Areca Support in 10.6?

Any word on Areca compatibility?
Does it work out-of-the-box like 10.5.1 through 10.5.5?
Do you need to install the driver package?
Is it totally incompatible?

I never insinuated anything to the contrary. I just said your response was obviously not helpful which was apparent IMMEDIATELY after clicking the link you provided.
My goal was to encourage you not to post obviously unhelpful replies. My experience with tech support forums is that nearly all posts are obviously worthless. Worthless posts makes searching for a solution aggravating and tiresome.
With 37,000 posts, I jumped to the conclusion that you often post nonsense and it pushed one of my few uncontrollable-emotion-triggering buttons.
Dave:
"But you didn't say that!"
It's true I didn't state what I had done. My desired replies did not require me to do so. I did not ask "can someone help me perform basic internet searches", I asked very clearly for exact answers.
"How could AB have known that it was a bad suggestion?"
By glancing at the page he linked to.
"I guess it wasn't obvious enough"
I was referring to the comment about people not being paid to help here.
"I'm defending someone who..."
... posted an obviously unhelpful link.
Allan:
Thanks for your input! GREATLY APPRECIATED! Thank you SO SO SOOOO MUCH!!! I know you aren't paid to help, and really appreciate the time you took out of your day to respond! IT WAS VERY HELPFUL! XOXOXO
abrody:
Curses! I was following another thread ("Snow Leopard Testing Report Thread") on that same forum which that same guy promised Areca information. And that response you linked to wasn't in my Google search I did earlier today but it is now. =(
Thanks so much for finding information I can use! =P

Similar Messages

Can I swap out my old Areca 1880-ix with the newer Areca ARC-1883

Hello everyone. It's been a while since I've been here.
I think, but am not sure, that my Areca 1880-ix is dead. I'll be contacting Areca support to see if I can have them help me troubleshoot it. Like they did a year or so ago.
In any case I see a new Areca ARC-1883 added to their line. Areca Technology Corporation and here Areca Technology Corporation
And if I can't get the old 1880-ix working, I am wondering what the Abobe forum's thought might be about this new Areca ARC-1883.
To summarize, I have one system hard drive, and 4x 1TB hard drives = 4 TB.
Based on anyone's experience here, does such a swap make sense?
Looking forward to a discussion here about my choices.
I do see Bill's post here: Upgrading HD Capacity Areca
Thanks all!
Rowby

Hi Bill
Checking some of my older forum posts I found that I had encountered this issue before.
ASUS P6X58D Memory OK (MEMOK!) issue DRAM LED Stays solid red.
It turned out that my problem was just the motherboard's battery had died. We're talking about a 99 cent battery!
I replaced the battery with a new one.
And the PC booted up just fine.
(This was after I totally disassembled the computer -- testing the power supply with the "paper clip" method, reconnecting all of my cables.
By chance, I found that old post. And, at least for now, all is fine.
Great to have this forum and pros like you -- and Harm -- and all the others -- as a great place for troubleshooting and expert help!!!
Rowby

Stardom drive with areca card mini-sas causing fcp problem

Hi everyone,
I have a stardom st8-U5 with mini-sas containing 8x wd black 2tb in raid6 connected to areca 1222x in my pcie slot
My macpro is early 2009 8 core with 8 gig ram installed running fcp studio3
i have nothing but problems ever since I upgraded to this stardom drive and I'm very much desperate for a solution. The drive is fast by itself but not when im editing in fcp...
When I first bought the drive, it was filled with 8 x 3tb hitachis and it the drive was very inconsistent. It would edit very fast in one time, and lag a few minutes later to the point where I have to restart my system to bring back the speed. The seller said that it may be the problem with the 3tb drives is not very compatible with the driver yet so we decided to do a drive swap with the mighty caviar blacks.
However, the problem persists.. It would be fine in one time and be very slow and choppy a few minutes later. It is generally fine when I'm editing in "low" quality RT but I don't go out and buy a 3000 dollars system to edit in "low" res...
When I skim through the footage in the timeline, it produces preview images very fast, but not during playback.
I'm editing AIC codec from dslr transcoded footage.
Areca support is nil.. they never replied my emails... stardom claims that the problem is not with their drive but rather with the card/fcp itself.. I somehow agree...
furthermore, I have run digital rebellion software, disc utility with no success..
ANY help will be hugely hugely appreciated.. thank you in advance
Santo

did you format the drives HFS+ when you set them up ?
most drives are supplied formatted NTFS

Areca RAID card drivers for Leopard?

