13 Mar
2003
13 Mar
'03
9:41 p.m.
Hi,
I've decided to switch from my cmipci-based DiO 2448 to a envy24-based
soundcard. Now I have three choices of used gear:
1) Terratec EWS88MT - 400 euros
2) Terratec EWS24/96 - 130 euros
3) Midiman Delta 66 - 230 euros
some considerations:
* I've no special need for s/pdif
* ardour would be the target app
* 4 simultaneous I/O channels would be nice
* I'm a little on budget
Any hints?
Thank you
P.S. with EWS24/96 it's possible to record reliably 4 channels at once?
--
.-----------------------.
| Emiliano Grilli |
| emillo(a)libero.it |
| Linux user #209089 |
| http://www.emillo.net |
'-----------------------'
13 Mar
13 Mar
10:52 p.m.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Emiliano Grilli wrote:
Subject: [linux-audio-user] Which Card?
Hi,
I've decided to switch from my cmipci-based DiO 2448 to a envy24-based
soundcard. Now I have three choices of used gear:
1) Terratec EWS88MT - 400 euros
2) Terratec EWS24/96 - 130 euros
3) Midiman Delta 66 - 230 euros
some considerations:
* I've no special need for s/pdif
* ardour would be the target app
* 4 simultaneous I/O channels would be nice
* I'm a little on budget
<snip>
Can't speak for the Terratec cards, but I have a Delta 44 and it works
very well. I can use and route all the I/O channels with envy24control.
Works great with Ardour and Audacity.
HTH - JB
___________________________________
John Bleichert syborg(a)stny.rr.com
11:03 p.m.
I picked up a delta 1010 on ebay for $300. They did not supply the
correct ps and discounted it enough, to buy a new ps. I have 3 of these
units. The nice thing about them is that you can attach a 1010ai (adat
interface) and use them as standalone converters when you start
upgrading.
YMMV
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 20:26, John Bleichert wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Emiliano Grilli wrote:
--
drh(a)niptron.com
Subject: Linux box finds it hard to wake up in the morning
I've heard of dogs being like their owners, but Linux boxen?
-- Peter Hunter <peter.hunter(a)blackfriars.oxford.ac.uk>
Subject: [linux-audio-user] Which Card?
Hi,
I've decided to switch from my cmipci-based DiO 2448 to a envy24-based
soundcard. Now I have three choices of used gear:
1) Terratec EWS88MT - 400 euros
2) Terratec EWS24/96 - 130 euros
3) Midiman Delta 66 - 230 euros
some considerations:
* I've no special need for s/pdif
* ardour would be the target app
* 4 simultaneous I/O channels would be nice
* I'm a little on budget
<snip>
Can't speak for the Terratec cards, but I have a Delta 44 and it works
very well. I can use and route all the I/O channels with envy24control.
Works great with Ardour and Audacity.
HTH - JB
___________________________________
John Bleichert syborg(a)stny.rr.com 
14 Mar
14 Mar
2:56 a.m.
I would go with the Terratec EWS88MT, however you can get a new one for
$400 US. You can also get a new ST Audio C-Port DSP2000 for $450 US.
Either of these has 8 analog I/O channels. If you just need 4 channels,
get the Delta 66.
Check out http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/ALSA_JACK_ARDOUR.html.
Jan
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 19:26, Emiliano Grilli wrote:
Hi,
I've decided to switch from my cmipci-based DiO 2448 to a envy24-based
soundcard. Now I have three choices of used gear:
1) Terratec EWS88MT - 400 euros
2) Terratec EWS24/96 - 130 euros
3) Midiman Delta 66 - 230 euros
some considerations:
* I've no special need for s/pdif
* ardour would be the target app
* 4 simultaneous I/O channels would be nice
* I'm a little on budget
Any hints?
Thank you
P.S. with EWS24/96 it's possible to record reliably 4 channels at once?
--
.-----------------------.
| Emiliano Grilli |
| emillo(a)libero.it |
| Linux user #209089 |
| http://www.emillo.net |
'-----------------------'
16 Mar
16 Mar
8:56 a.m.
Thank you all for replying,
D R, yuo're very lucky I've found 1010's for not less than 600 euro and
unfortunately, Jan, the EWS88MT was already sold (can you tell me where I
can find a new one for $400?).
The price for a new EWS88MT here is about 550 euro, delta 66 is 380 euro
and delta 44 280-300 euro.
Also, many stores in USA doesn't ship in europe ...
Bye
venerdì, 14 marzo 2003 alle 02:26:35, Emiliano Grilli ha scritto:
Hi,
I've decided to switch from my cmipci-based DiO 2448 to a envy24-based
soundcard. Now I have three choices of used gear:
1) Terratec EWS88MT - 400 euros
2) Terratec EWS24/96 - 130 euros
3) Midiman Delta 66 - 230 euros
some considerations:
* I've no special need for s/pdif
* ardour would be the target app
* 4 simultaneous I/O channels would be nice
* I'm a little on budget
Any hints?
Thank you
P.S. with EWS24/96 it's possible to record reliably 4 channels at once?
--
.-----------------------.
| Emiliano Grilli |
| emillo(a)libero.it |
| Linux user #209089 |
| http://www.emillo.net |
'-----------------------'
--
.-----------------------.
| Emiliano Grilli |
| emillo(a)libero.it |
| Linux user #209089 |
| http://www.emillo.net |
'-----------------------'
9:25 a.m.
I didn't realize that they wouldn't ship outside the US. That sucks.
The only place I could find on the web that has the Terratec EWS88MT and
international shipping was http://www.ktjmusic.com/. They want $449
US. I don't know what they charge for shipping. I've never used that
company so I don't know how reliable they are either.
Jan
On Sun, 2003-03-16 at 06:41, Emiliano Grilli wrote:
Thank you all for replying,
D R, yuo're very lucky I've found 1010's for not less than 600 euro and
unfortunately, Jan, the EWS88MT was already sold (can you tell me where I
can find a new one for $400?).
The price for a new EWS88MT here is about 550 euro, delta 66 is 380 euro
and delta 44 280-300 euro.
Also, many stores in USA doesn't ship in europe ...
Bye
venerdì, 14 marzo 2003 alle 02:26:35, Emiliano Grilli ha scritto:
Hi,
I've decided to switch from my cmipci-based DiO 2448 to a envy24-based
soundcard. Now I have three choices of used gear:
1) Terratec EWS88MT - 400 euros
2) Terratec EWS24/96 - 130 euros
3) Midiman Delta 66 - 230 euros
some considerations:
* I've no special need for s/pdif
* ardour would be the target app
* 4 simultaneous I/O channels would be nice
* I'm a little on budget
Any hints?
Thank you
P.S. with EWS24/96 it's possible to record reliably 4 channels at once?
--
.-----------------------.
| Emiliano Grilli |
| emillo(a)libero.it |
| Linux user #209089 |
| http://www.emillo.net |
'-----------------------'
--
.-----------------------.
| Emiliano Grilli |
| emillo(a)libero.it |
| Linux user #209089 |
| http://www.emillo.net |
'-----------------------'
10 a.m.
domenica, 16 marzo 2003 alle 06:51:42, Jan Evil Twin Depner ha scritto:
I didn't realize that they wouldn't ship
outside the US. That sucks.
The only place I could find on the web that has the Terratec EWS88MT and
international shipping was http://www.ktjmusic.com/. They want $449
US. I don't know what they charge for shipping. I've never used that
company so I don't know how reliable they are either.
