Grass Valley Forums Facebook   Twitter   YouTube  

Go Back   Grass Valley Forums > Editors > Editing with EDIUS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-29-2020, 03:59 PM   #11
DigitalDave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Basildon UK
Posts: 2,373
Default

You have to take on board the utter complacency and stupidity of what I did to cause this.
My only saving grace was I knew that everything there was backed up, with the exception of a couple of odd folders, onto seperate Sata drives and the latest project files were in the C Drive backup. Two large multicam projects of pro shows, that are on-going were backed up to externals as well.

With regard to UFS, it may well be that because the raid was on the controller, and seen as one drive, I didnt need the Raid version (about 60 more) What I can tell you was that all of the other software was double the price of UFS raid. Reclaime for example was $200. They are a bit slimmy. The free version will produce an XML to load into the $200 version. However the free Raid version said it couldnt see the raid. I asked their support team who said just use use the $200 version. Others were a similar price for a one year license and some didnt mention raids.
UFS just did what it said on the tin. I am very grateful to Bern for the heads up.

Incidentally two quotes from UK recovery companies, 1500 from one and 3500 from another who said they would not recommend re-using the raid drives and wanted to replace the Raid Drives on top even though this was a software (deleted volume) not hardware related. Parasites for sure complete with a skip full of bu$$sh!t.
A great way to start our lockdown for sure.
DigitalDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2020, 06:48 PM   #12
BernH
Senior Member
 
BernH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: St. John's, NL, Canada
Posts: 1,650
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalDave View Post
You have to take on board the utter complacency and stupidity of what I did to cause this.
My only saving grace was I knew that everything there was backed up, with the exception of a couple of odd folders, onto seperate Sata drives and the latest project files were in the C Drive backup. Two large multicam projects of pro shows, that are on-going were backed up to externals as well.

With regard to UFS, it may well be that because the raid was on the controller, and seen as one drive, I didnt need the Raid version (about 60 more) What I can tell you was that all of the other software was double the price of UFS raid. Reclaime for example was $200. They are a bit slimmy. The free version will produce an XML to load into the $200 version. However the free Raid version said it couldnt see the raid. I asked their support team who said just use use the $200 version. Others were a similar price for a one year license and some didnt mention raids.
UFS just did what it said on the tin. I am very grateful to Bern for the heads up.

Incidentally two quotes from UK recovery companies, 1500 from one and 3500 from another who said they would not recommend re-using the raid drives and wanted to replace the Raid Drives on top even though this was a software (deleted volume) not hardware related. Parasites for sure complete with a skip full of bu$$sh!t.
A great way to start our lockdown for sure.
Hey Dave, as I'm sure you are aware, based on some of my other posts. I spent about 15 tears working for a Pro A/V dealer, building, selling servicing, and training in the the use of NLE and DAW systems, and now about 11 years as the in house deliverables/IT/tech support guy for a post house. I have used UFS explorer several times to recover data on various file systems from drives and arrays with hardware failure as well as ones that are related to user error like in your case. As you said, it just 'does exactly what it says on the tin'. I don't know if you would have been able to use the cheaper non-raid version or not, as the version I have used is the top end one.

Unlike the companies you mentioned, I would never recommend replacing the drives if the problem is user error, and likewise if the problem is caused by a single failed drive, I would normally only recommend replacing that drive if the rest check out fine based on S.M.A.R.T tests and surface scans. I do, however, always recommend that you have a spare drive of the same capacity (preferably even the same make, model, and firmware revision) handy, or can get one quickly, just in case a drive goes down, so it can be replaced and the RAID allowed to rebuild itself. I also do recommend replacing all the drives periodically as the hours start to rack up on them, and you get closer to the MTBF numbers.

For reference to you and Rick, just in case you are not aware of it, RAID 5 is not a dangerous setup, as long as you have that spare drive handy, and as I will allude to below can, in a way, be considered safer than a single drive due to the built in CRC/parity checks, depending on how you view the predictive statistics.