I cannot seem to find Leopard drivers for my Areca 1220ML RAID card. Areca support page has no new drivers since Tiger and though they list their product as supported under Leopard, there exists no drivers that I can find. Apple makes no mention of them on the driver support/download section either
help!

I have an Areca 1220 (not ML) that I put into a 10.5.4 Macbook Pro system (via external PCIE) and it worked without having to do anything. The drivers were already present. I have since swapped out the 1220 SATA for a 1680 SAS and it, too, worked without needing any drivers. I guess the press release from Areca was true!
http://www.areca.com.tw/news/2007/n1106.htm
However, I did find a link to OS X drivers on the Areca site, which hopefully brings some assurance:
ftp://ftp.areca.com.tw/RaidCards/AP_Drivers/MacOS/

Disk Configurations

I'm building a new system and have some questions about what sort of disk configuration to put together. Probably about 90% of my source will be AVCHD (more details in my earlier post). The articles on this forum are great and have been very helpful but I'm still confused. The Generic Guideline for Disk Setup talks about distributing access across as many disks as possible but then shows all configurations with more than 4 disks as placing everything except the OS, programs, and pagefile on the same RAID. A file is distributed across multiple disks in a RAID but it's one logical drive so there must be head contention if more than one file is needed at the same time from that RAID. Wouldn't a setup like this work better?
C: [1 Drive] OS, Programs
D: [RAID 3] Media, Projects
E: [RAID 0] Pagefile, Media Cache
F: [1 Drive] Previews, Exports
Would there be any problems having multiple RAIDs? In the above example, the RAID 3 would require a hardware controller and the RAID 0 could run off the ICH10R on the motherboard. Can ICH10R support multiple RAIDS (more than one RAID 0) and can a hardware controller (say, an Areca) support more than one RAID? If so, would it be better to run both the RAID 3 and RAID 0 in this example off the Areca?
To RAID or not to RAID has been helpful but I'm still not clear on everything. What are the differences between an inexpensive controller like the Areca ARC-1210 and the more expensive models which can cost 4 times as much? Obviously the more expensive controllers have faster processors and more cache but do you get 4 times the performance? I'm sure a high-end controller would be helpful if you're editing 4K files or uncompressed HD but I suspect it's not worth the expense for a mostly-AVCHD environment.
What about using RAID 0 for source media? I understand the likelihood of problems increases with the number of disks but what does that mean in the real world? I've been using my current drives (Seagate SCSIs) for about 7 years and have never had a problem. In fact I've owned computers with hard drives since the early 80s and don't believe I've ever had a disk fail on me. Of course everything needs to be backed up but how often might I be rebuilding a RAID 0 due to disk failure? Maybe I've been very lucky or maybe "they don't build 'em like they used to".
I've been using (parallel)SCSI for over 10 years but no longer believe it's cost effective. It seems like adding more SATA drives to a RAID would be cheaper than expensive 15K RPM SAS drives. Does everyone agree with that? Also, SAS drives are only available in much smaller capacities than SATA drives.
A hardware controller is required for RAID 3 and strongly recommended for RAID 5 but do they offer an advantage for RAID 0? What about for RAID 10? One advantage would be providing extra ports since most motherboards only provide 6 SATA ports. Does one motherboard offer any better SATA and RAID performance than any other or are they all about the same in that regard?
Is there any advantage to external RAIDS other than convenience in moving data from one computer to another? It seems like a controller directly on the bus would be faster than one connected externally.
Is there any disadvantage to running SATA 3 drives on a SATA 2 controller? A possible advantage might be the larger cache that some SATA 3 drives have. Would a 64MB cache help much over a 32MB cache? I've also heard SATA 3 can increase burst speeds. If I have two SATA 3 ports, and I'm using one on an SSD for the OS, would it help to use the other port for another drive or might that take away bandwidth from the SSD?
I've run across some things (don't have links handy) that indicate there may be problems with drives larger than 2 TB. Is this just for single drives larger than 2 TB, RAIDs larger than 2 TB, or am I confused and this is not an an issue?
What about specific drives that are quiet and perform well? Quietness is important to me and I worry about building a box, with as many as 10 drives, sounding like an airport runway. I've heard the Caviar Blues are quieter than the Black but I don't think they perform as well. I've heard Samsung F3 are both quiet and fast and that's what I'm leaning towards at the moment. What's with the F4? Samsung's site says it's “Independently tested as the fastest 3.5” HDD available” yet it also refers to it as an “Eco-Green HDD”, which usually means slow.
Should I use different drives in RAIDs than standalone? I've heard “enterprise” models are better for RAIDs because of differences in their firmware error recovery. These sources say “consumer” models are more likely to time-out in a RAID because they have more aggressive error recovery. Is this true and should be a concern?
Roy

I'm looking forward to an answer too, because I have some of the same questions. I'm currently working with a systems integrator on a quote, and we are hashing out some details about a few things.
I do a lot of uncompressed 10-bit, as well as some 1080p60 projects. So, for the RAID, to date, I'm going for an Areca ARC-1880ix-16. Funny thing is, there is not much price difference between the 12 and 16 port model. So I'm going to go with the 16-port model, and upgrade the cache to 4GB. Seems well worth it. I'll probably start out with an 8 disk RAID setup, and upgrade it n the future if need be.
We did toy with the idea to build the RAID around SSDs.... Ouf, imagine having an 8 SSD RAID! (Corsair SSD Force Series 3). But realistically, I'll most likely go with normal SATA III drives. And since they are so inexpensive, I'll probably fill it to the brim. Or most likely, the capacity that the case can handle.
But Roy has a good point. What about distributing the load on the array? Would it be more appropriate to make 2 RAID groups on the card? To balance the traffic of the media, cache, previews, pagefile and export?
Roy, I can start answering some of your questions though (My years of being a PC tech comes in handy sometimes, hehe)
Would there be any problems having multiple RAIDs? In the above example, the RAID 3 would require a hardware controller and the RAID 0 could run off the ICH10R on the motherboard. Can ICH10R support multiple RAIDS (more than one RAID 0) and can a hardware controller (say, an Areca) support more than one RAID? If so, would it be better to run both the RAID 3 and RAID 0 in this example off the Areca?
From a technical standpoint, there are no problems running multiple RAIDs. But there would be a performance drawback if the RAID was software only (OS managed). Thankfully, on-board RAIDs do help, but there is still some CPU overhead to deal with on-boad RAID5, and very minimally RAID 0. Having a RAID card is always the better option if you can afford it. The performance, manageability and flexibility are unmatched, compared to any on-board motherboard RAID controllers. RAID 0 is simple and does not need much resources. So, yes, you could run the RAID 0 from the on-board controller of the motherboard. It would theoretically "offload" the 8x PCIe lane from extra traffic, but practically, I seriously doubt the disk I/O would exceed the PCIe bandwidth in the first place.
What about using RAID 0 for source media? I understand the likelihood of problems increases with the number of disks but what does that mean in the real world? I've been using my current drives (Seagate SCSIs) for about 7 years and have never had a problem. In fact I've owned computers with hard drives since the early 80s and don't believe I've ever had a disk fail on me. Of course everything needs to be backed up but how often might I be rebuilding a RAID 0 due to disk failure? Maybe I've been very lucky or maybe "they don't build 'em like they used to".
I use P2 media. So I practice double copies. A working copy on the computer, the other on an external HD as a backup copy. Everyone using solid state media to record on, should do the same. Having said that. You know what RAID 0 means? Zero chance of data recovery if 1 drive fails. The more drives in a RAID, the more likely a problem can arise. Packing drives tightly together will produce more heat if not well ventilated, and will reduce the life expectancy of any drive. I have come across some bad disks in my 20+ years dealing with computers as a tech. Not that many, but enough to not trust them, and enough to practice backups even if I had a RAID 5 or 6 (and a hotsparet). Even though I have a backup copy on an external drive for my source media, and even though I try to backup as often as I can, I can still loose other things (ancillary files) in my hypothetical RAID 0 media drive. Worst case? I could loose a day's worth of work, plus what ever time it takes to rebuild and restore everything from the previous night's backup (if I didn't forget). Time is money for most of us. And investing in a proper editing system is something I don't take lightly.
A hardware controller is required for RAID 3 and strongly recommended for RAID 5 but do they offer an advantage for RAID 0? What about for RAID 10? One advantage would be providing extra ports since most motherboards only provide 6 SATA ports. Does one motherboard offer any better SATA and RAID performance than any other or are they all about the same in that regard?
There are no major advantages to use a RAID 0 or 10 on a standard addon hardware RAID controller, other then to free up ports on the motherboard, or have a higher disk count on your RAID. But higher end RAID cards with bigger cache, will be faster. On-board RAIDs do have some overhead, but for RAID0, it's not as drastic as RAID5. Motherboard SATA RAIDs, with the same chipset, for all intents and purposes, are basically the same performance. There may be small variations from one manufacturer or another, but nothing real world measurable.
Is there any advantage to external RAIDS other than convenience in moving data from one computer to another? It seems like a controller directly on the bus would be faster than one connected externally.
Convenience, is subjectively proportional to your needs and disk quantity inside the computer casing. hehe What stops me from having more then 16 drives in my system, is the casing size for HDs and possible heat dissipation issues. I try to have a system that is self contained, and avoid using an external enclosure if I can. But regardless, the speed of internal and external ports on a RAID card is the same.
I've run across some things (don't have links handy) that indicate there may be problems with drives larger than 2 TB. Is this just for single drives larger than 2 TB, RAIDs larger than 2 TB, or am I confused and this is not an an issue?
Not an issue with Windows 7.
Frederic

