This has been an informative thread. Something to add having learned from painful experience, make sure you have a good power supply. If you got an OEM box chances are it has a 450 Watt power supply which is barely able to handle the load when you add 4 drives. Bigger better. On May 7, 2012 12:28 PM, "Haldun ALTAN" <al...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Hello Tim > > I installed everything aaaaaaand ....... IT WORKS !!!!! > Everything is visible and done. > > THANKS A LOT ! > > Well now to see the difference i have to compile cinelerra .... I"ll open > another thread for this. > > Thanks again I'll make an how to from it to keep it in mind for the next > time. May be I can send it to Grand Ma ? ... :))) > > Haldun. > > On 06/05/2012 21:17, Tim Copeland wrote: > > On Sun, 2012-05-06 at 07:39 +0200, Haldun ALTAN wrote: > > Hello Tim I was wondering about some détails. > > On 500 Go SATA drive, the 300 Go backup space is it a primary or a logical > partition to be the best ? If it's logical, /usr folder goes there > automatically. If it's a primary partition it's a free space. Is there a > specifique mount indication for this space ? > > Hard drives can only have 4 primary partitions. The only reason logical > partitions exist is if you need more than 4. Quite often > automated partitioning wizards will create them by default. Following the > suggestion, all drives have only 3 partitions, so they > can all be primary partitions if you like. > > File systems and mount points don't know about or care about partition > types. They simply see them as storage blocks. > The fact you see /usr is just a default for the wizard. It means nothing. > You can set it to anything you like or make one up. > > When you say 2 Go for SWAP, 250 GO for RAID10 and 50 Go for RAID0, you > mean also the order of partitions ? I put the swap at the middle. May be > better at the beginning because the drive is faster ? ... > > Yes that is the suggested partition ordering. > In the old days, having swap on the front of a drive was faster. Modern > hard drive designs use very sufisticated algorithms for performance > balancing. > It really makes little difference these days, but I still feel better > placing the swap towards the front. > > On 250 Go RAID10 i put /home on a primary partition. Don't need to be a > logical partition I hope. > > For the swap quantity : The former installation 10,04 had put > automatically 12 Go swap for 6 giga byte RAM. Shall I remain with 4 Go or > put some more ? > > > The standard rule of thumb for amount of swap space is generally 2x the > amount of RAM in the system. Though its doubtful you'll need more than 4 Gig > of swap space, it sure wont hurt setting it to have 6 Gig. > . > > I don't know the mount point for RAID0 shall I leave "none" or what > instead ? > > All mount options were set to relatime. is it a good choice or better > leave them on "default" ? > > > Leave all settings to what ever your wizard automatically sets them to, > which should most likely be relatime. > The only thing you should do is set the size (letting it round to > boundaries), set the file system type, set the mount point. > Do not change anything else. > > Remember that windows if finicky. You MUST install windows to the first > partition on the primary drive. > This would be the mount points I would recommend. > > Windows = 100 Gig > / = 100 Gig - Linux system > /backup = 300 Gig - since /home is RAID 10 backing up here means you > would have 3 copies of important data > > swap = 4 Gig > /home < 250 Gig - ALL important data lives here - RAID 10 > /work ~ 100 Gig - do not store here just use for high speed IO then > copy to /home when done- RAID 0 > > > Thanks for these informations in advance. I think this is it. Then it > will work when I workout the DHCP on my installation :))) > > I think Linux may be the solution for Alzheimer. You learn everyday ... > new things :)) > > Haldun. > > On 03/05/2012 20:33, Tim Copeland wrote: > > When you say ATA I am assuming SATA. A quick note for those with PATA > (IDE) drives. In order to get proper performance > out of any given RAID set, every drive in that array must be on a separate > IDE channel. i.e.. you should not have 2 drives > attached to the same IDE cable and be in the same array. > > Also no matter how many drives you place in an array, and no matter how > fast those drives are, maximum IO throughput > is still limited by maximum system bus speed. > > Another thing I need to point out. Linux supports partition level RAID. > This means you don't need to configure the entire > drive to be part of a single array. You can have each partition on a disk > assigned to a different array and/or none at all. > > The short answer to your question is, yes, your suggested setup could work > as you describe. > > I don't know any thing about your work flow or the scale of the projects > you have planned. > Creating a RAID 0 from 2 300 Gig drives would give you just under 600 Gig > of space. That is a huge amount of space > to simply use as a temporary work area. It also sounds to me like all your > work will be done in Linux, and the only reason > you keep Windows around is for convenience. If that is the case, I would > not worry about backing up any window stuff. If > you do use Windows for work and need to backup its data you'll need a > solution outside of this suggestion. > > Here is what I would do with the hardware you describe. > > Partition the 500 Gig ATA drive into 3 partitions. > 100 G , 100 G , 300 G > Install windows to the first 100 G partition > Install Linux to the next 100 G > Use the 300 G as backup space > > partition both SAS drives > 2 G , 250 G , 50 G ( or what ever space remains ) > set the 2 Gig partitions as swap ( make sure to set the same pri= in fstab > ) > assign both the 250 G to a RAID 10 and set that to mount as /home with > ext 4 file system type > assign both the 50 G to a RAID 0 to use as temporary high performance > /work space > > Then configure your backup solution to backup the /home to the 300 G > partition on the ATA drive. > > That would give you this. > > Windows = 100 Gig > Linux = 100 Gig > swap = 4 Gig > /home < 250 Gig - ALL important data lives here > /work ~ 100 Gig - do not store here just use for high speed IO then > copy to /home when done > backup = 300 Gig - since /home is RAID 10 backing up here means you > would have 3 copies of important data > > This would keep your data relatively safe and give you the performance you > seek. > Unless you are working with massive files, this setup should last you a > good while before needing > to add more