+- Kodi Community Forum (https://forum.kodi.tv)
+-- Forum: Discussions (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=222)
+--- Forum: Kodi related discussions (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Native Object-Based Storage Support for XBMC (/showthread.php?tid=183747)
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - Milhouse - 2014-01-22
You keep banging on about RAID5/6, is that all you know about? It does at least demonstrate the limits of your knowledge. I'm done, waste of electrons this is...
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - jacintech.fire - 2014-01-22
(2014-01-22, 18:05)MilhouseVH Wrote: You keep banging on about RAID5/6, is that all you know about? It does at least demonstrate the limits of your knowledge. I'm done, waste of electrons this is...
Level Minimum Disks Improved Speed? Increased Space? Failsafe
RAID 0 2 Yes Yes No
RAID 1 2 No No Yes(1)
RAID 2 6 Yes Yes Yes(1)
RAID 3 4 Yes Yes No
RAID 4 4 Yes Yes Yes(1)
RAID 5 4 Yes Yes Yes(1)
RAID 6 5 Yes Yes Yes(2)
Again, one just one example in which my setup (as applied to XBMC ONLY. outside of that narrow description it is the dumbest thing ever created, and I should be shot) becomes a nightmare...
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - Milhouse - 2014-01-22
Like I said, you don't know much about RAID if you think that's all there is - thanks for proving that.
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - jacintech.fire - 2014-01-22
(2014-01-22, 18:16)MilhouseVH Wrote: Like I said, you don't know much about RAID if you think that's all there is - thanks for proving that.
RAID 0 (also known as a stripe set or striped volume) splits data evenly across two or more disks (striped) without parity information for speed
RAID 1 An exact copy (or mirror) of a set of data on two disks.
RAID 2 stripes data at the bit (rather than block) level, and uses a Hamming code for error correction. The disks are synchronized by the controller to spin at the same angular orientation
RAID 3 uses byte-level striping with a dedicated parity disk. RAID 3 is very rare in practice. One of the characteristics of RAID 3 is that it generally cannot service multiple requests simultaneously.
A RAID 4 uses block-level striping with a dedicated parity disk.
RAID 5 comprises block-level striping with distributed parity. Unlike in RAID 4, parity information is distributed among the drives.
RAID 6 extends RAID 5 by adding an additional parity block; thus it uses block-level striping with two parity blocks distributed across all member disks.
Did I miss anything...?
(2014-01-22, 18:16)MilhouseVH Wrote: Like I said, you don't know much about RAID if you think that's all there is - thanks for proving that.RAID 0 (also known as a stripe set or striped volume) splits data evenly across two or more disks (striped) without parity information for speed
RAID 1 An exact copy (or mirror) of a set of data on two disks.
RAID 2 stripes data at the bit (rather than block) level, and uses a Hamming code for error correction. The disks are synchronized by the controller to spin at the same angular orientation
RAID 3 uses byte-level striping with a dedicated parity disk. RAID 3 is very rare in practice. One of the characteristics of RAID 3 is that it generally cannot service multiple requests simultaneously.
A RAID 4 uses block-level striping with a dedicated parity disk.
RAID 5 comprises block-level striping with distributed parity. Unlike in RAID 4, parity information is distributed among the drives.
RAID 6 extends RAID 5 by adding an additional parity block; thus it uses block-level striping with two parity blocks distributed across all member disks.
Did I miss anything...?
Once Again, one just one example in which my setup (as applied to XBMC ONLY. outside of that narrow description it is the dumbest thing ever created, and I should be shot) becomes a nightmare...
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - n1md4 - 2014-01-22
This is ludicrious! There was 1 question in the OP:-
What was asked
(2014-01-18, 18:45)jacintech.fire Wrote: My question is: Are there any plans for XBMC to support distributed, cloud storage mechanism that do not rely on the traditional File(s)/Directory(ies) mechanism of FTP, Samba, and the rest?
The question is about XBMC supporting a 'distruted, cloud storage mechanism'. Whether individuals agree with the method is irrelevant, to a point.
What's not being asked
Nothing about RAID, nothing about drive failures, nothing about advice on alternative storage. The question doesn't even ask about storage implementation, or on the design of the stack in question.
Situation
Simple question, really. Surely there is someone in these forums who knows a bit about how the internals of XBMC work, and what would be involved in producing a solution?!? ... a 25 page thread NOT answering a simple single question?!
