Raid Solution with 170MB/s Minimum transfer rate?

meansizzler said:
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....
Click to expand...

The wmv format uses a YUV 4:2:0 colourspace. So recording in rgb only has disadvantages.

meansizzler said:
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...
Click to expand...

Your encoding should be way faster than that. I can encode 1280x720 @ 15Mb/s to H.264 at 25fps on my cpu using Avidemux. However the hdd is limiting the rate that the uncompressed data can be fed to my cpu so capture should be even faster.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
The wmv format uses a YUV 4:2:0 colourspace. So recording in rgb only has disadvantages.



Your encoding should be way faster than that. I can encode 1280x720 @ 15Mb/s to H.264 at 25fps on my cpu using Avidemux. However the hdd is limiting the rate that the uncompressed data can be fed to my cpu so capture should be even faster.
Click to expand...


Your using an entirely different codec..., and the speed I mentioned on the encode is accurate, and when encoding to 1080P WMV it takes days...,
 
meansizzler said:
Your using an entirely different codec..., and the speed I mentioned on the encode is accurate, and when encoding to 1080P WMV it takes days...,
Click to expand...

h.264 is a superior codec to wmv, encoding should not take longer with wmv with more than 2x the cpu power. Then again wmv is made by microsoft so it wouldn't suprise me......
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
h.264 is a superior codec to wmv, encoding should not take longer with wmv with more than 2x the cpu power. Then again wmv is made by microsoft so it wouldn't suprise me......
Click to expand...

If you read my previous posts you will see why I am Using WMV.., will work on most platforms without any codecs/software needed, eg.. Windows Platform/ Xbox 360....

The files being encoded are to be distributed and viewed by those with little knowlege when it comes to computers, so simple download and play....
 
I never said you shouldn't use wmv, just that encoding shouldn't take that long.

However I think you are underestimating people if you think they can't install one file to decode a video, you are also underestimating h.264 support, devices such as the ps3 support it natively and players like quicktime, (which most people have installed) have built in support for it. I would personally be more concerned about the fact that the people who have little knowledge are unlikely to have pcs capable of playing back 720p at 60fps.
 
Last edited:
meansizzler what are you actually doing with this video? Your making a video of you playing a game and then giving them out to people? Or are you playing a dvd/blue ray disk on a consol and then selling them to people lol.
 
if your just streaming data to the drives then latency is irrelevent. the PCI bus is right out however, and i wouldnt want to count on 1x pcie. id look seriously at a 4x card (so you dont end up bus limited)

also, grab drives atleast 2* the size you need, most drives stay fairly constant for about 40% the reads and drop off sharly in transfer rate for the last 60%.that should stop you having cutoff issues at the end of the videos.

otherwise - as advised get youself the highest densisity platters you can and a decent minimum 4 port card. sata 150/300 is irrelevant, as your not bursting data and ncq again makes no difference.

i would also point out: if your capturing the video the capture card ALSO needs 177 or whatever mb/s bandwidth. it will need this available at the same time as the raid card, and the bridging chip (north, south, mcp whatever depends on mobo) will have to be capable of handling this load. (eg olf NF2 chipsets got VERY VERY hot and tended to err in some cases due to integrated sound chip and lack of cooling)
 
I'm getting 270MB/s linear write and 330MB/s linear read with 4x Fujitsu MAX SCSI in RAID-0 on an LSI Logic 320-2X card - 3.3ms avg seek time, <1% CPU utilisation. 2x Cheetah 15.5's in RAID-0 should be good for up to 200MB/s writes if you're looking at the SCSI route.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom