You didn't read the second post in the thread then?
Nobody is being stubborn other than yourself. The rest of the folk in the thread are trying to understand why you're insistent on looking at single avenue when there are other options available.
Raid Solution with 170MB/s Minimum transfer rate?
- Thread starter meansizzler
- Start date
Nobody is being stubborn other than yourself. The rest of the folk in the thread are trying to understand why you're insistent on looking at single avenue when there are other options available.
Exactly, we are trying to save you hundreds of pounds, you haven't come up with one valid reason for not using lossless compression or using a yuv/yv12 colourspace. Which is why I am confused. You seem to be creating problems for yourself.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 524
I did not ask for compression techniques, as from your replies I can see most of you know nothing when it comes to compression..., stop straying from the original post...
Ashley and Peter have clearly demonstrated that they do. If you're going to be so frankly rude when people try to help you, why bother asking for help?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
When the OP learns the difference it can make from Mb/Sec to MB/Sec then he can **** others.
I personally think it is 170Mb/Sec not 170MB/Sec as thats 4 serious drives in Raid0.
Normal DVD is about 8-11megabits/Sec (Mb/Sec) correct ?
I personally think it is 170Mb/Sec not 170MB/Sec as thats 4 serious drives in Raid0.
Normal DVD is about 8-11megabits/Sec (Mb/Sec) correct ?
This is OcUK. Although many OcUK users can come across as arrogant and one-sided, they're just trying to get you to see both sides of the coin.
Fine, if you want a RAID soloution with a minimum of 170MB/sec, then RAID-0 at LEAST four Hitachi drives.
I can't remember which capacity per platter offers the best speed, but go for the smallest drive with the highest capacity per platter. This ought to provide you with the highest, most constant speeds.
You can usually only get about 50-60MB/sec from your typical harddrive. Therefore, four drives (4 * 50) will exceed your 170MB/sec demand. If you go with the Hitachi drives, you'll probably find you'll hit about 60MB/sec per drive, giving you around 240MB/sec.
As for RAID controllers, I honestly don't have a clue. But I'd try and get one with a dedicated processor on it, and preferably some cache too. Sure, it'll cost you a pretty penny for such card. But after my experience with older RAID controllers with an onboard processor and a decent amount cache, it's probably the best.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,344
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
You'd be lucky to see that much just from 4 drives in raid 0. Have a look through the benchmark thread and see who can actually demonstrate that kind of throughput.
Raid 0 has a depreciating return from each drive added as well as a higher latency
Raid 0 has a depreciating return from each drive added as well as a higher latency
I think you'll find that we have answered the question if you bother to read our responses; now we are offering alternatives. I even told you that you require 4 perpendicular drives (at least) as these use platters larger than 166GB. A large number use 188GB platters and WD have started using even bigger. 4 drives of this would hit 170MB/s min, I would guess (from some experience). If using parallel tech drives, you'd need 5 as silversurfer mentions above.
Piece the information together from all posts and look at our response holistically, then you will see your question has been answered. If you still think not, go use google. We aren't paid to help you, we simply do so as this is a community and we like to help one another. I suggest you take that onboard before criticising those offering free assistance.
Piece the information together from all posts and look at our response holistically, then you will see your question has been answered. If you still think not, go use google. We aren't paid to help you, we simply do so as this is a community and we like to help one another. I suggest you take that onboard before criticising those offering free assistance.
Yes but a dvd-video is massivley compressed. When recording an uncompressed rgb24 720p video at a high framerate, the bandwidth required can easily exceed 1Gb/s.
Horizontal Resolution x Vertical Resolution x Framerate x Bits per pixel = Uncompressed Bitrate
(1280x720x60x24)/8 = 165.888MB/s
Of course if one records it in YV12 @ 30fps then it's only 41.472MB/s.
You've said your recording a game console stream. Rather than dump on all our answers froma great height why don't you consider that we have found a better way of doing it for you than your original suggestion?
