Zach
Building a computer was planning on doing Raid 0 not sure if i should please tell me if i shouldnt but if it is wise then just wondering how it will be done...
Answer
1) I use RAID 0 and have never expeirneced a problem... when using raid 0 you have double the disk speed(read/write,etc).
2) if you are using raid 0 for gaming, etc use the highest stripe possible (64-128)... if using for a server use (16-32)
here is a little more info about raid 0:
RAID 0 advantages:
RAID 0 performance
While the block size can technically be as small as a byte, it is almost always a multiple of the hard disk sector size of 512 bytes. This lets each drive seek independently when randomly reading or writing data on the disk. How much the drives act independently depends on the access pattern from the file system level. For reads and writes that are larger than the stripe size, such as copying files or video playback, the disks will be seeking to the same position on each disk, so the seek time of the array will be the same as that of a single drive. For reads and writes that are smaller than the stripe size, such as database access, the drives will be able to seek independently. If the sectors accessed are spread evenly between the two drives, the apparent seek time of the array will be half that of a single drive (assuming the disks in the array have identical access time characteristics). The transfer speed of the array will be the transfer speed of all the disks added together, limited only by the speed of the RAID controller. Note that these performance scenarios are in the best case with optimal access patterns.
RAID 0 is useful for setups such as large read-only NFS servers where mounting many disks is time-consuming or impossible and redundancy is irrelevant.
Another use is where the number of disks is limited by the operating system. In Microsoft Windows, the number of drives may be limited by the availability of drive letters. RAID 0 allows more disks to be used by combining them under a single letter. It is possible in Windows 2000 and newer to mount partitions under directories, thus eliminating the need for a partition to be assigned a drive letter.
RAID 0 is also used in some gaming systems where performance is desired and data integrity is not very important. However, real-world tests with games have shown that RAID-0 performance gains are minimal, although some desktop applications will benefit.[2][3]
RAID 0 disadvantages:
RAID 0 failure rate
Although RAID 0 was not specified in the original RAID paper, an idealized implementation of RAID 0 would split I/O operations into equal-sized blocks and spread them evenly across two disks. RAID 0 implementations with more than two disks are also possible, though the group reliability decreases with member size.
Reliability of a given RAID 0 set is equal to the average reliability of each disk divided by the number of disks in the set:
\mathrm{MTTF}_{\mathrm{group}} \approx \frac{\mathrm{MTTF}_{\mathrm{disk}}}{\mathrm{number}}
That is, reliability (as measured by mean time to failure (MTTF) or mean time between failures (MTBF) is roughly inversely proportional to the number of members â so a set of two disks is roughly half as reliable as a single disk. In other words, the probability of a failure is roughly proportional to the number of members. If there were a probability of 5% that the disk would fail within three years, in a two disk array, that probability would be upped to Pr(at least one fails) = 1 - Pr(neither fails) = 1 - (1 - 0.05)^2 = 0.0975 = 9.75\,\%.
The reason for this is that the file system is distributed across all disks. When a drive fails the file system cannot cope with such a large loss of data and coherency since the data is "striped" across all drives (the data cannot be recovered without the missing disk). Data can be recovered using special tools (see data recovery), however, these data will be incomplete and most likely corrupt, and recovery of drive data is very costly and not guaranteed.
1) I use RAID 0 and have never expeirneced a problem... when using raid 0 you have double the disk speed(read/write,etc).
2) if you are using raid 0 for gaming, etc use the highest stripe possible (64-128)... if using for a server use (16-32)
here is a little more info about raid 0:
RAID 0 advantages:
RAID 0 performance
While the block size can technically be as small as a byte, it is almost always a multiple of the hard disk sector size of 512 bytes. This lets each drive seek independently when randomly reading or writing data on the disk. How much the drives act independently depends on the access pattern from the file system level. For reads and writes that are larger than the stripe size, such as copying files or video playback, the disks will be seeking to the same position on each disk, so the seek time of the array will be the same as that of a single drive. For reads and writes that are smaller than the stripe size, such as database access, the drives will be able to seek independently. If the sectors accessed are spread evenly between the two drives, the apparent seek time of the array will be half that of a single drive (assuming the disks in the array have identical access time characteristics). The transfer speed of the array will be the transfer speed of all the disks added together, limited only by the speed of the RAID controller. Note that these performance scenarios are in the best case with optimal access patterns.
RAID 0 is useful for setups such as large read-only NFS servers where mounting many disks is time-consuming or impossible and redundancy is irrelevant.
Another use is where the number of disks is limited by the operating system. In Microsoft Windows, the number of drives may be limited by the availability of drive letters. RAID 0 allows more disks to be used by combining them under a single letter. It is possible in Windows 2000 and newer to mount partitions under directories, thus eliminating the need for a partition to be assigned a drive letter.
