Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

How 4 Microsoft engineers proved that the “darknet” would defeat DRM

<< < (6/10) > >>

Carol Haynes:
Best solution for a media server would be simple JBOD - just turns any old bunch of disks into one apparently enormous disk.

40hz:
Best solution for a media server would be simple JBOD - just turns any old bunch of disks into one apparently enormous disk.
-Carol Haynes (December 03, 2012, 10:25 AM)
--- End quote ---

JBOD is one approach in that media serves really need to have a "scale-out" (ala GlusterFS) as opposed to "scale-up" capability since you never know how much space and resources you'll need until you need it. And being able to add it piecemeal and as needed is the most cost effective way to do it. Especially since there won't be anything on most media servers that can't be replaced/reloaded relatively easily.
 :Thmbsup:

tslim:
If you are talking about RAID 0, again a synchronizing  program which synchronizes between a pair of 2TB HDD periodically seems to be a better solution then RAID 0, because you can copy file to the HDD faster.-tslim (December 02, 2012, 08:37 AM)
--- End quote ---
Eh... wat? Copying a file to a single harddrive is no faster than copying it to a raid mirror. The same data chunk can be written to all mirrored drives in parallel, and there's practically no CPU overhead. There's a fair amount of filesystem traversal (which means both CPU and HDD overhead) if you do periodic syncing.

-f0dder (December 03, 2012, 09:36 AM)
--- End quote ---

"There's a fair amount of filesystem traversal (which means both CPU and HDD overhead) if you do periodic syncing."
Are you implying the act of transferring data to RAID O mirrors is not HDD overhead and do not required CPU?

1. If there is practically no CPU overhead, then who starts the copy of data to all the mirrors? Are we talking about hardware raid or software raid here? Have you practically experience running Windows on RAID 0 and compare that to running on a single HDD? Man... try it and I can assure you the difference.

2. Using synchronizing program means resource consumption is irrelevant, you just need to to schedule it at the right time.

wraith808:
Just curious, why don't you rip your DVDs and keep them in ISO format (like I do)?
If you convert them into mp4 format, you tend to loss quality, further more what about the DVD startup menu? Are you doing your own authoring work?

May I also ask this, what is the advantage of keeping a movie in mp4 format contained in a mkv file than directly keep it as mp4 file? (Isn't mp4 file sort of container by itself?)
-tslim (December 03, 2012, 07:36 AM)
--- End quote ---

1. All players don't support mounting ISOs.  MKV is the format that I chose that works on everything I want to use it for.  
2. I'm not encoding it- I'm transcoding it (and that should be mpeg2, not mp4).  There is a small difference in size because MakeMKV strips out the extraneous information.  But it's not compressed.  
3. There's also a difference in size because I don't get audio and subtitle tracks I don't need.  I only speak English, so I don't need spanish, chinese, etc... this lets me do that.
4. I don't have the menus- in fact, I don't want them.  I just want to click a file and it start playing.

40hz:
@Wraith - ever consider doing a how-to or thread on how to do all this?

There's plenty up on the web - but most of it seems directed at the media/home theater aficionado and not the ordinary viewer who is just looking for a simple approach like yours.
 :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page