> > with RAID and latency
> > > too. I only use it for situations where throughput
> > is important (eg.
> > > database servers), for audio its not a big deal.
> > 32 channels of 32bit
> > > audio is only 5MB/s, any current disk can do that
> > without breaking sweat,
> > > random link:
> > >
> >
> http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030402/250_gb-04.html#data_transfer_diagram
> > >
> > > > lastly: Does anyone know if the Zahlman
> > CNPS7000-cu will work on an Athlon
> > > > XP chip? Everything I saw only mentioned a P4
> > or a Clawhammer chip. I
> > >
> > > I'm using a 6000-cu FWIW, its fine, but you have
> > to run the fan, at
> > > minimum speed it pretty quiet though.
> > >
> > > - Steve
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Apr 06 2003 - 13:38:32 EDT