Jan
And what are the differences between EWS88MT and delta 1010?
I think they have the same chipset, but how the audio part is implemented
on the two cards?
It's worth for the 150$ difference?
TIA
--
.-----------------------.
| Emiliano Grilli |
| emillo(a)libero.it |
| Linux user #209089 |
| http://www.emillo.net |
'-----------------------'
10:27 a.m.
I don't really think it's worth it. The Delta 1010 has a nice
rack-mount setup but the features of the two are almost identical. Let
me muddy the waters a bit more - I'm using an ST Audio (Hoontech)
DSP2000 C-Port. This is basically the equivalent of the EWS88MT. It
cost me about $50 US more than I would have paid for the EWS88MT. The
difference between these is that the C-Port has two, balanced XLR
connections on the front and a headphone output. I figured that I would
occasionally use the XLR inputs without having to hook up a mixer. I
used the headphone out up until I got a Behringer HA4600 headphone amp.
The C-Port and the EWS88MT both use the envy24 chipset. The EWS88MT has
8 balanced 1/4" I/Os while the C-Port has 8 unbalanced 1/4" I/Os. This
hasn't been a problem for me so far. One nice thing about the EWS88MT
is the ability to mount it in the computer. This is handy if you're
planning on hauling it around for recording sessions elsewhere. BTW, I
checked the shipping on that unit from KTJ to you and it runs about $90
US - which puts it in the same range you can get it for there.
Jan
On Sun, 2003-03-16 at 07:45, Emiliano Grilli wrote:
domenica, 16 marzo 2003 alle 06:51:42, Jan Evil Twin
Depner ha scritto:
I didn't realize that they wouldn't ship
outside the US. That sucks.
The only place I could find on the web that has the Terratec EWS88MT and
international shipping was http://www.ktjmusic.com/. They want $449
US. I don't know what they charge for shipping. I've never used that
company so I don't know how reliable they are either.
Jan
And what are the differences between EWS88MT and delta 1010?
I think they have the same chipset, but how the audio part is implemented
on the two cards?
It's worth for the 150$ difference?
TIA
--
.-----------------------.
| Emiliano Grilli |
| emillo(a)libero.it |
| Linux user #209089 |
| http://www.emillo.net |
'-----------------------' 
2:05 p.m.
Jan "Evil Twin" Depner wrote:
Let
me muddy the waters a bit more - I'm using an ST Audio (Hoontech)
DSP2000 C-Port.
If you want to get hold of hoontech goods and they won't ship to your
country let me know and I can get them for you as I live in Korea where
they are manufactured. IIRC the website has full credit facilities but
if they won't ship then I can help.
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
Being on stage with the band in front of crowds shouting, "Get off! No!
We want normal music!", I think that was more like acting than anything
I've ever done.
Goldie, 8 Nov, 2002
The Scotsman
4:54 p.m.
domenica, 16 marzo 2003 alle 07:53:32, Jan Evil Twin Depner ha scritto:
I don't really think it's worth it. The Delta
1010 has a nice
rack-mount setup but the features of the two are almost identical. Let
me muddy the waters a bit more - I'm using an ST Audio (Hoontech)
DSP2000 C-Port. This is basically the equivalent of the EWS88MT. It
cost me about $50 US more than I would have paid for the EWS88MT. The
difference between these is that the C-Port has two, balanced XLR
connections on the front and a headphone output. I figured that I would
occasionally use the XLR inputs without having to hook up a mixer. I
used the headphone out up until I got a Behringer HA4600 headphone amp.
The C-Port and the EWS88MT both use the envy24 chipset. The EWS88MT has
8 balanced 1/4" I/Os while the C-Port has 8 unbalanced 1/4" I/Os. This
hasn't been a problem for me so far. One nice thing about the EWS88MT
is the ability to mount it in the computer. This is handy if you're
planning on hauling it around for recording sessions elsewhere. BTW, I
checked the shipping on that unit from KTJ to you and it runs about $90
US - which puts it in the same range you can get it for there.
Thank you very much for your interest. I'm a bit frustrated. I have a DiO
2448 and I am pretty happy of the sound quality. The only problem is
recording, in particular with jack, because I have to record thru s/pdif
and I get sporadic (but very irritating) xruns. If I launch jack with the
default device this doesn't happen, but in this way I have no inputs (the
s/pdif is subdevice 2).
I also have a Roland SC D70 that recently gained audio I/O thanks to mr.
Clemens Ladisch, but with it jack cannot start at all. I use this as a digital converter
for the Midiman.
So I have 2 very good devices but I still doesn't have a good multitracking
environment (you know the program I'm talkin of...). ecasound has given
better results as it can run without jack.
In addition, I am very exited and ready to start using that software
productively, so I decided to buy a new card. They are expensive, and I'm
not rich at all so choising the best now to fit my needs it's very important.
For now I'm searching something used (especially delta 44-66) or if I have
to buy it new, I think I'll go with Delta 44.
Thank you again
PS: I liked your songs ;)
--
.-----------------------.
| Emiliano Grilli |
| emillo(a)libero.it |
| Linux user #209089 |
| http://www.emillo.net |
'-----------------------'
5 Apr
5 Apr
11:26 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
Hello Everyone!
I am about to take the plunge here with my first home-studio recording
machine. I would LOVE to hear any opionions here on my choice of hardware
as I still remain flexible. If you see me doing something stupid, PLEASE
let me know! :0)
Here it is:
Soyo Dragon Ultra Black Motherboard
Athlon XP 2700+
Maxtor 7200 8megbuffer 80 gb hardrives (2 Will be done in IDE RAID)
Corsair CAS2 DDR400 Ram 1gb
Round Ide and floppy cables
Flooppy Drive
Sony DVD burner (dvd+r/w dvd-r/w etc.)
Nexus CPU Cooler KC222700
Nexus Istyle Case
NVidia Geforce 4 ti 4600
Zalhman 92mm quiet Casefan
Nexus Real Silent 400W Powersupply
Zahlman heatpipe ZM80A-HP (for graphics card)
Zahlman NB32j Heatsink for NorthBridge chipset
Teratech EWS88 MT
Whaddya think? I have a removeable hard drive tray for the first drive,
the second two will be raid0 (IDE highpoint), so I can have two totally
separate OS's: one for recording, the other for gaming. Does any of this
smack of latency problems? Does anyone recommend where I put my swap space
(on raid or off)?
What do you think of my soundcard choice? Is it too much? I wanted
something with a-d d-a on board with midi, and I love the fact that it
snaps into a 5 1/2" bay.
Anyone have any issues with the mobo I picked?
lastly: Does anyone know if the Zahlman CNPS7000-cu will work on an Athlon
XP chip? Everything I saw only mentioned a P4 or a Clawhammer chip. I
would love to dump the nexus and go for this if I know that it is compatible.
Please be gentle, I am new to digital recording, but I am very excited to
get started!!
Thanks everyone!
Chris
12:15 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 09:26:44 -0500, Chris wrote:
Maxtor 7200 8megbuffer 80 gb hardrives (2 Will be done
in IDE RAID)
I recommend Seagate Barracuda IV's, very quiet. I wouldn't use RAID for
audio, and especially not hardware IDE RAID - lots of people at work have
had volumes wiped out by dodgy hardware IDE RIAD controllers (even
reputable ones) and if your card goes pop getting the data back can be very
hard.
