You're way over his head. He specified an LPTV station. I've seen LPTV stations -- complete -- sell for less than a mid-range house.
For LPTV, he only needs standard resolution NTSC, and not even digital delivery. But there are not many codecs available on Linux -- most are built for Windows, where sales volume can compensate the development effort.
Archiving is not much done in LPTV.
Only one channel is needed for transmission, if he finds the right decoder; two otherwise. Same again for preview (a function often overlooked by the uninitiated.)
One encoder is probably sufficient.
Expandability? LPTV folks don't spend *anything* on future requirements.
Reliability? He wouldn't know where to begin.
Development is something he clearly feels is a minor task. YMMV
Budget? We don't need no stinking budget!
As a matter of fact, there is at least one commercially available server with one record, two play, and a couple hundred hours of storage that can be had complete with internal automation for less than $25K.
Sure you can, but the question is, how long are they prepared to wait?
Building a server ie eminently feasible, but since most available encoders and decoders are designed for the Windows environment (where the sales volume is), you'll be hard-pressed to find drivers for Linux.
Better to attach the automation side, which is mostly a software problem. Given that you have any skill in designing complex software systems, and given, too, that you have a comprehensive understanding of the task at hand, you should be able to have a minimal system operable in a few weeks. But I say that as someone who has been in the television industry for over 30 years, and who has designed three generations of video server products.
I've also seen some real abortions designed by folks who thought they were smarter than the vendors, and who apparently place no value on their own time. That's not me, by the way, I do have a life.
Finally, I have never seen a home-brew software system that was competently documented, and delivering the tools without docs is an irresponsible act. You would be making yourself indispensable to the station's business, something for which no intelligent owner or manager will thank you.
Many folks think that writing an automation system would be fun. Few if any feel the same way about documenting it, either in the code, or on paper. That's why there are so many companies producing good commercial products.
But go ahead, knock yourself out. After a couple of years, you may have something barely capable of handling the LPTV market.
Your motivation? How is productivity as a motivation?
Delphi has been my tool of choice for the last 11 years. It remains the most productive development tool I have used.
Agile processes? Well, the build on a Delphi project is so quick, you don't have time to fill your coffee cup, much less drink it. So build/test cycles are fast.
The language is powerful, and a great foundation for those who choose to move to C#. The learning curve on C#, coming from Delphi, is pretty shallow.
But please, stay with your g++, and those glacially slow builds. I don't need more competition.
As usual, rather than address the substance of any criticism, the majority here, in continual denial of real market forces, attack the messenger.
The woman, whatever her past, makes some intelligent points, and has apparently had the support needed to gather data that is not within the reach of/.
Whether you like her or respect her, or abhor her, the points made are supported by a number of other reporters and surveys that have been taken over time. Linux has developed into a solid, useful tool, but it is not a clear winner over the alternatives. Linux and Windows have strengths and weaknesses. The only rational thing to do is to understand the relative value of both tools, and use the one best suited to the task at hand.
Unless, of course, you prefer to worship Linux as a God.
You're being way to sensible about this -- you're bound to be flamed.
Rumor has it that Linux makes a hell of a good server platform, but all my experience with it has so far been desktop, and it just doesn't cut it at that level. I know all the rationales, but the real bottom line is this: I want a desktop to be as polished and elegant and quick as possible. Windows does that.
And when the time comes that I need a rock-solid server that just sits there and does its thing, with no need for a fancy desktop, I will surely turn to Linux as a first candidate. But until that day...
Since a move to Intel chips will make it possible to develop a Mac that is PC-compatible (though it remains to be seen whether that will be done), it may come to pass that customers will have the opportunity to buy OS-X as an alternative to Windows.
Now, all the MS bashers should be happy, as it would mean fewer copies of Windows being sold, but I suppose they will scream, as the seats will be to a commercial alternative, not to Linux.
That's life. Many businesses will continue to prefer an OS that comes with a company behind it.
The notion that Linux will take over from Windows is one that should have died by now. Windows is evolving, while Linux keeps diddling with the accessory list on a 30 year old OS. Add the SCO idiots making business people nervous about IP issues, and it's not a recipe for success.
