vezava diskov za montažo filmov

Glede na to da imam namen montiranje filemčkov, so mi priporočali da vzamem en mali disk za sistem + 2 diska 160GB za obdelavo...

ta dva diska so mi svetovali,da naj jih dam vezat skupaj tako da se mi nekje 0 na drugem 1

baje da bi tako slo ful hitreje in da je idealno

se strinjate????

Kaj se je tukaj za strinjati in kaj ne, ne bi vedel, itak je tako čudno napisano, da sem komaj dešifriral

Vem pa tole, da je to kar so ti rekli raid diskovno polje in s takim načinom povezave diskov se res doseže nekatere učinke (hitrost, varnost, etc...)
1. Če bi rad hitrost, kar je za video definitivno dobrodošlo, moraš diske povezati v RAID Level 0 (data stripig). Zavedati se moraš, da v tem primeru, ko gre en disk v maloro gredo podatki adijo tudi na drugem.
2. Tako da bi bil nek kompromis med hitrostjo in zaneslivostjo povezava diskov v RAID Level 5.
3. Pri vezavi diskov pa na hitrost vpliva tudi vodilo (ATA, SATA, SCSI). SATA raid polja so nek kompromis med ceno in hitrostjo in kar je še enostavneje malo boljše matične plošče imajo že na plošči podporo za RAID (navadno sata).

V kolikor nimaš RAID kontrolerja že na matični plošči, ga boš potreboval ločeno. Iz vprašanja se mi poraja rahel dvom, da ti je kaj jasno, zato ti svetujem, da se obrneš na nekoga, ki so mu znani gornji izrazi tudi v praksi in ne samo po pripovedovanju in govorjenju kolk je kaj hitrej.

Teorija popolnoma drži glede RAID 0,1,5. Glede na opis vitabelle lahko sklepam, da mu sama tehnika ni popolnoma jasna, vendar pa približno ve kaj potrebuje. Glede na željo, da bi se šel video montažo potrebuje zvezen prenos podatkov med kartico, ki bo zajemala sliko (ne pove če ima enoto s 1394 vmesnikom ali ima anlogni izvor) in diskovnim poljem. Če bo delal zajem iz DV (1394 -firewire) kamere potem ne potrebuje RAID polja, saj lahko naredi zajem slike brez izgube kvalitete na navaden SATA disk, ki je dovolj velik, (urejanje posnetka je pač omejeno s hitrostjo diska). V primeru, da potrebuje hitrost in zanesljivost je rešitev v SATA RAID 5 polju, narejenem iz štirih SATA diskov, vendar potrebuje 4 kanalni SATA RAID VMESNIK naprimer ADAPTEC RAID 2410 SA vmesnik (ima 64 Mb lastnega prepomnilnika) + 4x 160GB SATA DISK (lahko tudi manjši, glede na potrebe).

link

cena vmesnika je v Ameriki 400 USD (listna cena), kar pomeni, da bo cena v Sloveniji cca 96.000 z DDV. VSAK DISK BO PRIBLIŽNO 28.000 SIT z DDV. Pomembna pa je še hitrost procesorja in količina sistemskega pomnilnika.


srec_a

za raid 5 so potrebni minimalno trije diski...
sam tolk za info

hvala za vse informacije...

k4harvey: ploščo ki bom zbral je ASUS K8N nForce3 250 +SB+LAN+SATA -- ima že RAID kontroler gor?

Aja še to RAID 0 niti slučajno ni primeren za domačo uporabo, prej škoduje.


Nujno branje za vse RAID 0 freake :)

Stop the RAID0 Insanity! 02 July 2004
In February of 2003, we took a brief time-out from our standard, single-drive testing to formally address what we normally refuse to touch with a 12-foot pole- a RAID0 array. Why? The StorageReview Discussion community, mirroring forums around the net, burgeoned with hundreds of posts from readers seeking advice on which RAID adapter to get and which hard drives to stripe for their power rigs.

Simple theory, however, indicated that striping would not significantly help the localized (as opposed to both random and sequential), low-depth usage that dominated even highly-multitasked, single-user scenarios. The best advice, as a result, was to avoid striping. Many readers, however refused to believe.

The February test combined a pair of 200-gig Maxtor DiamondMax 9 drives with a Promise PATA RAID controller and demonstrated that the gains in striping them were minimal especially when one considered that a large portion of what gain there was due to the doubling of capacity and the resulting smaller distances that the actuator must travel to execute the same chain of disk accesses.

There were still objections, irrational as they were:


“It’s only 7200 RPM! 10,000 RPM drives would have done better!”
“It’s only PATA! SATA would have done better!”
“It’s only eye-dee-eee! SCSI would have done better!”
“You tested only two drives! A larger array would have done better!”

And so on.

Our recent TCQ, RAID, SCSI, and SATA article examined the performance of a myriad of controller/interface/drive-count/raid-level combinations that addressed the objections above (though admittedly as a side effect of testing TCQ’s effects on RAID arrays; we do not believe further empirical results were really necessary to back logic and theory). Many readers here at SR and across the net, unfortunately, seemed to have missed the article… though it is extremely relevant to those debating the relative merits or lack thereof of RAID arrays for non-server use. Consider this interesting example:

In the “SR Gaming DriveMark… a 4 drive Cheetah array.. lags a single Raptor running on the "dumbest" of SATA controllers by a margin of 9%.”


If you’re still confused about RAID, you owe it to yourself to check out the review.


Though the idea that RAID0 does not significantly assist desktop performance is not new to SR, AnandTech has recently corroborated the idea with results of their own. Confirming that no significant gain is realized when striping a pair of Raptors off of an ICH5 controller, Anand writes:

"If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer."

Interestingly, the feedback associated with Anand’s article reads like a laundry list of the same irrational objections SR had to overcome. Anand is free, of course, to link to SR’s articles which, ironically, address virtually every objection raised by his RAID0 proponents .

It is our hope that these findings taken as a whole will stem an internet-wide trend where enthusiast-oriented websites blithely incorporate RAID0 into their "high-end" single-user boxes, ignorant to both theory and empirical results.

More discussion may be found here- weigh in with your thoughts!