badgers

Raid 0

Recommended Posts

I have read that Raid 0 is not very helpful for a home desktop.

Are there any cases where Raid 0 would be useful?

I am asking because I have started to do a lot of video editing(my daughters home video's) and I have many files that are just under 2 gigs each off of the camcorder. After I encode the movie to mpeg-2 it is still about 3 gigs.

I had read conflicting info for larger file sizes(google search).

This is an AMD xp2800+ box on a KT400 chipset.

The raid controller I have is a promise chipset integrated into the motherboard.

I assume the chip communicates through the pci bus.

I am using Gentoo linux, 2.6.2 kernel, primary drive is a WD 80gig 8meg(3 partitions)

I am thinking of getting a larger single drive or two average size and making them a Raid array.

Thank you for your time and have a good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAID used to be useful for video editing, but harddrives have progressed in the last decade.

Video editing generally isn't bound by harddrive transfer rates, so a dedicated drive should be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I have found that video editing with ANY kind of IDE system to be a little slow for my tastes. I've been using SCSIs for video editing (both in it's RAID and non-RAID variants on different systems) and have found that even with an older SCSI RAID card, that it would still be better than a single non-RAID SCSI drive of the same size, and significantly better than IDE (non-RAID AND RAID).

That being said, it's entirely up to you. On my design system, I have non-RAID SCSI. On my dual processor system, it has an older Mylex AcceleRAID SCSI RAID with two IBM/Hitachi 18GB, 10krpm drives on RAID0 and performs significantly better.

On my dad's system, he used to use multiple IDE drives of various sizes and since then, I've moved him off that (where the large IDE drives are for mass storage) and for processing/compression/etc...., he uses two 36 GB on a Mylex AcceleRAID 250 on RAID0. I haven't heard much in terms of performance benefits from his end, but I would think that there would be a dramatic increase in speed and performance.

It's entirely up to you. I have found Hitachi 73 GB SCSI drives (10krpm) for as low as $69 on eBay and the Mylex card for [urlhttp://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3753&item=5124492423&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW]$0.99[/url]. (I actually got my dad's Mylex for $50 and mine for $40, or thereabouts.)

And while yes, you can get bigger PATA or SATA drives for that kind of money, the performance is just no match.

Like I said, it's entirely up to you, but I've done it all (with the except of SATA) and based on my experiences, that is what I am recommending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda OF....but i just wanted to bust in with one of my pet peaves.....

The way people speak about raid0 and video editing, tthey make it sound like you need a baddass Raid0 array of multiple SCSI drives to get anything done. Blah Blah Blah uncompressed video is blah blah blah.....the fact of the matter is that most of us are working in compressed formats like DV, MJPEG, or MPEG which is easily doable by even a single modern ata drive. Add another drive so you can work between them, and you're golden.

This whole "you need crazy discs for video" mantra just doesn't apply to most people.

-Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to note, modern drives should also have no trouble with uncompressed codecs like Huffyuv. Hell it's less than 10MB/s at DVD resolutions!

Additionally, for video-editing rendering performance, independent source and destination drives offer much greater performance than RAID 0. For disk-limited renders a RAID 0 will thrash disastrously and only offer a fraction of the throughput of independent disks. Coincidentally, all remotely full-featured video-editing tools can be configured to use independend disks in this way. Higher-end applications will often let you use independent disks for the audio as well. Both optimizations are unlikely to be necessary --even for enthusiastic prosumers--, but should be your first course of action --well... with respect to storage performance anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to note, modern drives should also have no trouble with uncompressed codecs like Huffyuv.

That should be "no trouble with lossless compression codecs like Huffyuv"

Hell it's less than 10MB/s at DVD resolutions!
Hence the compression part :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kinda OF....but i just wanted to bust in with one of my pet peaves.....

The way people speak about raid0 and video editing, tthey make it sound like you need a baddass Raid0 array of multiple SCSI drives to get anything done.  Blah Blah Blah uncompressed video is blah blah blah.....the fact of the matter is that most of us are working in compressed formats like DV, MJPEG, or MPEG which is easily doable by even a single modern ata drive. Add another drive so you can work between them, and you're golden.