But if that were not sufficient, then let's consider the reality of where the sales are: the desktop. And so far, I haven't seen a Linux distro that didn't suck on the desktop. From sluggishness to ugly font painteing to buggy desktop apps (because let's face it, the average Linux freak could care less about the desktop)....
Sorry, boys, I've been pulling for Linux to make a difference for 10+ years, and it hasn't happened, and by all that I can see it will not happen.
What's needed is the next big thing in OS development, not warmed up leftovers scavenged from AT&T.
Writing large files to an eight-drive RAID-5 arary will be butt slow unless you have a LOT of RAM.
Not unless Linux has a much worse implementation than MS -- I've had extensive experience with it there, and the performance is quite good. The idea is that in order to write data to any sector on one of the drives, the sectors from six of the other drives need to be read, all XOR'd together, and then the result written to the remaining drive.
Um, not quite. Some review of RAID levels would be in order. RAID 5 does impose read/modify/write overhead, but there is not a dedicated parity drive -- parity is striped.
My first question to the original poster, however, would be what controllers he plans on using. By the time he connects 8 drives, using N controllers, he's a short distance from what a 9508 from 3ware would have cost.
Of the browsers I have tried on/., only Opera (which I dislike intensely) reliably displays/. without any screw-ups. Ironic that a site that champions open source and standards compliance should itself be so loathe to comply.
You're right about the need for license payments, but as an employee of a company that pays license fees to MPEG-LA now, I can tell you that in most cases that would affect readers of/., the fees are small enough that I think the bookkeeping costs MPEG-LA more than they collect. Over the last 5 years, I don't think our quarterlee fees have been much in excess of $100.00 per quarter.
Like ot or not, it would be hard to argue that any single company has invested more heavily in usability than Microsoft.
Now for the really bitter pill: On the Linux side of the street, there is no comparable pool of experience, or research data. If mimicry is the sincerest form of compliment, then has finallt recognized what the KDE developers have long known: all comparisons to Windows appearance and operation accrue to their favor.
While the article points out s number of important issues, it is appallingly incompetent in ist English construction -- an irony given the subject of the piece.
Dropped words and misused commas caused me so many mental double-takes that I would not have bothered reading further, had I not been interested in the reported issues.
Numerous of the points raised are valid; some are silly (though not to those offended, I'm sure.) Just as the Olympics has had to cave in to the demands of the PRC, and has dubbed Taiwan "Chinese Taipei" (surely an offense to the Taiwainese!), MS has had to cave in to the realities of political instabilities outside the U.S. and Western Europe.
2. Mozilla 0.93 doesn't render/. properly, most of the time; NS 7.1 does. 3. Mozilla 0.93 doesn't work on some log-in sites; NS 7.1 does (I hope 7.2 doesn't break that.)
No mention is made of anything technical about the signal handling (bitrates, encoding parameters, etc.)
Interesting how much excitement can be generated over a so minimal product description, merely because it's Linux under the hood. I doubt that people here would be giving that announcement much positive response -- or even grudging acceptance -- if it were running Windows.
The point should be whether the box does a good job of its primary function: video record and replay.
try cases from www.bowsystem.com, where you will find wide range of solutions. RAID cards from 3ware, Highpoint, or Adaptec (they have a new SATA RAID card with 16 ports).
In the context of products such as video servers, where terabytes are common, and the rate of change surprisingly high, a really big fast, inexpensive and reliable tape system would be a boon. Unfortunately, it's a case of the old adage: Good, fast, cheap -- pick any two.
So far, I haven't seen any tape scenario that is as cost-effective as a redundant server, with both using RAID. Next best is to simply back up each file to optical, as it is recorded. That's easy to do, cheap, and much of the content is has a useful life of only weeks or months, anyway.
Both 3ware, Highpoint, and Asus tech support (on an OEM Promise chipset in teh A7V333) recommend against using Western Digital drives. 3Ware did however say that WD will give you firmware that works significantly better in RAID setups if you ask for it.
