Re: [LAU] LAU collaboration coordination?

>Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:44:02 -0500
>From: Frank Pirrone <frankpirrone@email-addr-hidden>

>plutek-infinity wrote:
>> <snip>
>> i did some quick "back-of-an-envelope" figuring while riding around on the bus today, and came up with this worst-case scenario (well... BEST-case, really.... he-he..):
>>
>> assume 44.1kHz/32-bit - that's around 11MB/track/min
>> assume we want to produce a complete record (~60min) - that's about 2/3 GB per track
>> assume we're going 24 tracks deep - that's about 16GB
>> assume we need some headroom (text files, presets, screenshots, whatever) - call it 20GB instead
>> assume we have 20 users, who ALL upload AND download EVERYTHING twice every week - that's somewhat less than 4TB/mo
>>
>> SO........
>> 20GB storage
>> 4TB/mo. bandwidth
>>
>> <snip>
>
>This is absolutely NOT the way to construct a song through on-line
>collaboration. See my postings for an alternative detailed proposal.
>They generated little comment, so I assume little interest, but this
>magnitude of traffic and bandwidth is both whacked and needless.

frank -- i take your point, absolutely. initially, i was unclear on how the substitution of uncompressed tracks for compressed ones would be made, but i guess if there is a standard naming convention or session file with timestamps, that will not be a problem.

when the suggestion of CcHost came up, i simply jumped on it as a way of getting the ball rolling, and began to imagine worst case scenarios, not wanting to jump into something i couldn't handle. upon sober reflection, a dead-simple repository of compressed tracks with a clear file-naming and/or session-file protocol is killer -- lean and mean. i like it.

let's continue the discussion tomorrow...

-- 
.pltk.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user