Someone (possibly Mark K.) posted bad experiences with RAID and latency
too. I only use it for situations where throughput is important (eg.
database servers), for audio its not a big deal. 32 channels of 32bit
audio is only 5MB/s, any current disk can do that without breaking sweat,
random link:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030402/250_gb-04.html#data_transfer_…
lastly: Does anyone know if the Zahlman CNPS7000-cu
will work on an Athlon
XP chip? Everything I saw only mentioned a P4 or a Clawhammer chip. I
I'm using a 6000-cu FWIW, its fine, but you have to run the fan, at
minimum speed it pretty quiet though.
- Steve
12:34 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
I agree with Steve, I wouldn't use RAID for the data. Put OS and swap
on the first drive and use the other two for audio data only. There's
the signpost up ahead... you're about to enter the Linux audio zone.
Jan
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 09:05, Steve Harris wrote:
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 09:26:44 -0500, Chris wrote:
Maxtor 7200 8megbuffer 80 gb hardrives (2 Will be
done in IDE RAID)
I recommend Seagate Barracuda IV's, very quiet. I wouldn't use RAID for
audio, and especially not hardware IDE RAID - lots of people at work have
had volumes wiped out by dodgy hardware IDE RIAD controllers (even
reputable ones) and if your card goes pop getting the data back can be very
hard.
Someone (possibly Mark K.) posted bad experiences with RAID and latency
too. I only use it for situations where throughput is important (eg.
database servers), for audio its not a big deal. 32 channels of 32bit
audio is only 5MB/s, any current disk can do that without breaking sweat,
random link:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030402/250_gb-04.html#data_transfer_…
lastly: Does anyone know if the Zahlman
CNPS7000-cu will work on an Athlon
XP chip? Everything I saw only mentioned a P4 or a Clawhammer chip. I
I'm using a 6000-cu FWIW, its fine, but you have to run the fan, at
minimum speed it pretty quiet though.
- Steve
12:57 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
Hi Guys.
Thanks for your input. I revamped it a bit, and I think I will get the
seagate drive instead, and dump the RAID idea then.
I also am thinking of getting an ASUS a7n8X DLX mobo instead then, Since it
has the nForce2 chipset.
Anythoughts there?
(Anyone else have any input on my little scheme here?)
Thanks a bunch!
Chris
At 08:59 AM 4/5/2003 -0600, you wrote:
I agree with Steve, I wouldn't use RAID for the
data. Put OS and swap
on the first drive and use the other two for audio data only. There's
the signpost up ahead... you're about to enter the Linux audio zone.
Jan
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 09:05, Steve Harris wrote:
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 09:26:44 -0500, Chris
wrote:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030402/250_gb-04.html#data_transfer_…
Maxtor 7200 8megbuffer 80 gb hardrives (2 Will be
done in IDE RAID)
I recommend Seagate Barracuda IV's, very quiet. I wouldn't use RAID for
audio, and especially not hardware IDE RAID - lots of people at work have
had volumes wiped out by dodgy hardware IDE RIAD controllers (even
reputable ones) and if your card goes pop getting the data back can be very
hard.
Someone (possibly Mark K.) posted bad experiences with RAID and latency
too. I only use it for situations where throughput is important (eg.
database servers), for audio its not a big deal. 32 channels of 32bit
audio is only 5MB/s, any current disk can do that without breaking sweat,
random link:
> lastly: Does anyone know if the Zahlman CNPS7000-cu will work on an
Athlon
> > XP chip? Everything I saw only mentioned a P4 or a Clawhammer chip. I
>
> I'm using a 6000-cu FWIW, its fine, but you have to run the fan, at
> minimum speed it pretty quiet though.
>
> - Steve 
1:58 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 07:57, Chris wrote:
Hi Guys.
Thanks for your input. I revamped it a bit, and I think I will get the
seagate drive instead, and dump the RAID idea then.
I also am thinking of getting an ASUS a7n8X DLX mobo instead then, Since it
has the nForce2 chipset.
Anythoughts there?
(Anyone else have any input on my little scheme here?)
Thanks a bunch!
Chris
Chris,
Think about the Asus A7V333 series instead. The nForce chipsets
aren't very stable yet under Linux. You may find yourself having to
patch kernels to get DMA working right. There have been some problems
with graphics controller interactions. (I'm hearing this on the Redhat
install lists a lot.) The A7V333 with PC2700 memory will be far more PC
than you need for audio recording + MIDI, and it does work. I'm writing
you this message from one.
No RAID as you've decided. Be careful about Serial ATA which appears
on a few new Asus A7V333 MBs. RH users are not having much luck with
this yet. I don't know which distro you might be planning on using.
Stick with a good quality ATA/EIDE drive.
Consider having two separate hard drives. One for the operating
system and swap space, one for audio. Consider making the audio drive an
external 1394 drive, if you have the money, as you will have portability
and they are easier to make very quiet if you use microphones in the
same room. Also, you can turn your audio drive off when you're doing
other things, reducing wear and tear and the risk of losing your
sessions.
Again, be very careful about making sure the hardware on your MB is
supported. I had some issues with getting the Ethernet adapter would
work on this board. It took me a few days to find drivers and learn how
to build them.
Good luck,
Mark
9:23 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
Hi,
--- "Jan \"Evil Twin\" Depner"
<eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
I agree with Steve, I wouldn't use RAID for the
data. Put OS and swap
on the first drive and use the other two for audio
data only. There's
the signpost up ahead... you're about to enter the
Linux audio zone.
Jan
These are an interesting set of opinions that I don't
agree with. Well, I do agree when reguarding the
original writers design requirements. I'm an advocate
of scsi hardware raid but only for professional
installations because IMO it's overkill and to
expensive for individual work stations.
Here's my "active" client count:
stepdaddy bin # ls /home/studio/clients/ |wc -l
35
Here's the data amount for that client array:
/dev/sdc1 109GB 79GB 25GB 76% /raid5
Everyone of those 35 clients pays my partners and I to
produce their music. There's probably an average of
eight songs in each of those 35 client directories and
an average of 16 audio tracks per song. I'd guess that
each keeper track takes about an hour to produce.
There are to many examples of musicians that have
their personal best performance which they'll have a
difficult time reproducing. My standard for data
management is that under no circumstances can I ever
lose any data. The scsi hardware raid gives us
hardware redundancy with raid 5.
We run three production rooms that symoultaneously
share the client array. Two of the rooms are fairly
low bandwidth; mastering--stereo images,
preproduction--midi and sequencing. The third room is
doing multiple mono audio channel printing and mixing.
The multiple mono mixing done with the Macs is via
100mb LAN. Otherwise most work in that room is via
lightpipe. In addition to audio production bandwidth
usage we run rsync over LAN and we're adding video
production.
I know how more than a few studios conduct their
affairs. One example is a friend who during the last
year lost the production of an entire album and within
a month of that incident lost a 120gig drive that was
full of personal artwork and songs. The guy is a
prolific pianist and song writer. All songs gone!
Studios that manage their affairs this way will never
do any important work for me.
I'm not saying that my way of doing things is the only
way and everyone else is wrong. If I required a
personal workstation, I'd wholeheartidly follow the
consensus of this thread. But my circumstances require
that I look at 35 sets of artists and think about the
quality of their performances not whether or not I can
find their data, will the equipment perform and if I
screw up then two business partners are gonna have to
find jobs while we repay the debts to our clients.