drives. I hope this helps. > > > > On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 13:20 +0200, Haldun ALTAN wrote: > > Very much thank you Tim, > > For your time and knowledge about RAID. > > Your information came out at the same moment I was going to ask a question > before I begin my RAID experience. > > My configuration is 2 SAS 300Go disks and a 500 Go ATA drive which I use > for storage. On one SAS I have windows 7 (I use rarely) and on the other > Ubuntu Studio 10,04 which I will up grade to 12,04 > > I was planning to partition the 500 Go on two to installe Ubuntu and > Windows 7 and use two SAS 300 Go as RAID 0 for quick projects and back-up > on an external drive or another disk ATA. Further when I can buy some more > SAS hard drives i will try RAID 10 which seems the best configuration. > > Can this plan work ? I mean can I have my OS on a ATA drive and use two > SAS drives for the temporary work on RAID ? if yes I will begin the > experience and find out how to do it with ubuntu. > > Thanks a lot. > > Haldun. > > > Le 02/05/2012 19:59, Tim Copeland a écrit : > > Unless you are planning on spending many hundreds if not thousands of > dollars on RAID hardware, > then you should simply use Linux RAID. My personal experience matches what > others have documented > around the web. Linux RAID is not only more flexible, but substantially > faster than commodity controller > cards. Not only that, but in some cases Linux RAID is on par with the > performance of the expensive hardware > solutions. > > Chances are good that 99.999% of the readers following this, should only > be considering RAID levels 0 or 1 or 10. > Other RAID levels have their places in corporate environments, but are > little use to normal users. For instance, > RAID 10 on 4 drives gives better performance and protection than RAID 5 on > those same 4 drives. The reason > corporate environments use RAID 5 is because it scales well for those > environments. > > This may be old hat for many readers, but for those new to RAID. > 0 = some times referred to as "Striped" . Very fast performance , storage > capacity is slightly less than the sum total. > Very dangerous because a single drive failure will cause total loss of > all data. > > 1 = mirrored data is duplicated across all drives or partitions. The IO > performance is the same as if using just one of those drives. > Total storage capacity is slightly less than the size of a single > drive or partition. > Much safer because complete copies of the data exist, and data is safe > if a single drive failure occurs. > > 10 = This combines both 1 and 0 together. This gives the speed and > performance of 0 with the redundancy of 1. > Total storage capacity is less than the size of a single drive or > partition. > Much safer because complete copies of the data exist, and data is safe > if a single drive failure occurs. > > I cant stress enough. > Unless you only want to use RAID 0 as a high performance temporary work > space, I would recommend RAID 10. > In addition, I still recommend having a solid off site backup solution in > place. This protects your data from lightning, > falling trees, flood, and theft. The list goes on ... > > > > > On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 09:12 +0200, Haldun ALTAN wrote: > > I looked for XFS file system mine is ext 4. I have to make some more > readings to understand the how to. > > I checked for Raid enterprise. Is that about are the Intel solutions ? Is > that means separated hardware solution. > > Thanks, > Haldun. > > Le 02/05/2012 00:49, E Chalaron a écrit : > > Well, > > Raid 0 is fast especially on XFS filesystem... You will see the difference. > However... If one disk packs up... that's it... > As for me it is not a problem : data are not supposed to stay, I grab > frames, process, export then delete. > And if trouble happens : I rescan. Yes a pain but not dramatic. > > Counterpart of XFS : it gets fragmented. So you need to look after that. > There is a lot of tools for XFS. > > > http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/my-own-xfs-jfs-ext3-benchmark-809670/ > > Maybe a redundant array on XFS liek Raid 5 or 10 as suggested. But get > your Os on a separate drive. > That will save you some big problems if a disk goes wrong. > > More important than speed, I found that Raid enterprise edition of drives > are way better. > > > Cheers > E > > > On 05/01/2012 11:27 PM, Haldun ALTAN wrote: > > Thanks Edouard > No not yet. I thought 10 000 tours and SAS will be enough. And I hesitate > between RAID 0 or 5 don't know exactly which one will be better ... > > Thanks a lot. > Haldun > > Le 01/05/2012 02:50, E Chalaron a écrit : > > Haldun > Did you set up your 2 drives as Raid 0, you may well have a bottle neck > there if not. > Careful that you may need a dedicated drive for your OS. > > cheers > Edouard > > > On 04/28/2012 04:28 AM, Haldun ALTAN wrote: > > Another great bunch of thanks to Rafealla and her grandma's advises > without which i couldn't make the last work where DNxHD was not fluid > enough. So i did it with proxy editing and that was great. I could use 6-7 > video channels without any problème and render with DNxHD version on mjpega > to get HD with handbrake. > > Anyway proxy is great even if you have to do everything twice at tjhe end > you earn a lot of time when you're editing. > > in fact I don't understand why it's so slow. I bought recently a second > hand PC with two xeon 5460 3,1 ghz 4 cwith 6 go ram and nvdia quadro > fx4600 and two hard drive sas 10000 tours with 300 go each. > cpu is working 100% memory is saturated at 6 Gio > > Tell me just if it's normal that i have to wait 6 minutes for 1 min vidéo > on background rendering with jpeg quality at 20 % ? > > Thanks > > Haldun. _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing > list Cinelerra@skolelinux.no > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > > _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list > Cinelerra@skolelinux.no > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > > _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list > Cinelerra@skolelinux.no > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > > > _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list > Cinelerra@skolelinux.no > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > > > _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list > Cinelerra@skolelinux.no > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > > > _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list > Cinelerra@skolelinux.no > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
