What format are you guys using to rip DVDs and blu rays. I haven't finished my lifelong project of ripping all of my dvds and was going to try to make a decent dent in it now that I have the ReadyNAS. I was using .mkv previously, but I'd like something that I can stream from the NAS plex server to my Xbox One without any transcoding (not sure if the Xbox One supports .mkv, but I doubt it).
Free tech
452,580 Views |
2581 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by tfunk02
lol, "rip"
Is that not the term anymore?
Or are you referencing torrenting them, because yeah, most of the time it would be so much easier to just torrent all of my legally owned movies/tv shows.
Or are you referencing torrenting them, because yeah, most of the time it would be so much easier to just torrent all of my legally owned movies/tv shows.
quote:quote:that article applies to using 1 disk to protect 6 other in a 7 disk array.
Another point about RAID 5 or 6 being or becoming pointless can be found in the following article. It lays out the mathematics of how at a certain capacity threshold a lost disk will probably result in an array failure due to the probability of a URE during the rebuild. Of course this applies mainly if you are hitting 12TB or more capacity.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-5-stops-working-in-2009/162
ETA: WD Red drives do indeed specify 10^14 URE rate.
the risk of this being a problem on a 4 disk array would be magnitudes lower.
The only number affected by the number of drives is the probability of losing a drive. So you have an about 12% chance of losing a drive the first year with a four disk array as opposed to seven.
The probability of a URE is based on your capacity and the drive spec only.
quote:quote:If you don't care at all about redundancy, and all you care about is capacity and performance, RAID0 is the way to go. There's little hope of recovery if a drive fails, but if you have everything adequately backed up elsewhere, you may not care about that.quote:
I finally picked up a second 1TB WD Red NAS disk
I popped it in and the NAS is setting it up into a RAID1 configuration right now. If I've heard correctly though I have to wait until this is done, then manually switch it over to a RAID0.
Why do you want to use RAID0?
I understand that. I am just amazed that people care more about a bit of performance overall versus the risk to data.
I understand - different strokes for different folks.....
quote:i got ya. so the risk for an array of four 3TB drive in Raid5 would have the same risk as an array of seven 2TB drives? yeah, that's a little scary.quote:quote:that article applies to using 1 disk to protect 6 other in a 7 disk array.
Another point about RAID 5 or 6 being or becoming pointless can be found in the following article. It lays out the mathematics of how at a certain capacity threshold a lost disk will probably result in an array failure due to the probability of a URE during the rebuild. Of course this applies mainly if you are hitting 12TB or more capacity.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-5-stops-working-in-2009/162
ETA: WD Red drives do indeed specify 10^14 URE rate.
the risk of this being a problem on a 4 disk array would be magnitudes lower.
The only number affected by the number of drives is the probability of losing a drive. So you have an about 12% chance of losing a drive the first year with a four disk array as opposed to seven.
The probability of a URE is based on your capacity and the drive spec only.
I'm gonna ask one of our data center engineers about this and see what they've done. That article is way old, I'm guessing they have some sort of fix.
quote:most people, myself included, have a hard time justifying doubling their cost to reduce a risk that is already incredibly small. I'm not sure of the math, but with 2 disks in RAID0 your risk of one failing should be <10% per year. I know at least for myself I highly doubt I'll be using the same disks for more than 2 or 3 years.quote:quote:If you don't care at all about redundancy, and all you care about is capacity and performance, RAID0 is the way to go. There's little hope of recovery if a drive fails, but if you have everything adequately backed up elsewhere, you may not care about that.quote:
I finally picked up a second 1TB WD Red NAS disk
I popped it in and the NAS is setting it up into a RAID1 configuration right now. If I've heard correctly though I have to wait until this is done, then manually switch it over to a RAID0.
Why do you want to use RAID0?
I understand that. I am just amazed that people care more about a bit of performance overall versus the risk to data.
I understand - different strokes for different folks.....
The cost to add capacity is tiny. 2 TB drive for $95?
Loss of data is huge to me. Gaining a few Mb/sec is absolutely meaningless to me. I have 20 years of family photographs. 9000 pieces of music. Hundreds of movies. All are backed up elsewhere or could be recreated, but if I lost my music were lost I'd have weeks of work to recreate those files.
You think a 10% chance of loss of data is acceptable?