I'm not sure how I'd manage the volume of production
that we do within any 24 hour period without hardware
scsi raid. And I don't care because anything else
would be penny wise but dollar foolish. I also don't
know anything about latency with raid. Perhaps it
applies only to kernel controled software raid. Ardour
includes a local/native raid 0 implementation that
shouldn't experience any computational latency.
Anyway I'm filing my disagreement with at least two
people who's opinions I absolutely respect...I, I, I,
gotta duck and cringe. :) Guys, with my requirements,
could it be done better and for less money? It's not
like I enjoy looking at a four unit rack that cost me
around $3,000.00 USD for HDDs and power. When looked
at from a cost perspective, it irratates the hell out
me.
ron
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 09:05, Steve Harris wrote:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030402/250_gb-04.html#data_transfer_…
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 09:26:44 -0500, Chris
wrote:
> Maxtor 7200 8megbuffer 80 gb hardrives (2
Will
be done in IDE RAID)
I recommend Seagate Barracuda IV's, very quiet. I
wouldn't use RAID for
audio, and especially not hardware IDE RAID -
lots
of people at work have
had volumes wiped out by dodgy hardware IDE RIAD
controllers (even
reputable ones) and if your card goes pop getting
the data back can be very
hard.
Someone (possibly Mark K.) posted bad experiences
with RAID and latency
too. I only use it for situations where
throughput
is important (eg.
database servers), for audio its not a big deal.
32 channels of 32bit
audio is only 5MB/s, any current disk can do that
without breaking sweat,
random link:
> lastly: Does anyone know if the Zahlman
CNPS7000-cu will work on an Athlon
> XP chip? Everything I saw only mentioned a
P4
or a Clawhammer chip. I
I'm using a 6000-cu FWIW, its fine, but you have
to run the fan, at
minimum speed it pretty quiet though.
- Steve
9:56 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
Hi Mr. Parker.
Thanks for the input, but what I gathered from their posts was they they
objected to *IDE* raid, not scsi. And raid 5 with ide raid (AFAIK) is not
an option. Only raid 0 or 1, of which I was interested in 0 for the
increased throughput.
I am afraid, however, that a scsi raid is definitely out of my price
range. I use them at work, and the throughput is wonderful (esp. raid
5). I think that if I was in your position, I would be doing exactly as
you are.
But this is a home-job, a creative outlet for me. Since I am bandless
right now, I need to feel like I am creating something.... I don't get a
lot out of playing alone. So, me and maybe another guy or two will be
hooking up to this rig, and that is about it.
Thanks for your post!
Chris
At 04:13 PM 4/5/2003 -0800, you wrote:
Hi,
--- "Jan \"Evil Twin\" Depner"
<eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
I agree with Steve, I wouldn't use RAID for
the
data. Put OS and swap
on the first drive and use the other two for audio
data only. There's
the signpost up ahead... you're about to enter the
Linux audio zone.
Jan
These are an interesting set of opinions that I don't
agree with. Well, I do agree when reguarding the
original writers design requirements. I'm an advocate
of scsi hardware raid but only for professional
installations because IMO it's overkill and to
expensive for individual work stations.
Here's my "active" client count:
stepdaddy bin # ls /home/studio/clients/ |wc -l
35
Here's the data amount for that client array:
/dev/sdc1 109GB 79GB 25GB 76% /raid5
Everyone of those 35 clients pays my partners and I to
produce their music. There's probably an average of
eight songs in each of those 35 client directories and
an average of 16 audio tracks per song. I'd guess that
each keeper track takes about an hour to produce.
There are to many examples of musicians that have
their personal best performance which they'll have a
difficult time reproducing. My standard for data
management is that under no circumstances can I ever
lose any data. The scsi hardware raid gives us
hardware redundancy with raid 5.
We run three production rooms that symoultaneously
share the client array. Two of the rooms are fairly
low bandwidth; mastering--stereo images,
preproduction--midi and sequencing. The third room is
doing multiple mono audio channel printing and mixing.
The multiple mono mixing done with the Macs is via
100mb LAN. Otherwise most work in that room is via
lightpipe. In addition to audio production bandwidth
usage we run rsync over LAN and we're adding video
production.
I know how more than a few studios conduct their
affairs. One example is a friend who during the last
year lost the production of an entire album and within
a month of that incident lost a 120gig drive that was
full of personal artwork and songs. The guy is a
prolific pianist and song writer. All songs gone!
Studios that manage their affairs this way will never
do any important work for me.
I'm not saying that my way of doing things is the only
way and everyone else is wrong. If I required a
personal workstation, I'd wholeheartidly follow the
consensus of this thread. But my circumstances require
that I look at 35 sets of artists and think about the
quality of their performances not whether or not I can
find their data, will the equipment perform and if I
screw up then two business partners are gonna have to
find jobs while we repay the debts to our clients.
I'm not sure how I'd manage the volume of production
that we do within any 24 hour period without hardware
scsi raid. And I don't care because anything else
would be penny wise but dollar foolish. I also don't
know anything about latency with raid. Perhaps it
applies only to kernel controled software raid. Ardour
includes a local/native raid 0 implementation that
shouldn't experience any computational latency.
Anyway I'm filing my disagreement with at least two
people who's opinions I absolutely respect...I, I, I,
gotta duck and cringe. :) Guys, with my requirements,
could it be done better and for less money? It's not
like I enjoy looking at a four unit rack that cost me
around $3,000.00 USD for HDDs and power. When looked
at from a cost perspective, it irratates the hell out
me.
ron
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 09:05, Steve Harris wrote:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030402/250_gb-04.html#data_transfer_…
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 09:26:44 -0500, Chris
wrote:
> Maxtor 7200 8megbuffer 80 gb hardrives (2
Will
be done in IDE RAID)
I recommend Seagate Barracuda IV's, very quiet. I
wouldn't use RAID for
audio, and especially not hardware IDE RAID -
lots
of people at work have
had volumes wiped out by dodgy hardware IDE RIAD
controllers (even
reputable ones) and if your card goes pop getting
the data back can be very
hard.
Someone (possibly Mark K.) posted bad experiences
with RAID and latency
too. I only use it for situations where
throughput
is important (eg.
database servers), for audio its not a big deal.
32 channels of 32bit
audio is only 5MB/s, any current disk can do that
without breaking sweat,
random link:
> lastly: Does anyone know if the Zahlman
CNPS7000-cu will work on an Athlon
> XP chip? Everything I saw only mentioned a
P4
or a Clawhammer chip. I
I'm using a 6000-cu FWIW, its fine, but you have
to run the fan, at
minimum speed it pretty quiet though.
- Steve
6 Apr
6 Apr
6:40 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 04:13:28PM -0800, R Parker wrote:
These are an interesting set of opinions that I
don't
agree with. Well, I do agree when reguarding the
original writers design requirements. I'm an advocate
of scsi hardware raid but only for professional
installations because IMO it's overkill and to
expensive for individual work stations.
Note: /I/ was explicitly speaking about IDE RAID, SCSI RAID is very
different, you can take the disk packs out of a SCSI RAID array, and stick
them in a different machine and it will rebuild fine. SCSI RAID striping
scemes are standardised and have been for a long time.
Also, I have never had a SCSI RAID system die on me, nor do I know anyone
who has. This is a sharp contrast to HW IDE RAID.