Real HW S-ATA Raid card support in Solaris 10 x86?

I am trying to find an SATA RAID controller (real HW raid, not the
pseudo raid that comes on many mb) that works with Solaris 10 on x86.
I thought maybe the LSI MegaRAID SATA 150-4 might. Solaris has an amr
driver ported from FreeBSD according to the Solaris amr man page as
well as some webpage at Sun. This card is supported with the amr
driver on FreeBSD. However, the card is not correctly identified by
Solaris 10 at install time. There is also an LSI driver for download
for the MPT Fusion stuff and this card supposedly adheres to that
architecture family but it also does not work (I did it as an ITU
install addition).
I am also wondering about the LSI MegaRAID SATA 300x-8 card. There is
something in the LSI supplied itmpt driver that shows an 8-port
SAS/SATA controller support but I am not sure if this one is it as I do
not have the card.
I am also wondering about the Adaptec 2410SA or 2810SA cards. On
FreeBSD they are supported by the aac driver and Solaris has an aac
driver that is ported from FreeBSD. Anyone have any experiences with
these?
The Areca 11x0 series has a Solaris (not yet bootable) driver from the
factory (they emailed me a copy). I would prefer a bootable driver
since my server only has the disks for the RAID (mirror plus hot swap).
Any others that I need to look at ?
Alternatively, how to coerce the system (by changing stuff :-) to recognize under the existing mpt / amr the LSI MegaRAID SATA 150-4 at boot time from CD during an install. It shares the PCI id of 1000 (PCI1000) but the subid (after PCI1000,) is different than the SCSI brethren that are supported
Thanks
Chad

I'm trying to find a RAID SATA controller to use with Solaris 10 too....did you have any luck?

Does New Mac Mini Support Native Command Queing (NCQ) Hard Drives?

I have noticed the NCQ spec present in certain hard drives, like some Seagate drives. Does Apple support this in the 2009 Mac Mini?
Info available through Googling "Native Command Queing." Thanks.