That has not been my experience. First, neither 3ware nor Highpoint has recommended I avoid WD -- in fact, from Highpoint, the advice was the opposite. As of yesterday.
SATA is the only sensible approach, with point to point wiring, but the connectors suck. If you will ever move the machine, you are well advised to apply either some hot-glue or some RTV silicone. On their own, the connectors are barely passable in a stationary installation.
Since even-numbered RAID levels are not defined by the RAID organization, but buy vendors, it is a proprietary system, and is whatever the vendor says it is.
I would avoid Highpoint and Silicon Image controllers. Highpoint, especially, is crap. (but it is very cheap, at least).
If you possibly can, I would recommend a nice 3Ware Escalade controller. Escalades are true hardware RAID cards, unlike Highpoint/SI and most of Promise's cards, and are OS independent and very stable (with certain exceptions for some unlikely configurations).
I'm going through testing now on the latest HighPoint card, and it is definitely not crap. OTOH, I've had a number of issues with 3ware, and am not very happy with them now, especially from the standpoint of support.
I'd be very happy to find StorageReview (or any other hardware site) doing a thorough review of RAID controllers with medium to large arrays (5+ drives), but I'm not holding my breath. Not many people need such things. As it happens, I do, as my work is with video servers, but that's clearly atypical.
In spite of the assertions that RAID-5 is the obvious choice, either RAID-3 or RAID-5 will deliver what you want. The difference between them is in how parity is handled. The impact of the difference will be felt most with respect to disk writes: in RAID-5, every write is actually a read-modify-write cycle.
As to cost, you would do well to look at the RaidPort 1820A card from HighPoint, as it is available on the street for about $200.00. In setting up a RAID array, also consider that with a hot-spare, a failed drive will trigger automatic repairs. Without a hot spare, you must initiate a rebuild through the BIOS.
Another choice is software RAID, as for example, with Windows Server 2003, but the hardware path is cheaper now.
For hot-swap drive cages, look at www.cremax.com, as one possibility.
Interestingly, in a review of P4 vs. K8, the K8 had a clear advantage at the 4 processor level and above, apparently because of reduced bus conflicts with their individual memory spaces. If AMD were to proliferate cores on chip, they'd wind up contesting for the memory bandwidth, just like the P4.
I'd guess that the MPAA might disagree with the notion of a broadcaster acquiring ownership of a feature film, simply because he broadcast it one night.
Europe seems determined to do away with property rights altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
You're way over his head. He specified an LPTV station. I've seen LPTV stations -- complete -- sell for less than a mid-range house.
For LPTV, he only needs standard resolution NTSC, and not even digital delivery. But there are not many codecs available on Linux -- most are built for Windows, where sales volume can compensate the development effort.
Archiving is not much done in LPTV.
Only one channel is needed for transmission, if he finds the right decoder; two otherwise. Same again for preview (a function often overlooked by the uninitiated.)
One encoder is probably sufficient.
Expandability? LPTV folks don't spend *anything* on future requirements.
Reliability? He wouldn't know where to begin.
Development is something he clearly feels is a minor task. YMMV
Budget? We don't need no stinking budget!
As a matter of fact, there is at least one commercially available server with one record, two play, and a couple hundred hours of storage that can be had complete with internal automation for less than $25K.
That makes the DIY approach quite foolish.
Sure you can, but the question is, how long are they prepared to wait?
Building a server ie eminently feasible, but since most available encoders and decoders are designed for the Windows environment (where the sales volume is), you'll be hard-pressed to find drivers for Linux.
Better to attach the automation side, which is mostly a software problem. Given that you have any skill in designing complex software systems, and given, too, that you have a comprehensive understanding of the task at hand, you should be able to have a minimal system operable in a few weeks. But I say that as someone who has been in the television industry for over 30 years, and who has designed three generations of video server products.
I've also seen some real abortions designed by folks who thought they were smarter than the vendors, and who apparently place no value on their own time. That's not me, by the way, I do have a life.
