<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/20/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Yeechang Lee</b> <<a href="mailto:ylee@pobox.com">ylee@pobox.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Debabrata Banerjee <<a href="mailto:davatar@comcast.net">davatar@comcast.net</a>> says:<br>> I already have several other raid arrays in my myth box for other<br>> purposes, I am quite sure this is not what I want.
<br><br><br>> If I suppose nothing to meet these requirements exist, this could be<br>> easily implemented in mythtv, actually it 'sort of' does it right<br>> now if you use multiple backends with storage. It just can't manage
<br>> the storage and can't have more than one per server.<br><br>Correct; 0.20 is set to add multiple storage locations per backend and<br>will thus essentialy do what you are looking to achieve (wilingness to<br>accept the possibility of losing part, but not necessarily all,
<br>recordings if a disk goes down).<br><br>I'm even more cavaliar about my recordings than Debabrata is; my 2TB<br>NAS uses RAID 1, not RAID 5, so if any of the four disks goes it takes<br>the whole array down with it. I've thought about using RAID 5 on it as
<br>my 2.8TB array does but I can use the extra capacity and hey, we're<br>only talking about TV. It'd get filled up again within three months,<br>anyway; that's how long it took to get filled up the first time<br>around, and ever since it's been a never-ending battle to free up
<br>enough space for the next day's worth of recordings.<br><br>> RAID is slow, complicated, wasteful, and overkill for myth. A single<br>> disk can handle many streams of video. A fault-tolerant filesystem<br>> and JBOD is what I want.
<br>><br>> *sigh*<br><br>Since Debabrata is apparently polite enough to leave his frustration<br>to a single sigh, let me take up the fallen banner of reading<br>comprehension. In this case we had not one, not two, but *three*
<br>geniuses who simply didn't bother to, you know, actually *read the<br>message*. The roll of honor includes:<br><br>* Tom Lichti, who blithely suggests Debabrata try RAID 5 without<br> noticing that Debabrata explictly says he didn't want to use RAID.
<br>* Rod, who gives the "Did you Google" answer (a quite appropriate one<br> in many circumstances, I agree) and then suggests a filesystem that<br> a) doesn't do what Debabrata wants to do at all and<br> b) in any case has a complexity that is completely inappropriate to
<br> the simple-is-better thrust of Debabrata's message.<br>* Chris Henderson, who like Tom also suggests RAID 5 without<br> comprehending what Debabrata is asking (and not asking)<br> for--completely with the requisite condescending "Um"--and then
<br> "helpfully" gives a long lecture on what RAID is.<br><br>Bravo, gentlemen. Bravo.</blockquote><div><br>Hi <br></div></div><br>I have actully just deleted a long letter to you telling you. <br><br>In the letter/email i treid to expalin I was only trying to help and If i may have come off condescending, I appologise.
<br>But I deleted the letter, cos in the posts I relised that I was trying to help and I then tried to explain my thinking but you took that as a lecture.<br><br>So I guess I have two choices:<br>1) Help where I can <br>2) Dont cos of post like this
<br><br>But I will try and help, as I can't help develop this product then I will do this. Isint this why we are all here?<br><br>I guess the wheel turns, I may have not fullyunderstood the "polite enough to leave his frustration to a single sigh," in the post.
<br>I really hope that one day you make a simmilar mistake and somebody better than me holds you up in font of this board and points at you and this post and laughs at you.<br><br>But i will take your "educational letter" on board.
<br><br><br>Thanks for your time.<br><br>*sigh*<br><br>CH<br><br>