Hi,
In most cases, if NCQ is enabled with a direct connect RAID configuration (like the internal Mac Pro bays) it does not provide significant additional performance. With some hard disk models having NCQ turned on will actually provide slower overall performance. You can see this when testing the HighPoint and Areca RAID controllers in the Mac Pro as they allow the user to turn NCQ off or on.
If you read the NCQ spec, it ibdicates performance will be significantly higher with NCQ enabled. I have grown to believe that most of this is in theory, as in real use NCQ usually provides overall negative performance results with a direct connect RAID set.
The one configuration that enabling NCQ provides a slight overall performance increase is with port multiplier (PM) enclosures.
While the Apple Mac Pro will support a hard disk with NCQ turned on. I have found hard disks with NCQ enabled will not provide measurably higher performance results than if the HD has NCQ turned off while mounted in the Apple Mac Pro.
Have fun!

Areca Cards

Hey Harm,
In my several months without Internet, I've fallen waaaay behind in my tech reading. What's your opinion of the I/O controllers on Areca cards? What to look for, what to avoid, that kind of thing. (3 drive RAID 3 planned.)

Hi Harm,
Before I ask for a perspective, I just want to thank you for all your efforts in sharing information with folks that are more novice such as myself. I have spent a lot of time in the various forums over the past 3 - 4 weeks considering a variety of perspectives related to the computer build that I am currently working on and all of your informative posts, as well as your responses to questions by others, have been EXTREMELY useful to me and the thought processes that I am currently going through. Thank you - very much!
I am formalizing my plan on the drive configuration for my new build and have decided to take the SSD plunge for the OS and Program files. Whereas I am going to buy the ASUS Rampage III MOBO (which offers SATA III), I plan to stick with Intel's X25-M G2 160GB SSD based on cost (and being a suitable size for OS/Programs) as compared with Crucial's SATA III 256 GB SSD at a couple of hundred dollars more. I'll move my old WD740 Raptor SATA drives, currently in a RAID 1 (MOBO) into the new system and use the new MOBO for a 140 GB RAID 0 scratch drive. For the media output/storage drive I have decided to invest in the Areca 1880ix-12 controller. My plans are to stand it up with a RAID 3 with 3 or 4 1 TB drives, likely Spinpoint F3s, thinking that while I will not use all the SATA III capabilities or all the 12 ports now, there will be ample capability for me to expand in the future with a SATA III-based RAID or with additional drives. (As a novice user, I don't think that I would ever exceed the limit of the board, but then again, neither did you!)
My question centers on whether to get the low profile (1880ixl-12) or the full-height (1880ix-12) controller. Looking at Areca's photo's http://www.areca.com.tw/support/photo_gallery.htm), the two cards appear somewhat different - on the low profile card there's a small fan; on the full-height card there are two large heat-dissipation/cooling fin assemblies. On the full-height board there's a large connector along the top edge that's not on the low-profile board - presumably this is some type of multi-connector or a "ganged" arrangement for individual drive connectors.
Any thoughts on:
(1) proposed drive structure, and
(2) full-height versus low-profile controller card?
In advance, thanks.
Bill

Areca controller for the x2100 fire server

Hi
We just purchased the sun x2100 server, for the purpose of hosting some applications on the linux platform. Unfortunaly the nvraid controller is not well supported on the centos (red hat enterprise clone), and therefore we cannot get raid1 with failover to work on this server.
I have searched the market and found that the areca ARC-1210 controller to be a well supported controller on centos and other linux distros, and allso the best hardware raid controller for the pci-E port.
We have previously used 3ware controllers for this purpose, but amcc has not produced any controllers for the pci-e port.
Have anyone here any experiences with the areca controller on the x2100 server ? Its very important for us ta have a solid well working raid1 solution with failover and quick init restore while server is operative.

the areca controllers seem to have massive problems on the x2100 M2 (tested with areca 1210). Without disks attached to the controller the x2100 might boot (in some cases) but with disks attached to the controller it always fails. it couldbe / seems there is an interrupt problem (usb using irq15, controller using irq15).
this is even worse since areca is a very well supported controller on alot plattforms and the onboard nvidia fraid doesnt seem to work at all (rebuilding/state detection).
late reply, but better late then never :)

Areca 1680 SAS Raid

Hello all
In my previous post i clarified much of doubts i have on mac pro raid capabilities thanks to this forum.
I still have a question: if i buy the Areca 1680 sas raid controller, that is bootable via firmware upgrade, how can i install macosx over the raid set i created?
The leopard dvd doesn't have the driver built in for this card, so i'm confused.
I think that a workaround would be:
install leopard on external hdd (in my case attached via firewire).
install the right driver
use carbon copy cloner to copy the fresh installation from the firewire disk to the new array.
That's a right or there is a easiest way?
Anyone has experience with Areca 1680?
Thanks!