I expect drives to last 5 years or more. I also will replace one only when it is too small or failing.
Loss of data is huge to me. Gaining a few Mb/sec is absolutely meaningless to me. I have 20 years of family photographs. 9000 pieces of music. Hundreds of movies. All are backed up elsewhere or could be recreated, but if I lost my music were lost I'd have weeks of work to recreate those files.
You think a 10% chance of loss of data is acceptable?
I expect drives to last 5 years or more. I also will replace one only when it is too small or failing.
quote:if I had as much stored as you do, especially the photos, I'd probably care more about redundancy.
The cost to add capacity is tiny. 2 TB drive for $95?
Loss of data is huge to me. Gaining a few Mb/sec is absolutely meaningless to me. I have 20 years of family photographs. 9000 pieces of music. Hundreds of movies. All are backed up elsewhere or could be recreated, but if I lost my music were lost I'd have weeks of work to recreate those files.
You think a 10% chance of loss of data is acceptable?
I lost several years worth of photos once a few years ago when someone stole my laptop, I was far more devastated by the loss of the photos than the loss of the laptop.
see if William will send a second nas and you can test offsite replication...
quote:quote:if I had as much stored as you do, especially the photos, I'd probably care more about redundancy.
The cost to add capacity is tiny. 2 TB drive for $95?
Loss of data is huge to me. Gaining a few Mb/sec is absolutely meaningless to me. I have 20 years of family photographs. 9000 pieces of music. Hundreds of movies. All are backed up elsewhere or could be recreated, but if I lost my music were lost I'd have weeks of work to recreate those files.
You think a 10% chance of loss of data is acceptable?
I lost several years worth of photos once a few years ago when someone stole my laptop, I was far more devastated by the loss of the photos than the loss of the laptop.
I see your point. I'm using the NAS exclusively for onsite backup, and for streaming a bit of media (which is also saved in my PC). So, if I lose the NAS, I just lose my backup; it's not primary storage for me.
In my 20+ years of building and running PCs, I've had seemingly more motherboard and RAM failures than harddrive failures. Even if you have everything mirrored in RAID1, what happens if you lose the NAS itself? You can't just plug the drives into a windows PC. How difficult would that be to recover from (other than buying an identical NAS to plug them in to)?
In my 20+ years of building and running PCs, I've had seemingly more motherboard and RAM failures than harddrive failures. Even if you have everything mirrored in RAID1, what happens if you lose the NAS itself? You can't just plug the drives into a windows PC. How difficult would that be to recover from (other than buying an identical NAS to plug them in to)?
has a 3 year warranty.
One thing to keep in mind is that any RAID redundancy should be treated as fault tolerance, not a backup solution. Nothing replaces a robust backup solution.
That said, RAID5 does provide a performance increase in the READ department of the number of drives minus one minus controller overhead. You do not get an increase in the WRITE department, but you do get the fault tolerance.
RAID0 you get READ/WRITE performance increase times the number of drives minus controller overhead but no fault tolerance.
RAID10 would give you an in between (half performance, half capacity, plus fault tolerance).
I don't see the READ performance being a significant enough boost in real numbers (not percentages) to justify forgoing fault tolerance. Only if for some reason you need a significant WRITE performance boost could I see choosing RAID0.
That said, RAID5 does provide a performance increase in the READ department of the number of drives minus one minus controller overhead. You do not get an increase in the WRITE department, but you do get the fault tolerance.
RAID0 you get READ/WRITE performance increase times the number of drives minus controller overhead but no fault tolerance.
RAID10 would give you an in between (half performance, half capacity, plus fault tolerance).
I don't see the READ performance being a significant enough boost in real numbers (not percentages) to justify forgoing fault tolerance. Only if for some reason you need a significant WRITE performance boost could I see choosing RAID0.
For what it's worth, should Suddenlink deliver later this year and next, B/CS market testers would be great for the Em500V cable modems, or the HMG7000 media gateway or the C7000B media gateway...
quote:
I see your point. I'm using the NAS exclusively for onsite backup, and for streaming a bit of media (which is also saved in my PC). So, if I lose the NAS, I just lose my backup; it's not primary storage for me.
In my 20+ years of building and running PCs, I've had seemingly more motherboard and RAM failures than harddrive failures. Even if you have everything mirrored in RAID1, what happens if you lose the NAS itself? You can't just plug the drives into a windows PC. How difficult would that be to recover from (other than buying an identical NAS to plug them in to)?