The latency issues are probably still there, but if they dont cause you
problems then I guess its OK. SCSI seek times are generally faster, so
maybe that helps.
- Steve
6:53 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 04:13:28PM -0800, R Parker wrote:
I'm not sure how I'd manage the volume of
production
that we do within any 24 hour period without hardware
scsi raid. And I don't care because anything else
would be penny wise but dollar foolish. I also don't
know anything about latency with raid. Perhaps it
applies only to kernel controled software raid. Ardour
includes a local/native raid 0 implementation that
shouldn't experience any computational latency.
The latency in question is (I think) disk seek latency, which is unrelated
the the kernel scheduling latency that we all sweat over reducing :) The
potential problem is that something like ardour might be filling a
fraction of the throughput, but the disks would be unable to respond in
time.
gotta duck and cringe. :) Guys, with my requirements,
could it be done better and for less money? It's not
Hell no, I'd use exactly the same setup. My experience is that it costs
far more to back up a large disk system than it does to populate it with
disks anyway.
OT: I have one, wonderful, glorious machine at work with no backups :) The
software on it all comes out of CVS or is stock RedHat and the data on it
is refreshed every night :)
- Steve
8:45 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
Hi,
--- Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
Yikes! I'm using large ide disks to mirror the scsi
raid array.
I've been thinking about switching our archive
strategy from DD3 tape to rewritable DVD. DVD is
probably alot more convienant for clients.
The following is pretty far off the orginal topic.
Reguardless, it's encouraging and exciting to know
what we can expect from professional audio in linux.
BTW, my interest in producing audio with a linux based
environment is the Ardour mission statement where
professional audio is a requirement.
How effective an audio environment can we build on
linux with jackd the high bandwidth, low latency audio
server?
Earlier tonight, I ran the following tasks
symoultaneously:
*Rsync mirror via LAN
*Mastering of stereo file on Mac via 100mb LAN, atalk
*'cp -R 2gig directory from channel A to channel B of
scsi raid controler
*Ardour; playback of eight audio channels
*switching virtual desktops and applications windows,
'ctrl c + hold tab key infinitely' then 'alt + f1,4'
like a mad man, and then checking yahoo mail
repeatedly
jackd started with 'jackd -R -v -d alsa -d hw:0 -p 512
-r 44100'
During a twenty minute stretch with the above tasks
being done at the same time, I generated one xrun. The
"-p 512" is an exceptable latency for me because I use
an external mixing consol and build the studio and
control room mixes from the input stages.
Anyway, my new point is that professional audio
production in linux is a reality.
ron
gotta duck and
cringe. :) Guys, with my
requirements,
could it be done better and for less money?
It's
not
Hell no, I'd use exactly the same setup. My
experience is that it costs
far more to back up a large disk system than it does
to populate it with
disks anyway. - Steve
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
9:26 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 03:36:06AM -0700, R Parker wrote:
Thats OK, but I'd want a fair number of disks, for offsite backups.
Hell no,
I'd use exactly the same setup. My
experience is that it costs
far more to back up a large disk system than it does
to populate it with
disks anyway.
Yikes! I'm using large ide disks to mirror the scsi
raid array. I've been thinking about switching our archive
strategy from DD3 tape to rewritable DVD. DVD is
probably alot more convienant for clients.
DDS3? I dont trust them myself, I've got 3 different DDS2/3 drives and
there a bit fussy about reading each others tapes. Write only backups are
no good to anyone ;) The systems people at work use DLT or something
similar which is aparently much more relaible, but damn expensive.
DDS is helical scan (like audio DAT, so it suffers from head alignent
issues), wheres the newer techs tend to be linear.
DVD seems like a good bet if you can fit enough onto one disk.
Anyway, my new point is that professional audio
production in linux is a reality.S
Did you ever doubt it ;)
- Steve
4:10 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
Ron,
If you're really serious about having failsafe backup, get a PogoLinux
StorageWare 3800 1.2TB IDE RAID (RAID 5 with spare). Use rsync to
automatically back up your SCSI RAIDs to the 3800 (crontab). Then get
an HP Ultrium SCSI tape drive to hook to the 3800. The drives run about
5K and tapes are down to about $80 per. They are advertised to hold
200GB compressed, 100GB native. You know how those advertisements are.
I didn't believe it so I did my own tests at work. Using byte compacted
(as opposed to compressed or bit compacted) sonar data I got 170-180GB
per tape with an actual write speed to tape of 13.465MB/sec. DDS just
ain't in the race at 1MB/sec for DDS3 or 2MB/sec for DDS4 (those are
rated numbers, not actual). This setup would run you about 11K. I
figured I'd throw this out here while we were dreaming ;)
Jan
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 05:36, R Parker wrote:
Hi,
--- Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
Yikes! I'm using large ide disks to mirror the scsi
raid array.
I've been thinking about switching our archive
strategy from DD3 tape to rewritable DVD. DVD is
probably alot more convienant for clients.
The following is pretty far off the orginal topic.
Reguardless, it's encouraging and exciting to know
what we can expect from professional audio in linux.
BTW, my interest in producing audio with a linux based
environment is the Ardour mission statement where
professional audio is a requirement.
How effective an audio environment can we build on
linux with jackd the high bandwidth, low latency audio
server?
Earlier tonight, I ran the following tasks
symoultaneously:
*Rsync mirror via LAN
*Mastering of stereo file on Mac via 100mb LAN, atalk
*'cp -R 2gig directory from channel A to channel B of
scsi raid controler
*Ardour; playback of eight audio channels
*switching virtual desktops and applications windows,
'ctrl c + hold tab key infinitely' then 'alt + f1,4'
like a mad man, and then checking yahoo mail
repeatedly
jackd started with 'jackd -R -v -d alsa -d hw:0 -p 512
-r 44100'
During a twenty minute stretch with the above tasks
being done at the same time, I generated one xrun. The
"-p 512" is an exceptable latency for me because I use
an external mixing consol and build the studio and
control room mixes from the input stages.
Anyway, my new point is that professional audio
production in linux is a reality.
ron
gotta
duck and cringe. :) Guys, with my
requirements,
could it be done better and for less money?
It's
not
Hell no, I'd use exactly the same setup. My
experience is that it costs
far more to back up a large disk system than it does
to populate it with
disks anyway. - Steve
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
7:25 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
Jan,
Now I understand the "Evil Twin" part of your name,
$11,000.00 isn't dreaming, it's nightmaring. :) I did
a froogle.com for "HP Ultrium SCSI tape drive" and it
seems we're talking between $4,000.00 and $6,000.00
USD. The question I have is, will I ever be able to
afford a fishing boat?
I swear I'm going to follow through with my threat to
sell the studio and franchise adolescent owned
lemonade stands. There'd be alot more profit in it.
ron
--- "Jan \"Evil Twin\" Depner"
<eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> wrote:
Ron,
If you're really serious about having failsafe
backup, get a PogoLinux
StorageWare 3800 1.2TB IDE RAID (RAID 5 with spare).
Use rsync to
automatically back up your SCSI RAIDs to the 3800
(crontab). Then get
an HP Ultrium SCSI tape drive to hook to the 3800.
The drives run about
5K and tapes are down to about $80 per. They are
advertised to hold
200GB compressed, 100GB native. You know how those
advertisements are.
I didn't believe it so I did my own tests at work.
