RE: Re: [ot] one for the networking guru's

["Paul Gale" <groups@xxxxxxx>]

Ah, but I'm not talking about any old SCSI HDD's - I have a striped array
o=
f ultra fast SCSI LVD 160 HDD's - this is a requirement of my top end
video=
edit station that can play THREE streams of D1 digital video SIMULTANEOUSL=
Y in an edit!!! :)

I'll need to check the max performance as I can't remember the speeds -
but=
it's way over 20MB per sec.

Paul.


-----Original Message-----
From: yhkeppy [mailto:keith@xxxxxxx]=20
Sent: 09 October 2003 18:27
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: [ukha_d] Re: [ot] one for the networking guru's

I agree with this. I'd also add that 100Mbps is actually quite fast=20
in comparison with current disk transfer rates. When you consider=20
that a really fast ATA100 disk can write sustained at around 35MB/s=20
(which really is disk to disk across the disk bus on the same=20
machine with no CPU intervention), when you then have to get that=20
read/write cycle across the disk bus and out onto the comms bus when=20
its not sustained either, that's going to go much over 15-20MB/s -=20
and this is almost the same speed as a maxed out 100Mbps network!!

Sure gigabit network will remove A bottleneck, but I doubt it will=20
be the killer in your scenario. You could put second 100Mbps cards=20
into the machines, cross connect them and subnet them off. Assuming=20
they are also not connected together via a second network, you will=20
avoid routing loops and you should theoretically get the maximum=20
efficiency out of the link.

By the way, SATA and SCSI are actually not a lot faster than modern=20
IDE - the latest IDE drives are right up there on performance, and=20
SATA only improves this by a smallish margin. The real difference is=20
in big storage architectures, where you can just have more SATA or=20
SCSI disk in a single store.

Keith

--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Shaf Ali" <shaf@s...> wrote:
> Mate be4 even considering this what is your current throughput ?=20
Where are
> the bottlenecks ?
>=20
> I might be an idea to nail out your bottlenecks before=20
proceeding...
>=20
> An example : Is 1 minute to transfer a 700Meg DivX file not fast=20
enough ?
> Why am I not transfering this fast already ?
>=20
> Think of the software a nd architecture first.
>=20
> Shaf
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: "Paul Gale" <groups@s...>
> To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 4:16 PM
> Subject: [ukha_d] [ot] one for the networking guru's
>=20
>=20
> Got a few PC's connected via 100Mbps LAN - want to connect two of=20
my edit PC
> 's together via Gigabit networking to share very large video and=20
audio files
> for edit. Can I add a second Ethernet card (gigabit) to each so=20
that peer to
> peer traffic between them uses the faster link (they both have=20
very fast
> disk IO - SCSI and SATA) and not the existing n/w infrastructure?
>=20
> I guess this is a routing issue but how do you tell XP and W2K to=20
do this?
>=20
> Cheers,
>=20
> Paul.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> UKHA 2004: 15th and 16th May 2004
>=20
> http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
> List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
>=20
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to=20
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



UKHA 2004: 15th and 16th May 2004

http://www.automatedhome.co.uk=20
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx=20
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx=20
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx=20
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx=20

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=20