RAID 0 is also used in some gaming systems where performance is desired and data integrity is not very important. However, real-world tests with games have shown that RAID-0 performance gains are minimal, although some desktop applications will benefit.[2][3]
RAID 0 disadvantages:
RAID 0 failure rate
Although RAID 0 was not specified in the original RAID paper, an idealized implementation of RAID 0 would split I/O operations into equal-sized blocks and spread them evenly across two disks. RAID 0 implementations with more than two disks are also possible, though the group reliability decreases with member size.
Reliability of a given RAID 0 set is equal to the average reliability of each disk divided by the number of disks in the set:
\mathrm{MTTF}_{\mathrm{group}} \approx \frac{\mathrm{MTTF}_{\mathrm{disk}}}{\mathrm{number}}
That is, reliability (as measured by mean time to failure (MTTF) or mean time between failures (MTBF) is roughly inversely proportional to the number of members â so a set of two disks is roughly half as reliable as a single disk. In other words, the probability of a failure is roughly proportional to the number of members. If there were a probability of 5% that the disk would fail within three years, in a two disk array, that probability would be upped to Pr(at least one fails) = 1 - Pr(neither fails) = 1 - (1 - 0.05)^2 = 0.0975 = 9.75\,\%.
The reason for this is that the file system is distributed across all disks. When a drive fails the file system cannot cope with such a large loss of data and coherency since the data is "striped" across all drives (the data cannot be recovered without the missing disk). Data can be recovered using special tools (see data recovery), however, these data will be incomplete and most likely corrupt, and recovery of drive data is very costly and not guaranteed.
How much digital video can my MacBook Pro handle?
somethingo
I have last years MacBook Pro and I am planning on transfering video from my camcorder (MiniDV tapes) to my Mac. About how much can I plan on loading onto my computer without running out of space and seriously slowing the computer down?
Answer
dgey is absolutely correct... but for technicals:
1) You did not tell us how much available hard drive space is on thet internal drive - you should NEVER EVER allow any hard drive whether internal start-up or external - get less than about 20% free space. This is not Macintosh-specific - this is ANY computer.
2) Since you should not be saving to the internal drive, the above info (available hard drive space) does not matter for your video saving activity, but for sizing your external hard drive - you did not tell us which camcorder you are using. MiniDV tape based camcorders can be DV - standard definition only (including 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios) like a Canon Elura or ZR series, Sony DCR-HC series or Panasonic PV-GS series... or DV/HDV like the Canon HV series or Sony HDR-HC series...
Sixty minutes of Standard Definition - DV format video - when imported to a computer's hard drive will use 13-14 gig of hard drive space.
Sixty minutes of High Definition - HDV format video - will use about 44 gig of computer hard drive space.
When you compress the video file (to make it smaller) you will be discarding data and potentially degrading the video quality. Do not compress this video... That should be the LAST step after the video editing is complete.
And the miniDV tape is a better archive than the hard drive - the external hard drive is fine for back-ups, but not archiving. MiniDV tape is a digital format and considered an acceptable media for archival - when the tape is not re-used and kept in a cool, dry environment. Lock the tape, too - and mark the tapes label (came in the tape case) with a description of the tape contents.
If you insist on going the hard drive route, then you need to either get some sort of tape back up or use a RAID array that has the same data striped over two physically different drives. There are consumer grade Network Attached Storage (NAS) devices that can do this. The reason for this is the chances that both drives will die at the same time are slim so the RAIDing allows for the data to be on more than one storage media. When one drive dies, replace it and the data from the surviving drive gets written to the new drive...
dgey is absolutely correct... but for technicals:
1) You did not tell us how much available hard drive space is on thet internal drive - you should NEVER EVER allow any hard drive whether internal start-up or external - get less than about 20% free space. This is not Macintosh-specific - this is ANY computer.
2) Since you should not be saving to the internal drive, the above info (available hard drive space) does not matter for your video saving activity, but for sizing your external hard drive - you did not tell us which camcorder you are using. MiniDV tape based camcorders can be DV - standard definition only (including 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios) like a Canon Elura or ZR series, Sony DCR-HC series or Panasonic PV-GS series... or DV/HDV like the Canon HV series or Sony HDR-HC series...
Sixty minutes of Standard Definition - DV format video - when imported to a computer's hard drive will use 13-14 gig of hard drive space.
Sixty minutes of High Definition - HDV format video - will use about 44 gig of computer hard drive space.
When you compress the video file (to make it smaller) you will be discarding data and potentially degrading the video quality. Do not compress this video... That should be the LAST step after the video editing is complete.
And the miniDV tape is a better archive than the hard drive - the external hard drive is fine for back-ups, but not archiving. MiniDV tape is a digital format and considered an acceptable media for archival - when the tape is not re-used and kept in a cool, dry environment. Lock the tape, too - and mark the tapes label (came in the tape case) with a description of the tape contents.
If you insist on going the hard drive route, then you need to either get some sort of tape back up or use a RAID array that has the same data striped over two physically different drives. There are consumer grade Network Attached Storage (NAS) devices that can do this. The reason for this is the chances that both drives will die at the same time are slim so the RAIDing allows for the data to be on more than one storage media. When one drive dies, replace it and the data from the surviving drive gets written to the new drive...
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Comments :
Post a Comment