Using byte compacted
(as opposed to compressed or bit compacted) sonar
data I got 170-180GB
per tape with an actual write speed to tape of
13.465MB/sec. DDS just
ain't in the race at 1MB/sec for DDS3 or 2MB/sec for
DDS4 (those are
rated numbers, not actual). This setup would run
you about 11K. I
figured I'd throw this out here while we were
dreaming ;)
Jan
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 05:36, R Parker wrote:
scsi
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
Hi,
--- Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk>
wrote:
> > gotta duck and cringe. :) Guys, with my
> requirements,
> > could it be done better and for less money?
It's
> not
>
> Hell no, I'd use exactly the same setup. My
> experience is that it costs
> far more to back up a large disk system than it
does
to
populate it with
disks anyway.
Yikes! I'm using large ide disks to mirror the raid array.
I've been thinking about switching our archive
strategy from DD3 tape to rewritable DVD. DVD is
probably alot more convienant for clients.
The following is pretty far off the orginal topic.
Reguardless, it's encouraging and exciting to know
what we can expect from professional audio in
linux.
BTW, my interest in producing audio with a linux
based
environment is the Ardour mission statement
where
professional audio is a requirement.
How effective an audio environment can we build on
linux with jackd the high bandwidth, low latency
audio
server?
Earlier tonight, I ran the following tasks
symoultaneously:
*Rsync mirror via LAN
*Mastering of stereo file on Mac via 100mb LAN,
atalk
*'cp -R 2gig directory from channel A to
channel B
of
scsi raid controler
*Ardour; playback of eight audio channels
*switching virtual desktops and applications
windows,
'ctrl c + hold tab key infinitely' then
'alt +
f1,4'
like a mad man, and then checking yahoo mail
repeatedly
jackd started with 'jackd -R -v -d alsa -d hw:0 -p
512
-r 44100'
During a twenty minute stretch with the above
tasks
being done at the same time, I generated one
xrun.
The
"-p 512" is an exceptable latency for
me because I
use
an external mixing consol and build the studio
and
control room mixes from the input stages.
Anyway, my new point is that professional audio
production in linux is a reality.
ron
forms, and more
- Steve
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
7:59 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
He is evil, isn't he?! ;-)
It would probably be cheaper in the long run to buy 2 low-performance
1394 or USB 2.0 hard drives for each customer at $100 each, charging
them when they do the session. You leave a copy on your RAID system,
make two copies or their data, give one to the customer to take home.
You keep in your closet in case of bad weather.
How long does backing up to tape take you, if you include backing up and
verifying the data is good? I did 20GB of Pro Tools data yesterday in
less than an hour.
Cheers,
Mark
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 14:15, R Parker wrote:
Jan,
Now I understand the "Evil Twin" part of your name,
$11,000.00 isn't dreaming, it's nightmaring. :) I did
a froogle.com for "HP Ultrium SCSI tape drive" and it
seems we're talking between $4,000.00 and $6,000.00
USD. The question I have is, will I ever be able to
afford a fishing boat?
I swear I'm going to follow through with my threat to
sell the studio and franchise adolescent owned
lemonade stands. There'd be alot more profit in it.
ron
--- "Jan \"Evil Twin\" Depner"
<eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> wrote:
Ron,
If you're really serious about having failsafe
backup, get a PogoLinux
StorageWare 3800 1.2TB IDE RAID (RAID 5 with spare).
Use rsync to
automatically back up your SCSI RAIDs to the 3800
(crontab). Then get
an HP Ultrium SCSI tape drive to hook to the 3800.
The drives run about
5K and tapes are down to about $80 per. They are
advertised to hold
200GB compressed, 100GB native. You know how those
advertisements are.
I didn't believe it so I did my own tests at work.
Using byte compacted
(as opposed to compressed or bit compacted) sonar
data I got 170-180GB
per tape with an actual write speed to tape of
13.465MB/sec. DDS just
ain't in the race at 1MB/sec for DDS3 or 2MB/sec for
DDS4 (those are
rated numbers, not actual). This setup would run
you about 11K. I
figured I'd throw this out here while we were
dreaming ;)
Jan
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 05:36, R Parker wrote:
scsi
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com Hi,
--- Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk>
wrote:
> > gotta duck and cringe. :) Guys, with my
> requirements,
> > could it be done better and for less money?
It's
> not
>
> Hell no, I'd use exactly the same setup. My
> experience is that it costs
> far more to back up a large disk system than it
does
to
populate it with
disks anyway.
Yikes! I'm using large ide disks to mirror the raid array.
I've been thinking about switching our archive
strategy from DD3 tape to rewritable DVD. DVD is
probably alot more convienant for clients.
The following is pretty far off the orginal topic.
Reguardless, it's encouraging and exciting to know
what we can expect from professional audio in
linux.
BTW, my interest in producing audio with a linux
based
environment is the Ardour mission statement
where
professional audio is a requirement.
How effective an audio environment can we build on
linux with jackd the high bandwidth, low latency
audio
server?
Earlier tonight, I ran the following tasks
symoultaneously:
*Rsync mirror via LAN
*Mastering of stereo file on Mac via 100mb LAN,
atalk
*'cp -R 2gig directory from channel A to
channel B
of
scsi raid controler
*Ardour; playback of eight audio channels
*switching virtual desktops and applications
windows,
'ctrl c + hold tab key infinitely' then
'alt +
f1,4'
like a mad man, and then checking yahoo mail
repeatedly
jackd started with 'jackd -R -v -d alsa -d hw:0 -p
512
-r 44100'
During a twenty minute stretch with the above
tasks
being done at the same time, I generated one
xrun.
The
"-p 512" is an exceptable latency for
me because I
use
an external mixing consol and build the studio
and
control room mixes from the input stages.
Anyway, my new point is that professional audio
production in linux is a reality.
ron
forms, and more
- Steve
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
8:40 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
Hi,
--- Mark Knecht <markknecht(a)attbi.com> wrote:
He is evil, isn't he?! ;-)
It would probably be cheaper in the long run to buy
2 low-performance
1394 or USB 2.0 hard drives for each customer at
$100 each, charging
them when they do the session.
We used to do something similar to this but clients
don't want to spend money. Even though $100.00 is
chicken feed.
You leave a copy on
your RAID system,
make two copies or their data, give one to the
customer to take home.
You keep in your closet in case of bad weather.
From experience, this is a pretty serious PITA.
We've
got reems of tape dating back to the early 1980s.
Every couple of months, someone asks "do you have?"
Well, the pile of tape is rediculous and it's all
stored about 100 miles from here.
Our new policy is, when the job is completed, it is
archived and given to the client. We don't want
anything to do with managing history. Which is one
reason I think DVD might be useful to clients. It's
cheap and they can mount the disks at home.
So, rather than "do you have" I want to hear "if I
bring X in, can you...?"
How long does backing up to tape take you, if you
include backing up and
verifying the data is good?
I've never timed it but it's slow. The upside is that
I start the archive and walk away, in practice, I can
get stuck thinking which is something I don't have
time for.
ron
I did 20GB of Pro Tools
data yesterday in
less than an hour.
Cheers,
Mark
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 14:15, R Parker wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Jan,
Now I understand the "Evil Twin" part of your
name,
$11,000.00 isn't dreaming, it's
nightmaring. :) I
did
a froogle.com for "HP Ultrium SCSI tape
drive" and
it
seems we're talking between $4,000.00 and
$6,000.00
USD. The question I have is, will I ever be able
to
afford a fishing boat?