Solution
Something along the lines of: "that would require jiggery-pokery of API X to communicate with thingy-majig B". I only point this out, as I'm actually interested in the answer ... obviously something with more intelligence than my lame commentary
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - Milhouse - 2014-01-22
(2014-01-22, 18:24)jacintech.fire Wrote: Did I miss anything...?
Yes, quite a bit actually. Try a few more Wikipedia searches - I'm sure you can come up with more levels than that.
However identifying more RAID levels and variations won't cover up the fact that you really don't know anything about data redundancy (RAID or otherwise) in large systems, yet you like to give the impression you know it all.
(2014-01-22, 18:33)n1md4 Wrote: This is ludicrious! There was 1 question in the OP:-
It was answered long ago: No.
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - n1md4 - 2014-01-22
(2014-01-22, 18:24)jacintech.fire Wrote: Did I miss anything...?
From the standard RAID levels, no. There are other RAIDs though; multiples on the standards and some exotic types, which I can only assume is being referred to here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-RAID_drive_architectures
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - jacintech.fire - 2014-01-22
@n1md4,
We are WAAAAAYYY past the Object Store discussion. That issue has been clarified as much as it will ever be; and I am quite happy with the results...
This is just a side show that can be safely ignored...
Outside of the narrow limits of a XBMC movie library, using 8x 16x 4x 1TB partion, with NO REDUNDANCY whatsoever is SHEER LUNACY and should not be discussed in polite company. THAT IS NOT AT ISSUE HERE.
The question is more narrow, Given the confine of a XBMC media library, is there an scenario under which 8x 16x 4x 1TB Media Library could turn into a nightmare, one that can be avoided with a different method. Further complicating things is the fact that (a) all original media is available in DVDs or BLURAY disks in case of trouble and (b) this setup has run for 3.5 years with ZERO loss..
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - n1md4 - 2014-01-22
(2014-01-22, 18:33)MilhouseVH Wrote:(2014-01-22, 18:33)n1md4 Wrote: This is ludicrious! There was 1 question in the OP:-
It was answered long ago: No.
Is that a no to a solution to the question anyway? Plans not to or otherwise.
[EDIT]
Shame, I was actually interested in a proposed solution!
Therefore, I'm out too.
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - jacintech.fire - 2014-01-22
(2014-01-22, 18:45)n1md4 Wrote:(2014-01-22, 18:33)MilhouseVH Wrote:(2014-01-22, 18:33)n1md4 Wrote: This is ludicrious! There was 1 question in the OP:-
It was answered long ago: No.
Is that a no to a solution to the question anyway? Plans not to or otherwise.
[EDIT]
Shame, I was actually interested in a proposed solution!
Therefore, I'm out too.
There are several suggestions. Go back a couple of pages. I am writting up the feature proposal now to submit it to the developer's forum...it will take me a few days to get it done...
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - T800 - 2014-01-22
Again, out of interest how many movies we talking about?
If it's enough to fill 1/4 of your server at 10GB per movie (10000 movies?) isnt all that time spent ripping worth backing up? Nevermind the 50000 hours of re-encoding?
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - jacintech.fire - 2014-01-22
(2014-01-22, 18:50)T800 Wrote: Again, out of interest how many movies we talking about?
If it's enough to fill 1/4 of your server at 10GB per movie (10000 movies?) isnt all that time spent ripping worth backing up? Nevermind the 50000 hours of re-encoding?
Per partition about 117, mixed as (650-750)MB mp4 and (6.0-10.0)GB mkv files.
If I lose one partition (the most likely scenario), worse case I would have to re-encode the MKV only. I can regenerate the mp4 from the existing mkv on another partition.
Additionally, at 3.5 years on, the chance of losing one partition, let alone a whole drive becomes increasingly statistically competitive with whaterver redundancy (for the price of storage) RAID can offer...
To quote a micro-economic principle, it's all about opportunity costs...and statistical probabilities...
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - Kib - 2014-01-22
Moved outside the support forum, as their is no support question here.
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - jacintech.fire - 2014-01-22
(2014-01-22, 19:06)Kib Wrote: Moved outside the support forum, as their is no support question here.
Please forgive my ignorance; but isn't this the "general discussion" forum...? If not, my apologies as I am trying to share my experiences and hopefully learn something new (despite of this being somewhat a side show)...
RE: URGENT: Object Store 512TB Array - Kib - 2014-01-22
I moved it to the general discussion forum from the support forum.