Finally, I have never seen a home-brew software system that was competently documented, and delivering the tools without docs is an irresponsible act. You would be making yourself indispensable to the station's business, something for which no intelligent owner or manager will thank you.
Many folks think that writing an automation system would be fun. Few if any feel the same way about documenting it, either in the code, or on paper. That's why there are so many companies producing good commercial products.
But go ahead, knock yourself out. After a couple of years, you may have something barely capable of handling the LPTV market.
It's /.
What did you expect?
Most here would hate to be distracted from their beloved gcc.
Let's see... IIRC, Turbo Prolog was about 1988? With no releases since then?
And you're disappointed not to see it magically reappear?
By the way, how many Prolog projects are you currently supporting?
Delphi is basically Turbo Pascal on steroids, so you can consider that TP is back.
Your motivation? How is productivity as a motivation?
Delphi has been my tool of choice for the last 11 years. It remains the
most productive development tool I have used.
Agile processes? Well, the build on a Delphi project is so quick, you
don't have time to fill your coffee cup, much less drink it. So build/test
cycles are fast.
The language is powerful, and a great foundation for those who choose to
move to C#. The learning curve on C#, coming from Delphi, is pretty shallow.
But please, stay with your g++, and those glacially slow builds. I don't
need more competition.
As usual, rather than address the substance of any criticism, the majority here, in continual denial of real market forces, attack the messenger.
/.
The woman, whatever her past, makes some intelligent points, and has apparently had the support needed to gather data that is not within the reach of
Whether you like her or respect her, or abhor her, the points made are supported by a number of other reporters and surveys that have been taken over time. Linux has developed into a solid, useful tool, but it is not a clear winner over the alternatives. Linux and Windows have strengths and weaknesses. The only rational thing to do is to understand the relative value of both tools, and use the one best suited to the task at hand.
Unless, of course, you prefer to worship Linux as a God.
Rumor has it that Linux makes a hell of a good server platform, but all my experience with it has so far been desktop, and it just doesn't cut it at that level. I know all the rationales, but the real bottom line is this: I want a desktop to be as polished and elegant and quick as possible. Windows does that.
And when the time comes that I need a rock-solid server that just sits there and does its thing, with no need for a fancy desktop, I will surely turn to Linux as a first candidate. But until that day...
Now, all the MS bashers should be happy, as it would mean fewer copies of Windows being sold, but I suppose they will scream, as the seats will be to a commercial alternative, not to Linux.
That's life. Many businesses will continue to prefer an OS that comes with a company behind it.
The notion that Linux will take over from Windows is one that should have died by now. Windows is evolving, while Linux keeps diddling with the accessory list on a 30 year old OS. Add the SCO idiots making business people nervous about IP issues, and it's not a recipe for success.
But if that were not sufficient, then let's consider the reality of where the sales are: the desktop. And so far, I haven't seen a Linux distro that didn't suck on the desktop. From sluggishness to ugly font painteing to buggy desktop apps (because let's face it, the average Linux freak could care less about the desktop)....
Sorry, boys, I've been pulling for Linux to make a difference for 10+ years, and it hasn't happened, and by all that I can see it will not happen.
What's needed is the next big thing in OS development, not warmed up leftovers scavenged from AT&T.
Writing large files to an eight-drive RAID-5 arary will be butt slow unless you have a LOT of RAM.
Not unless Linux has a much worse implementation than MS -- I've had extensive experience with it there, and the performance is quite good.
The idea is that in order to write data to any sector on one of the drives, the sectors from six of the other drives need to be read, all XOR'd together, and then the result written to the remaining drive.
Um, not quite. Some review of RAID levels would be in order. RAID 5 does impose read/modify/write overhead, but there is not a dedicated parity drive -- parity is striped.
My first question to the original poster, however, would be what controllers he plans on using. By the time he connects 8 drives, using N controllers, he's a short distance from what a 9508 from 3ware would have cost.
Of the browsers I have tried on /., only Opera (which I dislike intensely) reliably displays /. without any screw-ups. Ironic that a site that champions open source and standards compliance should itself be so loathe to comply.