I have a 1680 that i have installed in a intel 07 xserve and hooked up with NORCO infiniband box. I have had a difficult time getting this to work with OS X leopard. I have been getting kernel panic attacks when running the unit with 10.5 The only way that i could get it formated is to use the CLI utility as none of the other ways to config RAID worked. I have called tech support several times but have a hard time understanding them and working through problem. They have been very pleasant but the Mac tech support could be better. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. When i first set it up it seemed to work great and i transfered 80-90 gig worth of files without problem and it seemed very fast.

Areca Arc-1210 SATA ll vs Arc-1212 SAS/SATA ll

Hi
I was thinking to get a Arc-1210 card to make an internal raid 3 with my 4 samsung F3 1TBSATA ll. During
my research about where to buy the card, i found the Arc-1212 with better bus speed and support SAS/SATA ll
peripheral devices for just few bucks more. So I was thinking to get the 1212.
I contacted Areca to verify the usability of my samsung F3 with the Arc-1212 card. they wrote me back:
both 1210 and 1212 are 3Gbp controllers, one important difference between
1210 and 1212 is the 1210 is a SATA controller and the 1212 is a SAS
controller.
the 1212 SAS controller use newer processor than 1210 used, faster and more
throughputs, so you may got higher performance on 1212 if your drives have
higher throughput than 1210 can handle.
but because the 1212 is a SAS controller which mean it may not fully
compatible with SATA drives like SATA controllers did. and the drive you
used is desktop drives which may not reliable enough for array application.
so i can not tell you use 1212 with these drives is a good configuration or
not.
With this answer from Areca i still get no clear answer if it will work. I found a lot of information for
the arc-1210 on this forum and it seems to be a good purchase but mostly nothing about the 1212.
Someone made successful job with the Arc 1212 with F3 Drive or with other sata drive? or knows where I
can find the answer ?
1210
http://www.areca.com.tw/products/pcie.htm
1212
http://www.areca.com.tw/products/pcietosas01.htm

First of all, according to experiences of a lot of people here, the F3 are perfectly OK in a raid array. Even my older and slower F1's work without a hiccup.
Second, if you have the choice to go for a 1680 or even a 1880 card, you will benefit a lot from the much faster IOP and the faster cache. I'm not familiar enough with the 1200 range to say the 1210 or 1212 is better.

Areca ARC-1882i & SATA drive suggestions

I am considering the Areca ARC-1882i for my new build. I have been a fan of Western Digital drives for years. I was going to buy a bunch of the 1.5GB Caviar Black SATA III 64mb cache HDDs. Then I read something disturbing on the spec sheet. See snapshot below... It seems RAID is supported on the Caviar Black drives, but not with HBAs and expanders. So I think that means I can't use these drives with the ARC-1882i
source: http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-701284.pdf
I will probably start off with 6 HDDs in two RAID 0 configerations, but I'd like to have the option to go with RAID 5 in the future as I can afford more HDDs. I want speed. I don't necessarily need lots of space. I'm now considering the 600GB Velociraptors, but I'd like some advice from you guys before I buy.
Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