We all have our different experiences I suppose with PC hardware. I have been building PCs for about as long as you.
#1 failure - fans
#2 hard drives
#3 RAM
#4 video cards
#5 motherboards
Only hard drive failures cause loss of data (RAM or motherboard might corrupt data, but not much). I think performance these days is more than adequate for every need I have. That's why my main PC is happily running an overclocked Q6600 processor. It is still "snappy" and more than fast enough to edit video.
Raid0 guarantees data loss if a drive fails. Data is less likely to be available than a single drive of the same total capacity.
I understand everyone has different priorities. But I have a lot of important "stuff" in my computers. And I would rather not spend hours recovering it if possible. Saving a few milliseconds isn't important to me anymore.
quote:
Only hard drive failures cause loss of data (RAM or motherboard might corrupt data, but not much). I think performance these days is more than adequate for every need I have.
Keep in mind if you lose a motherboard and you are using onboard RAID controllers, there is a high chance you will lose your RAID array.
drive failure considerations also become more important if you plan on using the same drive for a long time.
The drives in my deskop gets replaced every 2 years at the absolute minimum. My NAS will probably be similar, maybe slightly longer since there's ultimately going to be 4 drives to replace.
The drives in my deskop gets replaced every 2 years at the absolute minimum. My NAS will probably be similar, maybe slightly longer since there's ultimately going to be 4 drives to replace.
i think the point of a lot of this is that relying on RAID for saving your data is better than nothing, but still shouldn't be trusted.
if it's important, back it up.
Fault tolerance is not the same thing as redundancy, not by a long shot.
Our data centers have all kinds of fancy RAID configurations I'm sure, and they also have 2 or more completely redundant backups as well.
if it's important, back it up.
Fault tolerance is not the same thing as redundancy, not by a long shot.
Our data centers have all kinds of fancy RAID configurations I'm sure, and they also have 2 or more completely redundant backups as well.
quote:
Only hard drive failures cause loss of data (RAM or motherboard might corrupt data, but not much). I
My point is how do you plan to recover the data if you lose the NAS, if the mobo/ram/cpu/whatever fails, and you're left with a dead box. I have the same question if I lose my RAID5, but I'm not as concerned with the data, so I can start from scratch.
With your mirrored RAID1 setup, is it as simple as installing linux in a virtual machine on a PC so you can mount your drives?
quote:quote:
Only hard drive failures cause loss of data (RAM or motherboard might corrupt data, but not much). I
My point is how do you plan to recover the data if you lose the NAS, if the mobo/ram/cpu/whatever fails, and you're left with a dead box. I have the same question if I lose my RAID5, but I'm not as concerned with the data, so I can start from scratch.
With your mirrored RAID1 setup, is it as simple as installing linux in a virtual machine on a PC so you can mount your drives?
If you lost the NAS, you would have to purchase another and mount the drives in the same bays and hope the RAID controller in the new NAS can read the configuration. Otherwise your data is probably gone without expensive data recovery.
If you missed out on the RN104 it's on sale at Frys for $170... not a bad deal.
http://www.frys.com/product/7665537?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG
http://www.frys.com/product/7665537?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG
quote:
With your mirrored RAID1 setup, is it as simple as installing linux in a virtual machine on a PC so you can mount your drives?
Some of us are not nearly that competent!
Ok. With all this talk on the RAID Set up, I am still confused on the best setup to go with. I did order the 4 drives from Newegg and they will be here today. I planned on setting it up today. I am looking to have it set up so that it has 6 tb of space, with the other two drives mirroring the information. I am guessing that this will be more than enough space. I am the same in that the information that will be on the drives is important and that I want to make sure that it is available if a drive fails.
Which is the best RAID set up for this type of configuration?
Which is the best RAID set up for this type of configuration?
quote:
Ok. With all this talk on the RAID Set up, I am still confused on the best setup to go with. I did order the 4 drives from Newegg and they will be here today. I planned on setting it up today. I am looking to have it set up so that it has 6 tb of space, with the other two drives mirroring the information. I am guessing that this will be more than enough space. I am the same in that the information that will be on the drives is important and that I want to make sure that it is available if a drive fails.
Which is the best RAID set up for this type of configuration?
