Comments

scifly2 wrote on 1/19/2005, 10:25 PM
Can you be more specific? If your asking what i think your asking, it wont matter for rendering. I believe the processor speed is going to be the determining factor.
ushere wrote on 1/20/2005, 2:13 PM
am looking at new computer and since i do quite a bit of both fnished program and sectional rendering, was wondering which would be more advantageous.

read that rendering to same h/d slowed down the process considerably, hence the question would i be better off:

a. rendering from drive x to drive y

b. using raid 0 (or other suggestion?)

thanks,

leslie
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 1/20/2005, 8:24 PM
I'm not positive, but I think that the answer to your question is, from x to y rather than a raid setup. Even though the raid setup will read faster and write faster I'm pretty certain that it's faster to read from one drive and write to another rather than read some and then move the heads and then write some. Now, I'm not certain about this with SATA, but with IDE, you have to make sure that to put the HD's on separate controllers so that they don't have to be in a master - slave relationship on the same controller.

Dave
tadpole wrote on 1/20/2005, 8:52 PM
I tell ya .. instead of thinking raid, i first consider the 120 part.

I went with 2 x 400 Hitchaci Deskstars raid 0 for my capture drive(s)
single 400 gig storage (for vegs files, fx, completed segments)
then a 10,000 rpm raptor system drive.

Of course, i spent some serious coin.. but i tell ya.. not seeing that low disc space gauge come up is worth the extra bucks..

Think there still about $400 each.. but worth it in my book...

At the least, go with 200 gig drive - thats only like $20-$30 more than a 120.

Lastly, with raid 0 - of course - one drive poops out. u lose all data...



scifly2 wrote on 1/20/2005, 8:56 PM
X to y sounds safer too. I tried raid and one drive went bad after 10 months. Lucky for me I was thru with my projects because they were gone.
You are considering these in addition to a drive for O.S. right?
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 1/20/2005, 9:04 PM
I would certainly suggest the 200's (especaily if they are only about $30 more, you won't kick yourself later and say, "OH MAN, I wish I didn't have so much space to store footage on!") and a Fast System drive. The system drive and one HD could be on one controller and the other drive on another controller (assuming that there will only be 2 controllers). You'll save a lot of time by running the system on a fast system drive, capturing your clips to one drive, and then rendering them to another drive. This would be the setup I would suggest.

Dave
richard-courtney wrote on 1/21/2005, 7:26 AM
You may want to consider RAID 5.

You will need 4 drives but if one drive fails the other 3 will be rebuilt.
You won't get 480G. Our application 4x 200G drives only yields 600G.

3Com has controllers that support raid 5. I agree that processor speed,
CODEC used, and low video noise will shorten the encoding time.
(scenes using a good 3 CCD camera do a better job than the family
1 CCD camera).