From:  starl
|
On: 2007/10/13 16:05:54
|
I need to configure a new pc. Usually, not an issue, but I'm going into unknown territory... raid drives and all that.
Are there any forums where I can get advice on what to look for? The current system is an old pc that's my dvr. I want to update it, but to make it tax deductible, I'm gonna also use it as a backup for my work files. I was talking to someone and he got me thinking about RAID drives.. so I'm leaning away from a standard pc.. tho I can't afford a real server.
Anyway - know where I can go?
thanks
|
|
|
From: rid
|
On: 2007/10/14 00:32:43
|
If this is just for backup, I'd be inclined to suggest you go for additional storage units instead of RAID. RAID seems to me to cause a lot of confusion and headaches once you need to use the redundancy and rebuild it, if one of the hard drives fail. Granted, the data seems to be well protected, but repairing the RAID after a failure *seems* a bit complicated.
One or more NAS units or even USB-connected external HDs might be a much easier way to go about the backup business.
/RID
|
|
|
From: starl
|
On: 2007/10/14 12:41:08
|
well, I already backup to a local external drive..
I want to do another backup to a system not connected directly to my pc.. and I *definitely* need a new system for my dvr..
so I suppose I could just go with a normal new system with two hds and just partition the 2nd?
I could do alternate days for the backups.. one day = local, one day = network...
I'd really like 3hds - 1 for just the programs, 1 for the dvr, 1 for the backup... but all I can find are 2 hds systems..
and of course, I need a system that I can move my hauppauge card into.
something to think about - really appreciate it.
|
|
|
From: starl
|
On: 2007/10/14 12:41:37
|
|
uhm - what's NAS?
|
|
|
From: rid
|
On: 2007/10/14 23:30:58
|
NAS = Network Attached Storage, basically a unit with a hard drive and an ethernet connection. They come in all sorts of shapes, from thousands of $$$ to like $150 for 500 GB. Very handy in my opinion, work with any O/S, smallish and rarely give any trouble. Some even run a RAID system to increase data integrity, but that's totally transparent to the user, they appear like a networked computer with a shared drive; you can assign a drive letter in windows and so on.
I don't know if 3 HDs are "better" than any other solution, depends on how much data you have etc. Partitioning seems OK to me, having the primary HD in 2 partitions (one for system and programs and one for data) is a method I use often. I'm not totally familiar with the dvr activity you mention; if a lot of data is involved a dedicated HD for that may be a good idea.
/RID
|
|
|
From: starl
|
On: 2007/10/15 07:09:07
|
DVR - i've got a lot of shows recorded, mostly because I don't have time to watch them.. so it builds up
I could put it on my USB drive.. but I just never feel like those things are stable enough. Great for backups, but to use as a regular drive (constant read/write). Am I wrong?
My primary - I was planning on keeping small, so no partition there. If anything, I'd partition the secondary. but you've got me thinking.. partition the primary for my work backup, use the secondary for my recordings... a couple of 500gb hds or something....
|
|
|
From: rid
|
On: 2007/10/15 09:53:16
|
The drives inside the USB external casings are just ordinary ATA (or possibly S-ATA) drives, so the reliability should be OK. Problems may occur in the USB interface, because that's another software layer that can get upset or corrupt; internals are better for constant R/W operation from that standpoint (IMHO). For backup purposes, as you say, they're great.
I'm a bit wary about having a backup copy on the same drive as the original, but I may have misunderstood you. A partition for data only is very handy if you ever have to reinstall the O/S; you can format the system partition without having to touch the data partition.
/RID
|
|
|
From: starl
|
On: 2007/10/15 10:01:29
|
yeah - you misunderstood :-)
the backup data would be from my work pc - somewhere else on the network...
or I use the partition for my dvr and backup my workpc to the secondary...
of course.. if there's *room* for a 3rd drive - i can just stick one of my old ones in there...
|
|
|
From: rid
|
On: 2007/10/15 10:34:32
|
Well, you have a number of options... :) Several hard drives inside one case will cause heat to build, if they have to be mounted close to each other that could cause a temperature strain. Go for a bit larger drives and use only 2 might be the better solution; partition as needed.
/RID
|
|
|
From: starl
|
On: 2007/10/15 11:45:48
|
|
yeah..
|
|
|
From: starl
|
On: 2007/10/16 08:55:17
|
I'm looking at an Optiplex 755 w/2 250gb hds, the primary partitioned with 40gb for software and the rest of data.