Steve,
My recommendation would be to go with RE drives for your situation. They will generally work OK for RAID 0 service, and they are better for the task of parity RAID (ie RAID 5) when your plans evolove there.
And, now for some "fine print" regarding WD's Black design (for single drive and RAID 0 arrays) and RE Enterprise RAID design:
RAID stands for Redundant Array of Independent Disks and the intent is to maintain an array where a drive, or 2 drives in the case of RAID 6, could fail and NO data would be lost. Enter RAID 0; some people even call it non-RAID or AID 0 (missing the R), because there is nothing redundant about it. RAID 0 is all about speed, and if any drive fails, all is lost. WD, and their competitors, typically manufacture and market separate drive designs intended to serve single drive and full RAID (Enterprise) duty. And, the best fit for RAID 0 use is actually the single drive design, NOT the Enterprise RAID design.
In WD's case I understand the differences of Enterprise RAID (RE) vs. single drives (Black) to include:
1) RAID drives are said to use hand picked platters with less defects, and may also receive better overall QA and testing during manufacture
2) Firmware is generally tweaked slightly to perform better for typical RAID needs (note that "typical RAID needs" means handling lots of simultaneous reads and writes, which is not actually what we need for video editing - no need to worry though, RAID drives work fine for video)
3) RAID drives are said to have better bearings, and designs that are less bothered by neigboring drives in a long hot-swap bank where heads are all seeking at the same time and in the same direction
4) Finally, TLER stands for Time Limit Error Recovery; it means that the drive will limit how long it will try to recover an error. The purpose is to have a drive "fail" and drop off of the RAID quickly (default is set to 7 seconds), so that the performance of the RAID will continue to serve its users instead of hunting, seeking, and trying to recover of what was "lost" on just one drive; at this point a spare or hot-spare drive is brought in to replace the "dropped" drive and the array auto-rebuilds with the replacement.
For desktop users the needs are quite different, and it is more desireable for a failing drive to continue to work and NOT ever drop out. In practice, I had a failing laptop drive that never lost any data, but just before I replaced it just opening a small file could take as long as 30 seconds while the drive used it's built-in ECC (error correction) to get the job done.
Regards,
Jim

CODEC Support - Red Giant Bullet-Proof Understanding Ingest-Export Sequence Choices?

I shoot with a Canon EOS C100 that records AVCHD internally. I also use a Ninja Blade to record DNxHD at 220 Mps. I find no built-in support for either of these formats in Bullet Proof and Premiere Pro. Is there a reason for that?
I'm trying to understand why the default export is MJPEG. For some reason, I thought that was an old codec no longer used. And it takes forever for Bullet Proof to export it. I have a very fast computer with an X99 2011 v3 chipset and 64 GB RAM, an Areca 12G RAID controller with a 16TB RAID 5 attached. And SSD for backup storage.
I don't mind editing MJPEG. I just don't know if it is the best I could do, or if it's better to edit the original AVCHD. In other words, If I ingest AVCHD footage, is it best to transcode it to MJPEG or another format for editing? Since there is no preset for AVCHD, what then should my edit settings be?
I also still do not understand the reasoning for the complex folder structure coming off the C100. I have read that it is important to leave that structure intact, but I don't see the benefit. Premiere has no use for it, it seems.

with the constant changes to adobe's software, its helpful to know which version we are talking about. alot of people ask questions here with older versions of the software...
if premiere doesn't get your footage right when making a new sequence, then choose one that matches the footage the best by resolution and fps. you can also click on the settings tab, when making a new sequence, to customize it exactly to your needs. you can even save this as a preset that will show in the first tab with the default presets, so if you plan on using these media alot, you wont have to remake the custom sequence each time.
im not exactly sure what all you do in bulletproof, so i hinted at prelude since it does let you transcode to alot more codecs. prelude is an ingest program, you can trim clips (but only if transcoding), add metadata & markers, and have it export to multiple locations as the original and/or in different formats. prelude will only show presets when transcoding, so if you need a different one you will have to open adobe media encoder and make a new preset in there. then it will show in prelude. i like red giants software, but bulletproof export codecs seem rather limited. if the pass-through option just copies and doesn't re-encode then that might work for you.
when exporting from premiere you can also choose a preset close to your media and then customize it to your needs. you can even save it as a preset to recall later. i would stick with dnxhd for export, especially if you plan on bringing it back into premiere. dnxhd is very high quality if choosing its high bitrate format. there are several options for dnxhd 220, one should match your Ninja Blade. these are found under the quicktime format and video codec as avid dnxhd. its also available in mxf format.
adobe's presets try to cover a wide range of cameras and media but can only cover so many, new ones coming out all the time... in sequence settings and export you have full control to customize it to your media and needs.

Areca 1680X not compatible with OS 10.5.1?

Has anyone been able to get an Areca RAID card to work with Leopard? After reading the great reviews on AMUG of the 1680X I bought one and have spent the last day and a half trying to get it to work. I've had minor success in Parallels but I get errors trying to install the software on Leopard. After installing their latest .dmg file I get a "getFileAttributes requires native support" error. I've looked up this error on here but haven't gotten anywhere. Does anyone have any suggestions?

