Hi Mr. Parker. Thanks for the input, but what I gathered from their posts was they they objected to *IDE* raid, not scsi. And raid 5 with ide raid (AFAIK) is not an option. Only raid 0 or 1, of which I was interested in 0 for the increased throughput. I am afraid, however, that a scsi raid is definitely out of my price range. I use them at work, and the throughput is wonderful (esp. raid 5). I think that if I was in your position, I would be doing exactly as you are. But this is a home-job, a creative outlet for me. Since I am bandless right now, I need to feel like I am creating something.... I don't get a lot out of playing alone. So, me and maybe another guy or two will be hooking up to this rig, and that is about it. Thanks for your post! Chris At 04:13 PM 4/5/2003 -0800, you wrote: >Hi, > >--- "Jan \"Evil Twin\" Depner" ><eviltwin69@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