This whole "you need crazy discs for video" mantra just doesn't apply to most people.

-Chris

as I've stated before, my native uncompressed files are 89 MB/s at 720x480 for digital video and 4 MB/s for 320x240.

I think that for my native uncompressed MPEGs, they're at about the same data rates, and maybe even slightly higher. I can't verify that because I haven't used that format for a long time since it required more space.

If you consider DV to be compressed video, then everything's compressed, even the official Hi-Def at 4000x3000. (yes..that is what they use in the motion picture industry).

I think that the mix up comes from format vs. compression.

Way I see it, when it gets transferred from whatever source it is (be it DV cam, CATV, etc...) to the computer (i.e. digitizing), what resides on my hard drive is the "uncompressed" format. From there on, it is processed, cut, edited, etc...to what I want, and that then ran through a codec of some form and compressed wth various settings.

That's how I would define format vs. compression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anytime you are building a pc primarily for video or sound editing and/or capture a strong disk subsystem is a good idea. In years past that mandated using a SCSI drive or an IDE RAID0 array. Single IDE drives weren't fast enough on the inner tracks to cut the mustard.

Nowdays the STR of the better IDE (or SATA, same dif) drives exceeds 30MB/s. Single drives are successful in the majority of applications. But if you have a robust backup plan an RAID0 array is still good insurance against running out of STR (which can happen more readily than the raw numbers might suggest) without introducing significant cost. SCSI RAID, while certainly nice, is a bit of overkill, but a single fast SCSI drive might be just the ticket if you can deal with their inherntly higher noise floors as compared to even two modern IDE/SATA drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing slips past CityK.

My mistake, sorry. Huffyuv is compressed. But it is also lossless, which is the important element of the point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as I've stated before, my native uncompressed files are 89 MB/s at 720x480 for digital video

Your way off alpha --> video stream is ~29MB/s. Audio will add little.

and 4 MB/s for 320x240.
Correct.
I think that for my native uncompressed MPEGs, they're at about the same data rates, and maybe even slightly higher. I can't verify that because I haven't used that format for a long time since it required more space.
There is no such thing as uncompressed MPEG.
If you consider DV to be compressed video
It very much is. DV's specs are highly standardized. DV video stream is ~25Mb/s....that's bits, not bytes.
then everything's compressed
In a matter of speaking yes. But suffice it to say, uncompressed generally refers to the 24bit RGB colour model (with an approrpriately based colour space).
even the official Hi-Def at 4000x3000. (yes..that is what they use in the motion picture industry).
Incorrect. For starters, that's a 4:3 AR you have described. I have an idea that you may have been thinking about what equivalence film might translate into, but even then, its off (i.e. if you could quote a resolution for 35mm film (and you can't, being film), then it would roughly correspond to around 5000x5000 ... or at least, so I read).
I think that the mix up comes from format vs. compression.

Way I see it, when it gets transferred from whatever source it is (be it DV cam, CATV, etc...) to the computer (i.e. digitizing), what resides on my hard drive is the "uncompressed" format. From there on, it is processed, cut, edited, etc...to what I want, and that then ran through a codec of some form and compressed wth various settings.

That's how I would define format vs. compression.

Dude, I'll let someone else touch that, as I'm starting to get to sleepy and should head to bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as I've stated before, my native uncompressed files are 89 MB/s at 720x480 for digital video

Your way off alpha --> video stream is ~29MB/s. Audio will add little.

and 4 MB/s for 320x240.
Correct.
I think that for my native uncompressed MPEGs, they're at about the same data rates, and maybe even slightly higher. I can't verify that because I haven't used that format for a long time since it required more space.
There is no such thing as uncompressed MPEG.
If you consider DV to be compressed video
It very much is. DV's specs are highly standardized. DV video stream is ~25Mb/s....that's bits, not bytes.
then everything's compressed
In a matter of speaking yes. But suffice it to say, uncompressed generally refers to the 24bit RGB colour model (with an approrpriately based colour space).
even the official Hi-Def at 4000x3000. (yes..that is what they use in the motion picture industry).
Incorrect. For starters, that's a 4:3 AR you have described. I have an idea that you may have been thinking about what equivalence film might translate into, but even then, its off (i.e. if you could quote a resolution for 35mm film (and you can't, being film), then it would roughly correspond to around 5000x5000 ... or at least, so I read).
I think that the mix up comes from format vs. compression.

