Sean Oneil
Forum Replies Created
-
Cool I’ll check it out. And no, I’m not married to Time Machine. In fact I’ve been living with my girlfriend for almost 7 years, so believe me when I say I’m not married to anything.
Sean
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “SuperDuper has scheduling, and I used to love Carbon Copy Cloner.”
Comparing those to Time Machine is sort of apples and oranges. Time Machine will automatically back up only the files that haven’t been backed up already.
Sean
-
[Chris Babbitt] “The person who told me this was Bruce Nazarian who wrote the article, “Taming the Wild Blu Yonder,” which can be found on Ken Stone’s site.”
Thanks, I just read it. He says some drives may not fit in the Mac Pro optical bay. That is false. It is a standard size and they all fit.
Sean
-
[walter biscardi] “I would never recommend Time Machine for any RAID or any media drives. We had to try to recover media files once from it and it was a total disaster.”
Did you try to restore it, or did you browse the folders as if it were a regular backup disk?
Sean
-
[Chris Babbitt] “I’ve been advised by a very knowledgeable person on this subject to not even attempt to install an internal SATA burner in the MacPro. His advice: Buy an external burner.”
I’ve been using a SATA burner for almost 6 months and it works flawlessly.
Without any reason or explanation other than “a smart guy said no”, I’d be skeptical of such advice. Love to hear the logic behind this opinion.
Sean
-
[John Pale] “I use Time Machine for my system drive. I don’t think I would trust it for my media drives. It’s more meant for general consumer use. It’s also not very customizable.”
I sort of feel the opposite. For system disks people have had trouble using it for a system restore. But for media you don’t have to worry about that. You can browse the Time Machine disk like any other and manually recover the files and folders.
Sean
-
I have a Pioneer BDR-202. Working fine for a while now.
Sean
-
Thanks, that’s useful info and I wouldn’t call it trivial. But it doesn’t answer my question. It says there are two types of pulldown — “repeat frame” and “interlaced frame” — but it doesn’t say if the interlaced frame is actually 2:3:2:3. It’s also specific to DV. Doesn’t say anything about other codecs. It could be adding 24pA back to DV, which is not what I’m looking for.
So if anyone actually knows the answer, I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
Sean
-
[Shane Sokolosky] “10Gb is like crazy fast, your CalDigit RAID card and 16 regular SATA disks set up for RAID-5 couldn’t deliver even half the speed that you can fit down a 10Gb pipe (which I think that’s what Bob Zelin was referring to about 180Mb/sec maybe more but..), to really take advantage of 10Gb you’d need some serious storage,”
So you think 16 disks aren’t enough, or that the CalDigit card cannot handle that kind of speed? When these larger disk sizes come out every other week, my understanding is that they also have the added benefit of being faster. The new 2TB Western Digital drives are like 90MB/s sustained. You don’t think 16 of those could go over 800MB/s? What about 32 of them using two CalDigit cards? Or what about using 15k RPM SAS disks?
[Shane Sokolosky] “can easily be obtained by 4Gb Fibre Channel at a fraction of the cost of 10Gb.”
I’m gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one. Fibre requires expensive dedicated storage (as opposed to just using a server with a CalDigit card) as well as licenses for Xsan or Metasan. 10gb with file sharing does not require those things at all. I know 10gbe switches are still astronomical, but my proposed setup does not require a switch.
[Shane Sokolosky] ”
If you tried to use “Gigabit Ethernet” and some kind of Internet Protocol (IP) based file sharing service such as SMB, Apple File Sharing (AFP), or something like that then there’s no way to pull off HD like your talking about (If your looking at some of Bob Zelin’s solutions with gigabit ethernet, then sharing is possible but not at that bandwidth that you’d need.)”I guess that was my question, so thanks for the info. I was worried about that. However I believe there is a way for it to work well, but one would need 10gbe drivers that support TCP offloading or at least segmentation offloading. I don’t think that option is available on Mac OS X, but I’ve heard from several people that Snow Leopard is going to have drastically improved TCP features and performance. So maybe it can happen down the road.
[Shane Sokolosky] “If you actually tried 1Gb fiber channel or Ethernet cables using iSCSI (both SCSI Protocols) you’d of probably came closer but still not quite enough unless you trunk the ports (and by trunk I mean probably 3).”
Yes I’ve been down that road. In the case of iSCSI I agree with you. Fibre Channel makes more sense at that point since iSCSI still requires a SAN metadata system.
[Shane Sokolosky] “BTW last time I checked on 10Gb pricing an 8 port 10Gb switch was about the same price as 2 x 16TB 4Gb Fibre Channel RAIDs (25k+)”
Right, but I wouldn’t use a switch. Just four ports in the server, one port for each client. The dual-port cards from Small Tree are very reasonable. And I would only need CX4 since all our computers are in the same machine room (we use Cat5 extenders to send DVI and USB to the edit bays).
[Shane Sokolosky] “Hope this helps and isn’t to crazy confusing. ;)”
Thank you!
Sean
-
[Shane Ross] “Why are you assuming that TV stations have now altered the way their air TV shows? Especially fledgling ones that are only found on cable and only air reruns? I’ll wager that the master tapes are betaSP or dubs from 1″ or 3/4″ masters. Terranex? NO way. These are just shows that are aired as they were originally mastered.”
A lot of networks use a Teranex. If the one you speak of doesn’t, then your particular plasma has a fancy deinterlacer chip in it taking care of it like a DCDI or a Realta HQV (which Terenex actually designed and is made for higher-end consumer TVs). Most TVs don’t have this and if your cable box is upconverting everything to 1080 then it’s moot anyways. Most deinterlacers can detect and remove pulldown, but if the cadence is bad then you’ll get artifacts during every time an edit had been made on a 29.97 timeline.[Shane Ross] “what about the 80s and 90s when all this was king? Shot on film, mastered on tape. Did it look bad?”
In the 80’s and 90’s it did not. Now it does. As I already said, people only had CRT televisions back then. You cannot see field rendering on interlaced CRT displays like you can on digital LCDs & plasmas & web clips. CRTs draw the image on the screen, one line at a time for field one, then one line at a time for field two going in the opposite direction. This creates an optical illusion so that individual fields are not detected by the human eye. LCDs and plasmas work completely differently. They expose the eye to the entire frame all at once. Hence the example clip I linked you to. I see old stuff all the time on TV that look like that Hancock trailer on IMDB.
Sean