What size drives?
quote:I believe the 4 drive deal was for 3 TB drives.quote:
Ok. With all this talk on the RAID Set up, I am still confused on the best setup to go with. I did order the 4 drives from Newegg and they will be here today. I planned on setting it up today. I am looking to have it set up so that it has 6 tb of space, with the other two drives mirroring the information. I am guessing that this will be more than enough space. I am the same in that the information that will be on the drives is important and that I want to make sure that it is available if a drive fails.
Which is the best RAID set up for this type of configuration?
What size drives?
It is 4 3tb drives
Has anyone heard back on the 4G router project?
quote:
It is 4 3tb drives
You choice...
RAID 10 (mirrored and striped) - Good performance READ/WRITE (both normal and degraded during a recovery), good fault tolerance, you only get 50% of your purchased capacity. 6TB
RAID 5 (striped with parity) - Better READ performance during normal operation, horribly degraded performance during a recovery. Good fault tolerance. You get 75% of your purchased capacity. 8TB
quote:
What format are you guys using to rip DVDs and blu rays. I haven't finished my lifelong project of ripping all of my dvds and was going to try to make a decent dent in it now that I have the ReadyNAS. I was using .mkv previously, but I'd like something that I can stream from the NAS plex server to my Xbox One without any transcoding (not sure if the Xbox One supports .mkv, but I doubt it).
I rip mine. Don't care about what people call it.
I use DVDFab which decrypts them and puts them in whatever format you want. I create ISO images, which are bit perfect. Correct me if something changed, but I think Plex ALWAYS transcodes.
There are some interesting things about ISO files. My WD TV Live plays them perfectly, but only when acessed via a network share (NAS works). Cannot use DLNA.
PLEX doesn't transcode on many of the NAS units out there as they can't support it CPU wise.
I have a Synology and NEGEAR both that have PLEX with no transcoding.
I have a Synology and NEGEAR both that have PLEX with no transcoding.
quote:Did you use the RN104 as a plex server to the WDTV?quote:
What format are you guys using to rip DVDs and blu rays. I haven't finished my lifelong project of ripping all of my dvds and was going to try to make a decent dent in it now that I have the ReadyNAS. I was using .mkv previously, but I'd like something that I can stream from the NAS plex server to my Xbox One without any transcoding (not sure if the Xbox One supports .mkv, but I doubt it).
I rip mine. Don't care about what people call it.
I use DVDFab which decrypts them and puts them in whatever format you want. I create ISO images, which are bit perfect. Correct me if something changed, but I think Plex ALWAYS transcodes.
There are some interesting things about ISO files. My WD TV Live plays them perfectly, but only when acessed via a network share (NAS works). Cannot use DLNA.
I may have to try that, because I would prefer ISOs so that I could still have access to the special features of some disks.
quote:I think recovery is more important that the additional space. 6 tb is a lot of room. I was originally planning on a WD Cloud drive that was 3 tb before getting this, so I am still getting twice the space that I was originally planning on any way.
RAID 10 (mirrored and striped) - Good performance READ/WRITE (both normal and degraded during a recovery), good fault tolerance, you only get 50% of your purchased capacity. 6TB
RAID 5 (striped with parity) - Better READ performance during normal operation, horribly degraded performance during a recovery. Good fault tolerance. You get 75% of your purchased capacity. 8TB
If anybody missed out on the ReadyNAS and wants to pick one up, here's a good deal:
http://slickdeals.net/f/7253544-netgear-readynas-104-4-bay-diskless-network-storage-169-after-40-rebate-free-shipping?v=1
http://slickdeals.net/f/7253544-netgear-readynas-104-4-bay-diskless-network-storage-169-after-40-rebate-free-shipping?v=1
I've ripped mine using Handbrake, with libdvdcss installed to get around the copy protection, and saved them in the MP4 container. I'll have to check my other settings at home.
I can access them through the Plex media server on the RN104, and they stream through the DLNA app on my Panasonic Viera just fine.
I can access them through the Plex media server on the RN104, and they stream through the DLNA app on my Panasonic Viera just fine.
Aggball2010
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
64
Angry Beaver
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
61
AeroAg2012
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
52
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
43
Andrew13
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
38
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
33
Another Doug
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
31
therealnick05
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
30
Harry Stone
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
30
missinAggieland
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
29
RafterAg223
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
27
sealyag
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
25