Way I see it, when it gets transferred from whatever source it is (be it DV cam, CATV, etc...) to the computer (i.e. digitizing), what resides on my hard drive is the "uncompressed" format. From there on, it is processed, cut, edited, etc...to what I want, and that then ran through a codec of some form and compressed wth various settings.

That's how I would define format vs. compression.

Dude, I'll let someone else touch that, as I'm starting to get to sleepy and should head to bed.

That is the number that I get when I use Adobe Premiere when I go to File -> Get Properties For... -> File (at 89 MB/s, 29.97 fps, 720x480, native YUV, 24 bit depth)

I think that the Panavision PSV1143 (which I think is a custom amorphic lens) is capable of 4000x3000. The video that comes from it requires about 5 GB/s FC storage subsystem (or roughly a 6 channel 8 Gbps FC) to be able to feed the data at 24 fps. It doesn't use film, but rather a digital storage medium and that a standard movie can easily be over a TB. (In terms of physical size, it is somewhere between a standard VHS tape and 8mm, and cost about $26 piece in bulk prices). To rent the camera of course is anywhere between $3000-5000 a day for a low budget film and somewhere between $10,000 to 15,000 a day for a larger budget film (where the cameras and the lenses would move around a lot more.) An approximate cost of the cameras: $200,000. Lens: $500,000.

You should be able to get the camera from a firm in North Hollywood called EMV and from what I've been told, you should also be able to get it from Bel Air Cameras in downtown LA.

I have a friend of mine that's also mentioned that he uses an IBM IDE RAID controller with a 3-drive RAID0E and that when processing video, he drops a frame or two per hour of video. He has also mentioned that if he were to change that storage subsystem to the Mylex 250 with 2 SCSI drives on RAID0 that he wouldn't have that problem.

Basically: go with the SCSI RAID0. Yes, it costs more, be you can basically screw up less with it. And besides, I personally don't think that it's as expensive as it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is the number that I get when I use Adobe Premiere when I go to File -> Get Properties For... -> File (at 89 MB/s, 29.97 fps, 720x480, native YUV, 24 bit depth)

alpha, you have either disclosed a bug in Premiere or have mistakingly remembered the wrong figure (which is what my money is on). To elucidate:

[ [720 h. pixels per frame x 480 v. pixels per frame x 29.97 frames per sec x 24 bits per pixel ] / 8 bits per byte ] / 2^20 bytes per Megabyte

Answer: ~29.6 MB/s

I think that the Panavision PSV1143 (which I think is a custom amorphic lens) is capable of 4000x3000.
Well, I couldn't find anything on the model you specified, but that may be because of it being a "custom" lens. But not that it really matters, as I certainly know nothing about lenses. Nonetheless, Panavision certainly does have some very capable equipment, and I note that the "12.4 mega pixel, true RGB sensor" of that camera is certainly able to capture an image resolution that you mentioned. But how HD content is captured and edited is a different story. Just like lenses, that's not my playground, so maybe a Hollywood type can provide some more info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is the number that I get when I use Adobe Premiere when I go to File -> Get Properties For... -> File (at 89 MB/s, 29.97 fps, 720x480, native YUV, 24 bit depth)

alpha, you have either disclosed a bug in Premiere or have mistakingly remembered the wrong figure (which is what my money is on). To elucidate:

[ [720 h. pixels per frame x 480 v. pixels per frame x 29.97 frames per sec x 24 bits per pixel ] / 8 bits per byte ] / 2^20 bytes per Megabyte

Answer: ~29.6 MB/s

I think that the Panavision PSV1143 (which I think is a custom amorphic lens) is capable of 4000x3000.
Well, I couldn't find anything on the model you specified, but that may be because of it being a "custom" lens. But not that it really matters, as I certainly know nothing about lenses. Nonetheless, Panavision certainly does have some very capable equipment, and I note that the "12.4 mega pixel, true RGB sensor" of that camera is certainly able to capture an image resolution that you mentioned. But how HD content is captured and edited is a different story. Just like lenses, that's not my playground, so maybe a Hollywood type can provide some more info.

Actually..gotta edit that. I THINK that it was 89 MB/s for 640x480, with all the other settings the same. I remember doing that because I had accidently recorded a TV show at the wrong resolution and it filled my drive in about 15 or so minutes.

The stuff about the cameras and the lenses was actually provided by a friend of mine who's from Southern California who also spends a lot of time working with Hollywood and the likes.

He was also telling me that one of his friends was doing the visual special effects (digitally with Maya 6 or possibly Maya 7 (which is unreleased officially, with full support for x86-64 ONLY)) and rendering them at enormous resolutions (hence where the 4000x3000 number comes from) where they it is reduced down when it goes into print.

As we speak, I'm actually doing a single frame render at that resolution to generate the data rate and I am guessing that it won't be done for quite some time.

Point of the matter is: video editing - use SCSI RAID0. RAID5 if you can afford it, and RAID50 if you really have a never-ending wallet. (Or go fibre channel) because if you work enough with it, you will saturate any and all available bandwidth.

(That'd actually be kinda interesting to have a multi-colored FC system to increase the data transfer and also to run the lines in multiples of 3 so that way you effective get the whole parity and error checking.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually..gotta edit that. I THINK that it was 89 MB/s for 640x480, with all the other settings the same. I remember doing that because I had accidently recorded a TV show at the wrong resolution and it filled my drive in about 15 or so minutes.

Then even more glaring the error! (given that 640x480 will yeild a lower thorough put then 720x480, all else being the same). Sorry dude, the mathematics don't lie.

and 4 MB/s for 320x240.

Correct.

Oops, correction: For uncompressed, this figure should be ~6.6MB/s....~4.4MB/s is what you would have for 16 bits per pixel.

I caught that the second time round when I was going to suggest to you to consider that 720x480 is only 4.5x the size of your 320x240 captures, and not ~20x as 89MBps implies.

Another way to put the error into perspective is to consider that an YUV 4:2:2 analog capture of 720p HD is only ~53MBps. One would have to wonder how it could be eclipsed by a lowly D1 capture.

Lastly, given that you earlier reported 4MB/s for your 320x240 captures, it suggests that you are not capturing uncompressed 4:4:4, but rather 4:2:0; which is somewhat equivalent to saying 16 bit per pixel as opposed to the formers 24bit. The good news is, given the nature of the source (TV), anything greater then 16bit is pretty much a waste.

Point of the matter is: video editing - use SCSI RAID0.
What exactly are you doing in the way of editing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, how is everyone?

sorry to start a debate about format bit rates and all.

All I know is Kino get the "raw" DV from the camcorder. These are huge huge files for just 10 min of video.

In kino I add a fade in, fade out, splice a few seperat clips together and other little tweaks. I have not figured out cinellera....

Then I use Kino's export to DVD format mpeg-2.

This takes time but I am not sure if it is disk or cpu limited. (it isn't ram limited, gnome-system-monitor shows only 300 megs out of 512 being used)

Raid 0 is available in my SATA controller, So it would be a cheap upgrade.

I hesitated to do so, because I have read on this site and my google search that Raid 0 does nothing for desktops, and is in general overstated.

I found conflicting info for video. SCSI is out of the question. This is for my kids home movies. I want to burn DVD's so I can mail them out to the grandparents and keep the movies for the future. I feel that DVD will be around longer then VHS, and I don't want to put the movie back on DV tape.

I am going to stay away from raid 0 since it seems to be questionable.

I keep the original DV files on my drive just incase I want to re-edit. My wife thinks I cut to much out at times and not enough in other spots. There is just a lot of data to hold.

I appreciate the help and everyone's input.

Thank you for your time and have a good day

badgers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said... a dedicated drive should be enough. If you're crazy, you can do two dedicated drives.

I'm not familiar with the program that you mentioned, but, if it's not rendering the effects and compression in real-time, it's not going to matter anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came across it once upon a time (the whole 89 MB/s thing) and I forgot how the system was setup to do that, but it was either 640x480 or 720x480. I forget which I used, but I do remember that with an newly formatted 80 GB drive, it didn't take long to fill it at that resolution (I think it was like...just under 15 minutes or something like that).

