New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FLAC VS CD - Page 2

post #16 of 23
Quote:
Originally posted by Oddball
Sweet idea, but hardcore, dude. Do you really have THAT much music to fill up a few 250 gig hard drives??!?!
Not hard at all. 250gig drive = 500 CDs.
post #17 of 23
just think about it - 2 250gbs in a raid 1 array, then mirrored raid 0.

500gb usable space with lightning fast speeds and best of all, a safety net.

alternatively you could string up 4 250gb drives in a raid 1 array - giving you warp seek/read/write times... i terabyte of goodness.. mmmm...
post #18 of 23

RAID

How would one stripe a RAID1 with only 2 drives? It's only possible to choose a RAID1 (mirror) or a RAID0 (stripe) with 2 drives. I would never even consider a RAID0; my data is too valuable to risk if one of the drives developed errors (the data is lost on both drives). I feel safer with a solid RAID1 mirroring my data - and besides, music files wouldn't benefit from RAID0 performance improvements (hardly any applications benefit from such a configuration). If one has the chassis real-estate and the money, then a RAID10 is the best option (not a RAID0+1). In RAID10, the data is mirrored and then stripped as opposed to RAID0+1 where the data is stripped and then mirrored (the former choice is much safer). RAID0 hardly improves performance unless one has a database that thrives upon transfer rates, and even then the PCI’s bandwidth limitation will be an obstacle (the access time would also affect the transfer of small files; this is where the latency penalties of 7200RPM and slower drives show up). A fast system consists of a SATA/SCSI 10K+ RPM drive for the operating system with another fast drive just for the swap file (so the two heads do not conflict with each other) and lesser-used files like Ghost images. Then an IDE RAID1 or RAID10 (if one can justify the need for high transfer rates) is utilized for data storage due to its lower cost/GB. For most users, a simple RAID1 is good insurance against disk failure. However, an external backup solution is always recommended in the case of external physical damage to the drives (lightning, fire, acts of God, etc.). Too many users focus on RAID0 apparent performance advantages when really hardly anyone benefits from this improvements (and even then only during intense disk transfer issues). Real-world improvements are much more apparent from lower latencies and improved caching (which the SATA Raptors and SCSI drives have). RAID should be used as a redundancy solution instead of a so-called performance-booster. I'm done with my RAID rant.
post #19 of 23
I wouldn't want that many harddrives in my main system as it's too loud. I'd just put it in a server in a different room.

RAID1 is a must in the case it's a music server. I'd hate to rerip and reencode.
post #20 of 23

Storage

Neither would I! A RAID10 is a 4-drive array that is really meant for workstations that constantly have disk-intensive workloads (and in those cases a RAID5 or even RAID50 may be more appopriate). In my personal rig I use a Seagate SCSI 36GB 15.3 for the OS and apps and another SCSI 18GB 15.3 for the swap file and Ghost images. The Seagate 15.3s are actually very quiet and even approach the low noise-floor of the IDE 7200RPM drives. My data is stored on 2 Hitachi 250GB SATA drives in a RAID1. I have a Plextor PX-708A DVDRW and Plextor Premium 52/32/52 CDRW each on their own ATA channel as a master. Weee!
post #21 of 23
er, my bad - i reversed raid 0 and 1; how embarassing.

btw, i edit video, so i notice the difference.
post #22 of 23

My comment as amateur, not specialist. FLAC files come in different file resolutions, if the resolution of your CD is the same as the FLAC the sound will be the same, if the FLAC has a higher bit rate then the sound would be much better but you need a DAC that can decode the file.

The conts on the CDs are: damages, losing the cd, no back up, etc.

post #23 of 23

You shouldn't notice a difference between the two formats in SQ if you are ripping from your CD collection.  The source is the same and the format is loss-less.  Any differences will come down to the player. FLAC is just more portable, so get ripping!

 

Now to storage....

 

As a guy with a network degree,  I vote for 3 SATA drive RAID 5 and hot swap-able hdd cages with status lights for each drive. Data access speeds matter and if one drive fails it just keeps running.  Just replace the one with the status light that is out. If done right there would be no need to even turn of the computer. It will rebuild the data on the fly. It wouldn't be that expensive and you can use 2.5 laptop drives with it and fit the entire array and cage in a single 5.25 bay. Just look at it occasionally.

 

Personally my old system, before MP3 players, involved taking the original CD, making a copy, storing the original, then making all further copies off the 1st gen copy.  I had a stack of original CD's that had only been caressed by a laser a single time.  Then a stack of first gen copies I used only to make further copies (only used in the computer), then the second gen copies that were listened to and occasionally stolen.  I only really got annoyed if someone stole an original.

 

Ripping it to FLAC and storing the original and a copy of it seem simpler in comparison.

 

 

If you are really paranoid.....

 

Use a pair of rackmount servers running Linux configured in a failover cluster each configured as followed.

 

Dual redundant hot swappable power supplies

3 or more sata drives in hot-swappable cages with seperate status lights configured as a RAID 5 array

dual gigabit ethernet cards connected to seperate routers, just configure each of them to use a different IP range within your subnet.

 

Ideally these should be placed in a bomb shelter you will create under your house.   With enough backup power to keep them and your precious backup media player safe for a long period of time.   Just in case the world really does end on 12/15/2012....   With this set-up it would take multiple failures for the music to stop. The music must flow.

 

 

Quick overview of RAID

 

RAID 0 is an array with two or more drives in a striped array (twice as fast as a single drive)

RAID 1 is two or more drives in a mirrored array (same speed but twice as safe)

RAID 10 is two RAID 0 arrays placed into a RAID 1 array. (4 drive minimum, combination of the above)

RAID 5 is a three disk or more striped array using parity information spread across all drives.  It can rebuild the information on the fly if a single drive fails.  You only lose data if multiple drives fail. It is slower than RAID 0 at the same number of drives but faster than RAID 10.

RAID 50 would be two raid 5 arrays in a raid 0 configuration,  which I've never seen.

 

Edit:  Of course you should still burn backup discs....  what if your collection of CD's gets destroyed and then your server/s gets hit by an electromagnetic pulse.... eek.gif  optical discs will keep it safe.   biggrin.gif


Edited by cheapfi - 11/6/12 at 7:43pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home