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@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