If you don't want our help then don't ask. We have tried to point out that you don't seem to realise just how much your asking for with a write speed of 170MB/s. This is approaching the limits of consumer hardware even in an exoctic configuration. There are very few justifications for this sort of performance and you don't require any of them.
As for suggesting that we have no idea on what a bit-rate is please remember that some of us may in fact be smarter than you are. As shocking as this was to me when I discovered it I'm sure you'l eventually learn that there is much to be gained from those with more knowledge and experience than yourself.
If you don't want our help then don't ask. We have tried to point out that you don't seem to realise just how much your asking for with a write speed of 170MB/s. This is approaching the limits of consumer hardware even in an exoctic configuration. There are very few justifications for this sort of performance and you don't require any of them.
As for suggesting that we have no idea on what a bit-rate is please remember that some of us may in fact be smarter than you are. As shocking as this was to me when I discovered it I'm sure you'l eventually learn that there is much to be gained from those with more knowledge and experience than yourself.
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 524
Yes but a dvd-video is massivley compressed. When recording an uncompressed rgb24 720p video at a high framerate, the bandwidth required can easily exceed 1Gb/s.
Horizontal Resolution x Vertical Resolution x Framerate x Bits per pixel = Uncompressed Bitrate
(1280x720x60x24)/8 = 165.888MB/s
Of course if one records it in YV12 @ 30fps then it's only 41.472MB/s.
Finally someone who can figure it out, I can get it a bit lower if I use YUY2, but for now I am going to stick with RGB24, just to be safe...., will be encoding to .wmv at 1280*720 at around 12mb/s, that's megabits..., may even go up to 14....
For hard drives I have heard there is seagate 7200.10 250GB with single platter, so they look like the drives, now what I am thinking is a PCI-E RAID controller with 4 or more E-SATA ports then mount the hard drives in an enxternal caddy with power supplied to them, then then only need to be powered on when I need them...
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 524
Most of the users on here are probably those that think 24mb/s "megabits" is acceptable for an mpeg-2 blu-ray encode, while it is ok for upto 720P, you really need to whack the bitrate up to 40mb/s, but I guess those that author blu-ray movies for a living think they know more the person who is actually watching it..
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 524
Seems like this is the card to go for, 8 port PCI-E X4 card..
3ware 9650SE-8LPML
3ware 9650SE-8LPML
It just seems a lot of extra cost involded to record at 170MB/sec when you are going to encode at 12mb/sec (1.5MB/sec) anyway, that to me is just plain stupid, especially when you mention cost is an issue.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 524
Depends on the program you use, I doubt any program can do 720P capture in realtime..., If it does then if I capture comrpessed then I have to compress again in .wmv, only want compression ot happen once.., also uncompressed footage is easy to handle most program supports it..
Obviously you get the best result capturing uncompressed or capturing compressed in the way you want it, that way you do not need a huge uncompressed files and it saves you hours (or days) compressing the videofiles.
Even the standard Windows Movie Maker can capture to WMV straight away, perhaps that can capture 12mb/sec WMV in 1280*720??
Again I can understand why you want to capture uncompressed but in this case it seems a bit excessive compared to the finished WMV you are planning, I did it with my DV camera but uncompressed DV-AVI is only 3.6MB/sec and that already gave me 13GB files from 1 hour of video.
170MB/sec for 10 minutes is 100GB of data, I don't even want to think about how long it will take to convert that to WMV
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,344
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Hopefully a quad core will be used. Isnt scsi the real option here
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 524
Will be capturing under 1 hour of footage so storage space is not a problem, and a core 2 quad e6700 will just about do realtime wmv encoding from uncompressed source at 840*480 wmv *8mb/s, so anything higher than that, which is what i'm doing, realtime capturing to wmv is not going to happen, hence captuirng uncompressed, so I hope I have explained myself now...
One hour of uncompressed capturing alone will be 600GB