In any case, setting that aside, I did run a single-frame render and the frame is 35,174 KB at 4000x3000.

There's the output:

9/21/2004
Maya (R), Version 6.0CG, 200403232210
Copyright 1997-2004 Alias Systems, a division of Silicon Graphics Limited.
All rights reserved.
mental ray for Maya 6 
mental ray: version 3.3.1, 12 Mar 2004
File read in 0 seconds.
Result: C:/Documents and Settings/Ewen Chan/My Documents/maya/projects/default/scenes/rendertest__308.mb
Total Elapsed Time Since Start Of Maya (hh:mm:ss): 00:00:14
====================================
Resource Usage At Start Of Rendering
====================================
  26173	Page faults
 99.742 Mb	Max resident size
 98.738 Mb	Peak total size(Estimated)
  3.687 Mb	Peak arena size
====================================
 99.742 Mb	Current
  3.125 Mb	MEL
  0.125 Mb	NURBS Surface Shapes
  0.125 Mb	Transforms
  0.313 Mb	Data Blocks
====================================
Rendering using 2 threads.
Automatic near/far clipping values: 0.1, 38.4708.
Result: C:/Documents and Settings/Ewen Chan/My Documents/maya/projects/default/images/rendertest.bmp
Constructing shading groups.

Generating shadow map for pointLightShape1, with clipping values: 0.01 16.9577
Generating shadow map for pointLightShape1, with clipping values: 0.01 5.62456
Generating shadow map for pointLightShape1, with clipping values: 0.01 20.1439
Generating shadow map for pointLightShape1, with clipping values: 0.01 30.3247
Generating shadow map for pointLightShape1, with clipping values: 0.01 7.49242
Generating shadow map for pointLightShape1, with clipping values: 0.01 27.9196
Rendering current frame.
  Glow: Filter Width = 199
        Resolution = 1
  Halo: Filter Width = 461
        Resolution = 0.558935
Frame triangle count: 50432

====================================
Resource Usage At End Of Frame
====================================
  46596	Page faults
266.898 Mb	Max resident size
263.480 Mb	Peak total size(Estimated)
 31.153 Mb	Peak arena size
====================================
266.883 Mb	Current
  3.125 Mb	MEL
  0.125 Mb	NURBS Surface Shapes
 26.466 Mb	Render Cache
  1.000 Mb	NURBS AG
  0.313 Mb	Data Blocks
  0.125 Mb	Transforms
  0.007 Mb	Render Geometry Arena
====================================
Postprocessing rendering result.
Glow intensity normalization factor = 1.
Halo intensity normalization factor = 1.
Time For Tessellation (hh:mm:ss): 00:00:01
Time For Shadow Map   (hh:mm:ss): 00:00:01
Time For Post Process (hh:mm:ss): 04:04:46
Time For Frame Render (hh:mm:ss): 04:25:05
Finished Rendering C:/Documents and Settings/Ewen Chan/My Documents/maya/projects/default/images/rendertest.bmp

------------------------------------------------------------


====================================
Resource Usage At End Of Rendering
====================================
 550767	Page faults
337.398 Mb	Max resident size
343.336 Mb	Peak total size(Estimated)
122.706 Mb	Peak arena size
====================================
320.750 Mb	Current
  3.125 Mb	MEL
  0.125 Mb	NURBS Surface Shapes
  0.125 Mb	Transforms
 49.110 Mb	Render Cache
  1.000 Mb	NURBS AG
  0.313 Mb	Data Blocks
====================================
Total Time For Render (hh:mm:ss): 04:25:08
Total Elapsed Time For Maya (hh:mm:ss): 04:25:22
mental ray: wallclock  4:25:11.92 total
mental ray: allocated 1 MB, max resident 1 MB

For the video portion only, at 30 fps, it would translate to 1055220 KB/s and that's video data only, exclusing genlock and audio.

Another correction that I have to make on my part, is that I am using UVYV. (If that makes a difference).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just use single drives & stay away from Raid on your setup.