You're right about the need for license payments, but as an employee of a company that pays license fees to MPEG-LA now, I can tell you that in most cases that would affect readers of /., the fees are small enough that I think the bookkeeping costs MPEG-LA more than they collect. Over the last 5 years, I don't think our quarterlee fees have been much in excess of $100.00 per quarter.
Now for the really bitter pill: On the Linux side of the street, there is no comparable pool of experience, or research data. If mimicry is the sincerest form of compliment, then has finallt recognized what the KDE developers have long known: all comparisons to Windows appearance and operation accrue to their favor.
Dropped words and misused commas caused me so many mental double-takes that I would not have bothered reading further, had I not been interested in the reported issues.
Numerous of the points raised are valid; some are silly (though not to those offended, I'm sure.) Just as the Olympics has had to cave in to the demands of the PRC, and has dubbed Taiwan "Chinese Taipei" (surely an offense to the Taiwainese!), MS has had to cave in to the realities of political instabilities outside the U.S. and Western Europe.
2. Mozilla 0.93 doesn't render
3. Mozilla 0.93 doesn't work on some log-in sites; NS 7.1 does (I hope 7.2 doesn't break that.)
Interesting how much excitement can be generated over a so minimal product description, merely because it's Linux under the hood. I doubt that people here would be giving that announcement much positive response -- or even grudging acceptance -- if it were running Windows.
The point should be whether the box does a good job of its primary function: video record and replay.
try cases from www.bowsystem.com, where you will find wide range of solutions. RAID cards from 3ware, Highpoint, or Adaptec (they have a new SATA RAID card with 16 ports).
Inexpensive, not cheap.
So far, I haven't seen any tape scenario that is as cost-effective as a redundant server, with both using RAID. Next best is to simply back up each file to optical, as it is recorded. That's easy to do, cheap, and much of the content is has a useful life of only weeks or months, anyway.
The 3ware has given us numerous problems, some of which have been corrected, others not.
That has not been my experience. First, neither 3ware nor Highpoint has recommended I avoid WD -- in fact, from Highpoint, the advice was the opposite. As of yesterday.
SATA is the only sensible approach, with point to point wiring, but the connectors suck. If you will ever move the machine, you are well advised to apply either some hot-glue or some RTV silicone. On their own, the connectors are barely passable in a stationary installation.
Since even-numbered RAID levels are not defined by the RAID organization, but buy vendors, it is a proprietary system, and is whatever the vendor says it is.
If you possibly can, I would recommend a nice 3Ware Escalade controller. Escalades are true hardware RAID cards, unlike Highpoint/SI and most of Promise's cards, and are OS independent and very stable (with certain exceptions for some unlikely configurations).
I'm going through testing now on the latest HighPoint card, and it is definitely not crap. OTOH, I've had a number of issues with 3ware, and am not very happy with them now, especially from the standpoint of support.
I'd be very happy to find StorageReview (or any other hardware site) doing a thorough review of RAID controllers with medium to large arrays (5+ drives), but I'm not holding my breath. Not many people need such things. As it happens, I do, as my work is with video servers, but that's clearly atypical.
As to cost, you would do well to look at the RaidPort 1820A card from HighPoint, as it is available on the street for about $200.00. In setting up a RAID array, also consider that with a hot-spare, a failed drive will trigger automatic repairs. Without a hot spare, you must initiate a rebuild through the BIOS.
Another choice is software RAID, as for example, with Windows Server 2003, but the hardware path is cheaper now.
For hot-swap drive cages, look at www.cremax.com, as one possibility.
Interestingly, in a review of P4 vs. K8, the K8 had a clear advantage at the 4 processor level and above, apparently because of reduced bus conflicts with their individual memory spaces. If AMD were to proliferate cores on chip, they'd wind up contesting for the memory bandwidth, just like the P4.
I'd guess that the MPAA might disagree with the notion of a broadcaster acquiring ownership of a feature film, simply because he broadcast it one night.
Europe seems determined to do away with property rights altogether.