It's got an Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 1gb/ram
Going with that one because of the conversion work the MediaMVP..
only 1gb ram because nothing is *that* intense - I can always upgrade.
comments?
|
|
|
From: rid
|
On: 2007/10/17 00:14:17
|
Sounds nice enough to me. If you run XP, 1 GB of RAM is still plenty...
/RID
|
|
|
From: starl
|
On: 2007/10/17 06:49:07
|
oh yeah - deffy staying away from Vista. Drives me nuts the number of clients that have switched, tho... i just don't get it.
I'm still holding off.. I'm not used to not getting a great system.. is this one mediocre enough? will it run my dvr stuff.... nerve-wracking!
can I get a better deal at newegg or tigerdirect? I've rebuilt systems - just never had to put together my own mobo, cpu and ram... (not since our 2nd pc almost 15 years ago...)
|
|
|
From: PaulHews
|
On: 2007/10/17 08:20:59
|
>will it run my dvr stuff.... nerve-wracking!
If you have a capture card that does MPEG conversion for you, then you save a lot of CPU cycles that way. The MediaMVP won't require the software transcoding feature, and pretty much any old CPU will do the job. If you play videos downloaded from the Internet through the MediaMVP, then you would require the software based real time transcoding, which would require some muscle, but I would guess any CPU on the market right now could probably do the job nicely. What CPU were you thinking of getting?
|
|
|
From: starl
|
On: 2007/10/17 08:50:41
|
Paul - are you familiar with MediaMVP? that is *wonderful*
btw - I'm looking at an Intel Core 2 Duo.. can't remember the speed, but it wasn't the *best* available. 1.8 maybe?
I have an Hauppauge 350 - which, honestly, runs FINE on the current system. It uses very little on the resource side.
But then I added BeyondTV and that really soaked up the RAM, especially when it's updating the snapstream guide.
Then throw in the MediaMVP - and I've got intermittent problems. Hence the desire to upgrade, giving them programs more play room. I would like to stream internet for the mediamvp, but I have to play with the xml files to figure it out and just don't have the time right now.
|
|
|
From: PaulHews
|
On: 2007/10/17 10:19:18
|
1.8 GHz is on the low side. Hauppauge recommends 1.8 as a minimum for DivX, so to be sure to be stutter free, you should go for something a little better. You might consider upgrading to 2G RAM too.
I have some familiarity with the MediaMVP, although I don't have one myself. My PVR is a MythTV system.
|
|
|
From: starl
|
On: 2007/10/17 10:25:31
|
but that's 1.8 on a p4, isn't it? wouldn't the better processor compensate?
ok - I was wrong - it's a 2ghz: Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor E4400 (2.0GHz, 2M, 800MHz FSB),
hmm - mediamvp says 2.2ghz for divx playback...but at the same time, they're talking such low specs (256mb ram, 750mhz for just mediamvp standard.... doesn't the processor make a difference?
why up to 2gb?
|
|
|
From: PaulHews
|
On: 2007/10/17 11:17:24
|
>wouldn't the better processor compensate?
Not so much unless the software is multithreaded.
>hmm - mediamvp says 2.2ghz for divx playback
Thought it was 1.8 but you're right, their specs page says 2.2 minimum.
>doesn't the processor make a difference?
Only for DivX where the transcoding to MPEG has to be done in the software serving the files to the device. For your captured TV, it will be streamed directly in MPEG2 format which requires very little CPU involvement.
>why up to 2gb?
I'm not sure how much RAM the SnapStream software uses, but I know that transcoding video uses a fair amount. The problem is if/when you run low and windows starts paging to disk, playback and capture might suffer.
|
|
|
From: starl
|
On: 2007/10/17 12:54:16
|
>wouldn't the better processor compensate?
Not so much unless the software is multithreaded.
I don't understand this.. can you clarify?
|
|
|
From: PaulHews
|
On: 2007/10/17 13:28:12
|
|
A 1.8GHz P4 vs a 1.8GHz dual core will perform roughly as well or better in single threaded applications. When there are multiple threads of execution, or multiple applications, they can be shared between the processors which gives you the performance advantage of the dual core.
|
|
|
From: starl
|
On: 2007/10/17 14:24:39
|
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor E6550 (2.33GHz, 4M, VT, 1333MHz FSB)
i've upped it to 2gb ram..
upped the price too *sigh*
|
|
|
From: starl
|
On: 2007/10/17 20:37:50
|
|
I've tried putting a similar machine from scratch, but cpus and mobos drive me nuts. why can't they just standardize!
|
|