I swear I'm going to follow through with my threat
to
sell the studio and franchise adolescent owned
lemonade stands. There'd be alot more profit in
it.
ron
--- "Jan \"Evil Twin\" Depner"
<eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> wrote:
> Ron,
>
> If you're really serious about having failsafe
> backup, get a PogoLinux
> StorageWare 3800 1.2TB IDE RAID (RAID 5 with
spare).
> Use rsync to
> automatically back up your SCSI RAIDs to the
3800
> (crontab). Then get
> an HP Ultrium SCSI tape drive to hook to the
3800.
> The drives run about
> 5K and tapes are down to about $80 per. They
are
> advertised to hold
> 200GB compressed, 100GB native. You know how
those
> advertisements are.
> I didn't believe it so I did my own tests at
work.
> Using byte compacted
> (as opposed to compressed or bit compacted)
sonar
> data I got 170-180GB
> per tape with an actual write speed to tape of
> 13.465MB/sec. DDS just
> ain't in the race at 1MB/sec for DDS3 or 2MB/sec
for
> DDS4 (those are
> rated numbers, not actual). This setup would
run
> you about 11K. I
> figured I'd throw this out here while we were
> dreaming ;)
>
> Jan
>
>
> On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 05:36, R Parker wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > --- Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > gotta duck and cringe. :) Guys, with my
> > > requirements,
> > > > could it be done better and for less
money?
> It's
> > > not
> > >
> > > Hell no, I'd use exactly the same setup. My
> > > experience is that it costs
> > > far more to back up a large disk system than
it
> does
> > > to populate it with
> > > disks anyway.
> >
> > Yikes! I'm using large ide disks to mirror the
> scsi
> > raid array.
> >
> > I've been thinking about switching our archive
> > strategy from DD3 tape to rewritable DVD. DVD
is
> > probably alot more convienant for
clients.
> >
> > The following is pretty far off the orginal
topic.
> > Reguardless, it's encouraging and
exciting to
know
> > what we can expect from professional
audio in
> linux.
> > BTW, my interest in producing audio with a
linux
> based
> > environment is the Ardour mission statement
where
> > professional audio is a requirement.
> >
> > How effective an audio environment can we
build on
> > linux with jackd the high bandwidth,
low
latency
> audio
> > server?
> >
> > Earlier tonight, I ran the following tasks
> > symoultaneously:
> > *Rsync mirror via LAN
> > *Mastering of stereo file on Mac via 100mb
LAN,
> atalk
> > *'cp -R 2gig directory from channel A to
channel B
> of
> > scsi raid controler
> > *Ardour; playback of eight audio channels
> > *switching virtual desktops and applications
> windows,
> > 'ctrl c + hold tab key infinitely' then 'alt +
> f1,4'
> > like a mad man, and then checking yahoo mail
> > repeatedly
> >
> > jackd started with 'jackd -R -v -d alsa -d
hw:0 -p
> 512
> > -r 44100'
> >
> > During a twenty minute stretch with the above
> tasks
> > being done at the same time, I generated one
xrun.
> The
> > "-p 512" is an exceptable latency for me
because I
> use
> > an external mixing consol and build the studio
and
> > control room mixes from the input
stages.
> >
> > Anyway, my new point is that professional
audio
> > production in linux is a reality.
> >
> > ron
> >
> > > - Steve
> >
> >
> >
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
forms, and more
7 Apr
7 Apr
1:35 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-audio-user-admin(a)music.columbia.edu
[mailto:linux-audio-user-admin@music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of R Parker
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 3:31 PM
To: linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
So, rather than "do you have" I want to hear "if I
bring X in, can you...?"
ABSOLUTELY!!! Much better process.
How long does backing up to tape take you, if
you
include backing up and
verifying the data is good?
I've never timed it but it's slow. The upside is that
I start the archive and walk away, in practice, I can
get stuck thinking which is something I don't have
time for.
ron
I did 20GB of Pro Tools
> data yesterday in
> less than an hour.
1:53 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
This response is now part of the 'very off-topic' nature of this thread.
Sorry, but as usual, my response below got a bit long. Typical for me I
suppose...
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-audio-user-admin(a)music.columbia.edu
[mailto:linux-audio-user-admin@music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Steve
Harris
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 12:44 AM
To: linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 04:13:28PM -0800, R Parker wrote:
Disk latency is what I meant also, however, with RAID controllers (of which
I'm no expert) there are potential additional latencies that show up because
of the work the RAID controller is doing. I don't think it matters whether
you use SCSI or IDE RAID for what I write next, although I expect the
'numbers' would be totally different.
Someone could educate me a bit, but I think when we talk of 'RAID' here,
we're mixing apples and oranges. There is 'RAID' which takes multiple drives
and makes them look like one larger drive. On this sort of RAID I do not
think the latency need be much larger in the worst case, and may actually
appear to be lower on the average case, since the seek time on the second
drive may be covered up by the data delivery time on the first drive. This
sort of RAID can improve apparent drive bandwidth. This is good, but
provides no redundancy which Ron requires for business safety reasons.
There is also 'RAID' which takes multiple drives and makes them look like a
single drive for safety purposes. This sort of RAID is almost always slower
(at least under Windows) than a standard single drive, since you are issuing
multiple, parallel, requests for the same data that exists on separate
drives, and then doing some sort of comparison of the data to ensure they
are identical. (Even if it's all done on the RAID card.) Some RAID cards (to
the best of my knowledge) don't return any data across PCI until they have
received the data from all of the drives and done their comparisons to
ensure it's good data. That's slower. Others return data from one drive
while waiting on the others, but then do not tell the system that the data
is there until they have checked it out. All of this can 'delay' the
application from getting an indication that the data is there, which is my
definition of 'latency' in this case.
Should there be a failure on a drive, then the system can go on running, but
extra cycles are used to inform the system that the drive has gone bad and
repairs are necessary.
As I understand Ron's need, he's using RAID for safety, not bandwidth, but
either way there are extra delays in the system. Nothing comes for free...
I don't think this has to matter much, in Ron's case, for the musicians
since he mixes from a console and not from the computer. As I understand his
setup, Ardour is just recording and delivering audio data. However, I do
wonder how these latencies show up between a track that was recorded by
itself, and then played back. The musician doesn't know that the first track
is coming off the disk earlier, and that his new recording is going on the
disk later, so the two should be out of sync by 2*latency, I think.
Additionally, there is some small latency through the console and the
A/D/D/A and all. Does Ron have to nudge this stuff to get it all back in
sync?
Cheers,
Mark
I'm not sure how I'd manage the volume of
production
that we do within any 24 hour period without hardware
scsi raid. And I don't care because anything else
would be penny wise but dollar foolish. I also don't
know anything about latency with raid. Perhaps it
applies only to kernel controled software raid. Ardour
includes a local/native raid 0 implementation that
shouldn't experience any computational latency.
The latency in question is (I think) disk seek latency, which is unrelated
the the kernel scheduling latency that we all sweat over reducing :) The
potential problem is that something like ardour might be filling a
fraction of the throughput, but the disks would be unable to respond in
time.
2:23 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
Hi Mark,
I don't think this has to matter much, in
Ron's
case, for the musicians
since he mixes from a console and not from the
computer. As I understand his
setup, Ardour is just recording and delivering audio
data. However, I do
wonder how these latencies show up between a track
that was recorded by
itself, and then played back. The musician doesn't
know that the first track
is coming off the disk earlier, and that his new
recording is going on the
disk later, so the two should be out of sync by
2*latency, I think.
