Backingup data

Steev Dinkins · May 2nd, 2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

BR appears to be the best solution going forward, tape drives are indeed over-priced and PAINFULLY slow.)

Actually I hadn't thought about the following yet. I wonder how slow Blu-Ray burning will be. If it's anything like Dual Layer DVD-Rs, it's gonna be a big reality slap. :P Bring on more hard drives!

Ash Greyson · May 2nd, 2006, 03:23 PM

Even if BR is slow at first, you can burn a disc a night with the days footage on it. Remember that a P2 Store drive takes 8 minutes to copy/confirm 4 minuntes of 1080i footage!

ash = o)

Chris Barcellos · May 2nd, 2006, 03:52 PM

Okay guys, I have to ask this question. Is the tapeless capture aspect all it was said to be, or has it created its own issues ? My understanding is that the format is preferred, but if we had a tape drive running at a higher speed able to capture the format, wouldn't that eliminate a lot of these storage issues in the first place. You guys have been at it for a while now, is the near instant access on harddrive worth it ?

Jeff Kilgroe · May 2nd, 2006, 04:15 PM

Tapeless aquisition has created its own set of issues, but it is (IMO) a step in the right direction and will only improve as time goes on. The biggest issues thus far have been software support and backup/archival of the footage...

IMO, it makes most sense to work with and backup the footage on fault-tolerant hard drive arrays (RAID 1/3/5). For long-term archival it seems that different people prefer different methods, but the top two options seem to be using more hard drives or a tape system. Archival to DVD/HDDVD/BR disc seems expensive and time-consuming.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of storing devices like hard drives on a shelf for years. Perhaps it's because I have done that and haven't had much luck with it. For long-term archival, the two methods I would recommend are:

1 > A good tape system -- they're not as overpriced or as slow as most people think. Current tape drives/media can handle upwards of 80 to 120 MB/s, which is as fast or faster than most people's hard drive setup unless we start talking 4+ drives in a RAID. Which tape format and type of drive to choose is entirely different for each workflow and user. But don't scoff at a tape solution until you have seriously investigated it.

2 > A "live" archive on hard drives in the form of a SAN or expandable, growing RAID. Build an archive based on redundant and fault-tolerant arrays. These arrays are continuously added to and upgraded over time, but your archives are always available and will continue to evolve and be usable as your computing hardware changes. It doesn't cost much more to do this than it does to write data to hard drives and shelve them and it is more reliable and allows the data to be handled as needed over time for better efficeincy.

Of course, for larger shops or users with huge amounts of data to deal with, a combination of the above two may be attractive. For a small operation or people working out of their home, this is probably not an option, but to pick either option 1 or 2 above shouldn't be too much of a problem. Both will be similar in price, but which one to go with will depend on the work enviornment they need to integrate with.

Steev Dinkins · May 2nd, 2006, 04:53 PM

Good article here:

http://www.jts2004.org/english/proceedings/Wheeler.htm

The discussion is on using hard drives for archival. He talks about the implementation of of fluid dynamic bearings yielding far superior reliability. I believe this has been the trend since 2001 in hard drive manufacturing.

I'll let you know how my hard drive shelf life real world experiment turns out in 10 years or so. :)

May 2nd, 2006, 03:52 PM	#18
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Okay guys, I have to ask this question. Is the tapeless capture aspect all it was said to be, or has it created its own issues ? My understanding is that the format is preferred, but if we had a tape drive running at a higher speed able to capture the format, wouldn't that eliminate a lot of these storage issues in the first place. You guys have been at it for a while now, is the near instant access on harddrive worth it ? __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

May 2nd, 2006, 04:15 PM	#19
Jeff Kilgroe Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Golden, CO Posts: 681	Tapeless aquisition has created its own set of issues, but it is (IMO) a step in the right direction and will only improve as time goes on. The biggest issues thus far have been software support and backup/archival of the footage... IMO, it makes most sense to work with and backup the footage on fault-tolerant hard drive arrays (RAID 1/3/5). For long-term archival it seems that different people prefer different methods, but the top two options seem to be using more hard drives or a tape system. Archival to DVD/HDDVD/BR disc seems expensive and time-consuming. Personally, I'm not a big fan of storing devices like hard drives on a shelf for years. Perhaps it's because I have done that and haven't had much luck with it. For long-term archival, the two methods I would recommend are: 1 > A good tape system -- they're not as overpriced or as slow as most people think. Current tape drives/media can handle upwards of 80 to 120 MB/s, which is as fast or faster than most people's hard drive setup unless we start talking 4+ drives in a RAID. Which tape format and type of drive to choose is entirely different for each workflow and user. But don't scoff at a tape solution until you have seriously investigated it. 2 > A "live" archive on hard drives in the form of a SAN or expandable, growing RAID. Build an archive based on redundant and fault-tolerant arrays. These arrays are continuously added to and upgraded over time, but your archives are always available and will continue to evolve and be usable as your computing hardware changes. It doesn't cost much more to do this than it does to write data to hard drives and shelve them and it is more reliable and allows the data to be handled as needed over time for better efficeincy. Of course, for larger shops or users with huge amounts of data to deal with, a combination of the above two may be attractive. For a small operation or people working out of their home, this is probably not an option, but to pick either option 1 or 2 above shouldn't be too much of a problem. Both will be similar in price, but which one to go with will depend on the work enviornment they need to integrate with. __________________ - Jeff Kilgroe - Applied Visual Technologies \| DarkScience - www.darkscience.com

May 2nd, 2006, 04:53 PM	#20
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Good article here: http://www.jts2004.org/english/proceedings/Wheeler.htm The discussion is on using hard drives for archival. He talks about the implementation of of fluid dynamic bearings yielding far superior reliability. I believe this has been the trend since 2001 in hard drive manufacturing. I'll let you know how my hard drive shelf life real world experiment turns out in 10 years or so. :) __________________ www.holyzoo.com

May 2nd, 2006, 03:23 PM	#17
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Even if BR is slow at first, you can burn a disc a night with the days footage on it. Remember that a P2 Store drive takes 8 minutes to copy/confirm 4 minuntes of 1080i footage! ash = o)