The KT400 chipset's Raid is no faster than single drives.

The downside is:

it is harder to setup

You double your chances of losing everything if a drive fails.

If you upgrade it is tricky to use the drives on a new system without formating

You cant more a drive to another computer to get data off or on

Just get a new drive & run it by itself off the Raid controller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry to start a debate about format bit rates and all.
No its all good. The debate is purposeful' date=' as it should help to shed light for you, and others, on the actual transfer rates involved. So, really, it is pertinent to the discussion.
All I know is Kino get the "raw" DV from the camcorder. These are huge huge files for just 10 min of video
DV video stream is itself 25Mbit per second...adding audio, and other stuff (timecode, error correction blah blah blah) its ~29Mbits....or ~3.6MB/s. So yes, those 10 minute clips can certainly add up in a hurry to give resultant files on your hard drive in excess of 2GB.
In kino I add a fade in, fade out, splice a few seperat clips together and other little tweaks.....Then I use Kino's export to DVD format mpeg-2.This takes time but I am not sure if it is disk or cpu limited.
Sounds a whole lot like your processor bound. :)
Raid 0 is available in my SATA controller, So it would be a cheap upgrade...I hesitated to do so, because I have read on this site and my google search that Raid 0 does nothing for desktops, and is in general overstated....I found conflicting info for video. SCSI is out of the question. This is for my kids home movies. I want to burn DVD's so I can mail them out to the grandparents and keep the movies for the future. I feel that DVD will be around longer then VHS, and I don't want to put the movie back on DV tape....I am going to stay away from raid 0 since it seems to be questionable.
Sounds like you made a good choice. Chris' earlier remark hit the nail on the head. If you are going to do anything, as already mentioned, add another disk as a destination drive. If your not satisfied with that, you could easily try out the raid option then. But honestly, I don't think your doing anything that would particularly benefit from a raid setup.
I appreciate the help and everyone's input.
You may be interested in reading through brief and the accompaning user responses.
I'm not familiar with the program that you mentioned
http://kino.schirmacher.de/
I did run a single-frame render and the frame is 35' date='174 KB at 4000x3000.[/quote'] Which is precisely (notwithstanding a few KB utilized for file descriptor type stuff) what it should be for a 24bpp:

(4000x3000x24/8)/1024 = 35156.25 KB

For the video portion only' date=' at 30 fps, it would translate to 1055220 KB/s and that's video data only, exclusing genlock and audio[/quote']Yep, them some mighty big numbers (transfer rate and storage).
As we speak, I'm actually doing a single frame render at that resolution to generate the data rate and I am guessing that it won't be done for quite some time.....There's the output:
04:25:08 !! Whew!
Another correction that I have to make on my part, is that I am using UVYV. (If that makes a difference).
UVYV is a YUV 4:2:2 format, which means that (effectively) 16bits per pixel are being used for your captures.
I came across it once upon a time (the whole 89 MB/s thing) and I forgot how the system was setup to do that, but it was either 640x480 or 720x480. I forget which I used, but I do remember that with an newly formatted 80 GB drive, it didn't take long to fill it at that resolution (I think it was like...just under 15 minutes or something like that).
Yes, 89MBps would fill a 80GB disk in just under 15 minutes. But it certainly wasn't a single 640x480 or 720x480 video stream. I'm going to step out on a limb hear and theorize that you were using three 720x480 @24 bits (Maya created) video streams and were muxing them together (3x29.6MBps=89MBps). Sound familar?

Which brings me back to:

Point of the matter is: video editing - use SCSI RAID0.
I don't mean to harp on you alpha, so please don't take it the wrong way, but catch all comments like this DO NOT apply to the vast majority of people. In fact, its the down right wrong advice to be given to the majority.

Beside the very nature of some of the editing tasks you may be performing that would benefit from raid, another thing to keep in mind is that, if memory serves me, you have a dual CPU setup. Is that not the case? SMP changes a few things here ---> and Premiere is definitely SMP friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point of the matter is: video editing - use SCSI RAID0.

I don't mean to harp on you alpha, so please don't take it the wrong way, but catch all comments like this DO NOT apply to the vast majority of people. In fact, its the down right wrong advice to be given to the majority.

Beside the very nature of some of the editing tasks you may be performing that would benefit from raid, another thing to keep in mind is that, if memory serves me, you have a dual CPU setup. Is that not the case? SMP changes a few things here ---> and Premiere is definitely SMP friendly.

Actually, it's a single capture stream that I've been able to saturate my storage subsystem with. I honestly can't recall whether I did the test at 640x480 or at 720x480. I'm sure that I've probably done it on both, but the only part about that stuck is the 89 MB/s bit.

And yes, you are correct, I am using a dual processor system. (Actually..I have two duallies now). However, I have also found that on my faster duallie (two Athlon MP 2600+s) that uses about 80% of CPU available because the data still can't be fed to it fast enough to use up all of it. And I also believe that with my current RAID0 (I think it's actually an Ultra2 Wide, so it's not even an Ultra160 RAID setup), that it's reading at about 50 MB/s. I think that the other difference is that even when the drives are 99% full, it still can write the file to a third SCSI drive and be able process at the 80% mark.

I don't believe that I've ever been able to see that kind of performance with PATA. I have also been told that while SATA is still better, but because I already have SCSI systems that there really shouldn't be a need for me to go SATA.

My bottom line is that SATA is a solution, as is SCSI, but personally, I prefer the SCSI because I've had tremendous success with it. I would also think that for a similar SATA set up, that I should probably only be able to use between 65-70% of the CPU available and that if I changed to a Mylex 170 (Ultra160 SCSI RAID), that I should be able to dramatically improve my current RAID performance.

At $40 for the card, and $150 for two drives, I'm not complaining. It works, and for more than one application, thus I am happy with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a side note: I did re-render the same single-frame @ 4000x3000, with mental-ray. Unfortunately, it apparently doesn't have a log file or I didn't set one up, so I don't have timing data for it, but I think that it was around the 4.5 hour mark similar to the Maya software render.

The funny thing about that picture: it took significantly more time to post-process the image than it did to do the actual render.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To throw my 2c at the original question: Almost never.

The only situation were RAID0 makes sense is a performance sensitive temp directory. No permanent should be on RAID0. If performance is that critical, go 0+1. If you are on a budget and can handle slower write speed, go 5. If you can't afford 4 or more drives and still require the speed of RAID0, remove any loaded weapons from the house. You'll want to shoot something when your data dies.

If RAID0 still seems like the right way to go, at least make sure you backup nightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To throw my 2c at the original question: Almost never.

The only situation were RAID0 makes sense is a performance sensitive temp directory. No permanent should be on RAID0. If performance is that critical, go 0+1. If you are on a budget and can handle slower write speed, go 5. If you can't afford 4 or more drives and still require the speed of RAID0, remove any loaded weapons from the house. You'll want to shoot something when your data dies.

If RAID0 still seems like the right way to go, at least make sure you backup nightly.

To throw my 2c at the original question: Almost never.

The only situation were RAID0 makes sense is a performance sensitive temp directory. No permanent should be on RAID0. If performance is that critical, go 0+1. If you are on a budget and can handle slower write speed, go 5. If you can't afford 4 or more drives and still require the speed of RAID0, remove any loaded weapons from the house. You'll want to shoot something when your data dies.

If RAID0 still seems like the right way to go, at least make sure you backup nightly.

If you can't afford 4 or more drives and still require the speed of RAID0, remove any loaded weapons from the house. You'll want to shoot something when your data dies.

:P you will never get my guns..... (add emoticons here, I can't because I was told that I exceeded the limit this board allows, that sucks)

never, never, never. :ph34r:

Now that the assualt weapons ban is lifted, I can't afford a SCSI card or a new drive, got to get my assault weapon while the gettin's good :lol:

I am using my second IDE drive to be my backup. Before any major gentoo emerge I copy everything to an old 30 gig drive. I make sure that I can disconnect my main drive and boot of the 30 gig before I get to hackin'

maybe I will just use it for extra storage and try MONO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this board sucks. I only qoted you once and it is the last one.

each time the board complained about the amount of emoticons it requoted your post.

I can't even edit the damn thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now