Additionally, there is some small latency through
the console and the
A/D/D/A and all. Does Ron have to nudge this stuff
to get it all back in
sync?
I recently asked about this on the jack and ardour
developers list. I think Jan replied by stating that
he thought jackd might be reading the period buffer
and compensating accordingly--if "-p 512" then move
file to compensate for the inherint latency of that
period.
Six months ago when I produced an album in Ardour, I
did a bunch of nudging on files but I think it was bug
related issues with Ardour that were causing peak
files to misalign. I'm not seeing that behaviour now.
I've got to setup a session but will come back to
learn more about the RAID latency issues that you're
outlining. BTW, I'm running RAID 5 but have thought 10
would be optimal for performance but expensive.
ron
Cheers,
Mark
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
3:12 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 09:13:26AM -0700, R Parker wrote:
I recently asked about this on the jack and ardour
developers list. I think Jan replied by stating that
he thought jackd might be reading the period buffer
and compensating accordingly--if "-p 512" then move
file to compensate for the inherint latency of that
period.
jackd itsself doesnt do it, but ardour can correct automatically given the
information that jackd provides, I think.
I've got to setup a session but will come back to
learn more about the RAID latency issues that you're
outlining. BTW, I'm running RAID 5 but have thought 10
would be optimal for performance but expensive.
Coincidentally I was talking with a sysprog over coffee about raid 10 and
he said that the survivability of raid 10 was not as good as 5, there are
relativly likely disk loss patterns that can cause you to loose all the
data, when a raid 5 setup with the same (or less) redundancy could
survive. He mentioned it cos it actually happened over the weekend :(
I dont know how the performance compares. I've always used 0 for raw
throughput and terrible survivability, or 5 for robustness and a bit extra
speed.
- Steve
6 Apr
6 Apr
3:55 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
Ron,
I was only talking about IDE RAID. SCSI RAID is a whole 'nother
beast. It's just the price that kills. I use SCSI RAID, RAIDZONE IDE
NAS systems, and PogoLinux IDE RAID systems at work but I sure couldn't
afford any of that at home. I was actually wondering what using a
PogoLinux 3800 StorageWare system for audio would be like. Dual
processor, 1.2 TB RAID 5 with a standard RH load on the OS disk. Pretty
expensive experiment though.
Jan
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 18:13, R Parker wrote:
Hi,
--- "Jan \"Evil Twin\" Depner"
<eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
I agree with Steve, I wouldn't use RAID for
the
data. Put OS and swap
on the first drive and use the other two for audio
data only. There's
the signpost up ahead... you're about to enter the
Linux audio zone.
Jan
These are an interesting set of opinions that I don't
agree with. Well, I do agree when reguarding the
original writers design requirements. I'm an advocate
of scsi hardware raid but only for professional
installations because IMO it's overkill and to
expensive for individual work stations.
Here's my "active" client count:
stepdaddy bin # ls /home/studio/clients/ |wc -l
35
Here's the data amount for that client array:
/dev/sdc1 109GB 79GB 25GB 76% /raid5
Everyone of those 35 clients pays my partners and I to
produce their music. There's probably an average of
eight songs in each of those 35 client directories and
an average of 16 audio tracks per song. I'd guess that
each keeper track takes about an hour to produce.
There are to many examples of musicians that have
their personal best performance which they'll have a
difficult time reproducing. My standard for data
management is that under no circumstances can I ever
lose any data. The scsi hardware raid gives us
hardware redundancy with raid 5.
We run three production rooms that symoultaneously
share the client array. Two of the rooms are fairly
low bandwidth; mastering--stereo images,
preproduction--midi and sequencing. The third room is
doing multiple mono audio channel printing and mixing.
The multiple mono mixing done with the Macs is via
100mb LAN. Otherwise most work in that room is via
lightpipe. In addition to audio production bandwidth
usage we run rsync over LAN and we're adding video
production.
I know how more than a few studios conduct their
affairs. One example is a friend who during the last
year lost the production of an entire album and within
a month of that incident lost a 120gig drive that was
full of personal artwork and songs. The guy is a
prolific pianist and song writer. All songs gone!
Studios that manage their affairs this way will never
do any important work for me.
I'm not saying that my way of doing things is the only
way and everyone else is wrong. If I required a
personal workstation, I'd wholeheartidly follow the
consensus of this thread. But my circumstances require
that I look at 35 sets of artists and think about the
quality of their performances not whether or not I can
find their data, will the equipment perform and if I
screw up then two business partners are gonna have to
find jobs while we repay the debts to our clients.
I'm not sure how I'd manage the volume of production
that we do within any 24 hour period without hardware
scsi raid. And I don't care because anything else
would be penny wise but dollar foolish. I also don't
know anything about latency with raid. Perhaps it
applies only to kernel controled software raid. Ardour
includes a local/native raid 0 implementation that
shouldn't experience any computational latency.
Anyway I'm filing my disagreement with at least two
people who's opinions I absolutely respect...I, I, I,
gotta duck and cringe. :) Guys, with my requirements,
could it be done better and for less money? It's not
like I enjoy looking at a four unit rack that cost me
around $3,000.00 USD for HDDs and power. When looked
at from a cost perspective, it irratates the hell out
me.
ron
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 09:05, Steve Harris wrote:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030402/250_gb-04.html#data_transfer_…
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 09:26:44 -0500, Chris
wrote:
> Maxtor 7200 8megbuffer 80 gb hardrives (2
Will
be done in IDE RAID)
I recommend Seagate Barracuda IV's, very quiet. I
wouldn't use RAID for
audio, and especially not hardware IDE RAID -
lots
of people at work have
had volumes wiped out by dodgy hardware IDE RIAD
controllers (even
reputable ones) and if your card goes pop getting
the data back can be very
hard.
Someone (possibly Mark K.) posted bad experiences
with RAID and latency
too. I only use it for situations where
throughput
is important (eg.
database servers), for audio its not a big deal.
32 channels of 32bit
audio is only 5MB/s, any current disk can do that
without breaking sweat,
random link:
> lastly: Does anyone know if the Zahlman
CNPS7000-cu will work on an Athlon
> XP chip? Everything I saw only mentioned a
P4
or a Clawhammer chip. I
I'm using a 6000-cu FWIW, its fine, but you have
to run the fan, at
minimum speed it pretty quiet though.
- Steve
7 Apr
7 Apr
11:46 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Submitted for your approval
I know how more than a few studios conduct their
affairs. One example is a friend who during the last
year lost the production of an entire album and within
a month of that incident lost a 120gig drive that was
full of personal artwork and songs. The guy is a
prolific pianist and song writer. All songs gone!
Studios that manage their affairs this way will never
do any important work for me.
Apart from having a removable hard disc cartridge which travels home after
each recording session (cheaper than a firewire drive and works on older
machines too), we have a wireless LAN between my house and the drummer's
house (about 500m) distance. We mirror the data by FTP to his house at about
4Mb, then he can burn it to CDs for the rest of the band.
It wouldn't work for everyone, but we shouldn't lose any songs...
Cheers
Daniel
7935
days inactive
7960
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
30 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Chris -
D R Holsbeck -
Daniel James -
Emiliano Grilli -
Jan "Evil Twin" Depner -
John Bleichert -
Mark Knecht -
Mark Knecht -
Patrick Shirkey -
R Parker -
Steve Harris