RAID 5 requires a minimum of 3 drives. On each data write, the data is striped across all but one of the drives, then a CRC/parity calculation is done on that write pass, and the answer to that calculation is then written on the drive that did not get used in the main write function. On the next write function the whole process is repeated, but with a rotation on what drives are used for data vs. CRC. This is what causes the "distributed parity" feature of a RAID 5.

There are 2 schools of though on a RAID vs. single drive, and it really boils down to how you want to look at the statistics.

One point of view says that a single drive is better because less drives mean fewer chances of a drive failing and causing data loss, but this view does not really take into account the redundancy offered by the parity drive and the ability to replace a failed drive, rebuild the array and theoretically suffer no data loss assuming your CRC calculations are correct.

The other point of view is that no matter how drives you have in the array versus a single drive, when looked at based on MTBF ratings, the odds that any one drive will fail (array or stand alone) is the same.

It's basically the same as buying a lotto ticket. Only one winning ticket (drive failure) is drawn, so more tickes (drives) means more chances but the odds of any one ticket being drawn are the same.

A RAID 5 setup, due to the distribution of data across drives, also gives better read performance than a single drive, but slower write performance due to the "write hole" caused by the CRC calculation

If you are spending money on a proper RAID setup for video work, I would recommend a minimum of RAID 5, with RAID 6 being a better option (similar to RAID 5, but uses double CRC/parity drives, allowing for 2 drives to fail before data loss), and if you really need performance a RAID 50 or 60 (basically 2 or more RAID 5's or RAID 6's that have a RAID-0 , a.k.a. stripe, applied on top of them to improve performance further) RAID 50 or 60 are the common setups for large shared storage SAN's.

If you don't want to spend the money on a hardware RAID controller, a RAID 0 as an option for performance, but offers no redundancy in the event of a drive failure, so you must make regular manual backup, which of course is recommended even with a RAIS 5/6 setup, since it is faster to copy a file back from a backup, than it is to restore the array.

With that last point being said about backups, if you do have a relatively current one and you have to use UFS explorer or the like to recover files in the event of an issue, you don't necessarily have to recover all the data. You can just recover what is newer than your backup and then copy the backup and the newly recovered files back to the rebuilt RAID. This may have saved a bit of time for Dave, but if if you don't know what is newer, it is safer to just recover everything.

There are several detailed explanations about RAID setups/levels available on
the net if you want to read up about how the drives are used. Depending on the purpose of the array, sometimes something other than RAID 5/6/50/60 may be desirable, such as a RAID 1/3/4/10/30/40...
__________________
Edius WG 9.52.5886, various 3rd party plugins, VisTitle 2.8.0.5, Win 7 Ultimate SP1, i7-4790K @ 4GHz with HD4600 GPU embedded, MSI Z97 Gaming 7 Motherboard, 32GB Kingston HyperX RAM, nVidia GTX680 4GB GPU, Matrox MX02 Mini MAX, Corsair 750W PSU, Corsair H110i GT Water Cooler, Corsair C70 case, 4TB Internal RAID 0/stripe (2x2TB Seagate SATAIII HDD's, Win7 Software RAID 0/stripe), 1TB Crucial MX500 SSD, Pioneer BDR-207D, Dual 1920x1080 monitors (one on GTX680 and one on Intel HD4600).
BernH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
 
Go Back   Grass Valley Forums > Editors > Editing with EDIUS
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel Raid oder Windows Raid? msteini3 EDIUS: Compatible Hardware and Accessories 0 01-01-2016 10:31 PM
deleted file recovery Daan1 EDIUS: Compatible Third Party Products 9 01-30-2012 11:26 AM
Oooppss .. I deleted unfortunately :=( nitrococuk Editing with EDIUS 13 10-03-2009 07:38 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:15 AM.


Copyright 2014 Belden Inc. All rights reserved.