After installing the their installation file twice, an error log comes up. Here are the results:
(Dec 8, 2007 8:36:46 PM), Install, com.installshield.product.service.product.PureJavaProductServiceImpl$DiskSpaceC heck, wrn, Checking required disk space requires file service native support.
(Dec 8, 2007 8:36:46 PM), Install, com.installshield.product.service.product.PureJavaProductServiceImpl, wrn, Checking required disk space requires file service native support.
(Dec 8, 2007 8:36:47 PM), Install, com.installshield.product.actions.Files, wrn, Cannot set file attributes: operation is not supported.
(Dec 8, 2007 8:36:47 PM), Install, com.installshield.product.actions.Files, wrn, Cannot set file times: operation is not supported.
(Dec 8, 2007 8:36:47 PM), Install, com.installshield.product.actions.ExecAction, err, An error occurred and product installation failed. Look at the log file /Areca Corporation/MRAID/log.txt for details.
(Dec 8, 2007 8:36:47 PM), Install, com.installshield.product.actions.ExecAction, err, ProductException: (error code = 200; message="Java error"; exception = [ServiceException: (error code = 200; severity = 0; exception = [java.lang.NullPointerException])])
STACK_TRACE: 13
ProductException: (error code = 200; message="Java error"; exception = [ServiceException: (error code = 200; severity = 0; exception = [java.lang.NullPointerException])])
at com.installshield.product.actions.ExecAction.executeProcess(Unknown Source)
at com.installshield.product.actions.ExecAction.install(Unknown Source)
at com.installshield.product.service.product.PureJavaProductServiceImpl.installPro ductAction(Unknown Source)
at com.installshield.product.service.product.PureJavaProductServiceImpl$InstallPro duct.getResultForProductAction(Unknown Source)
at com.installshield.product.service.product.InstallableObjectVisitor.visitCompone nt(Unknown Source)
at com.installshield.product.service.product.InstallableObjectVisitor.visitInstall ableComponents(Unknown Source)
at com.installshield.product.service.product.InstallableObjectVisitor.visitProduct Beans(Unknown Source)
at com.installshield.product.service.product.PureJavaProductServiceImpl$InstallPro duct.install(Unknown Source)
at com.installshield.product.service.product.PureJavaProductServiceImpl$Installer. execute(Unknown Source)
at com.installshield.wizard.service.AsynchronousOperation.run(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:613)

PPC G5 compatibility of Areca PCIE RAID controller arc-1280?

Subject: Mac compatibility of Areca ARC-1280 24 ports PCI Express to SATA II RAID adapter.
At Areca's Internet site ( www.areca.com.tw) consumers can read at pages concerning arc-1280 card that: « The SATA RAID controllers support broad operating systems including ... MAC ... ».
At Specifications page, under: Operating system, it is written: « Mac OS X (no_bootable) ».
Absolutely no other warning appear about MAC owners.
So, if you are just a basic computer consumer, you are now strongly tempted to believe that if you got a MAC with PCIExpress technology & OS X, you can safely buy arc 1280 PCIE.
This is because (nearly) everyone knows that in real pragmatic actual life OS X exclusively runs on Apple Mac machines. In the case of arc-1280, as it is a PCIExpress adapter, only two Apple Mac models are possible: the very recent MACPro (Intel cpu based) & late 2005 PPC G5 dualcore (IBM cpu based). As Areca mentions nowhere any warning between MACPro & G5 dualcore, only owners of either of those PCIE machines may logically have the opportunity to run OS X with an arc-1280 connected!
If you are a little bit more paranoïd, before to buy such an expensive adapter, you will check if there are other stuffs to confirm your deductions. You then will find Areca's online user's manual 3.2, where it is stated that a bios configuration utility, contained into card's firmware, is « OS independant » & can be accessed at startup by pressing TAB or F6. About « MAC X » driver installation, user is invited to follow a readme.txt (that in fact does not exist nowhere). It is the same for archttp proxy server installation, which is also asserted to support Mac OS.
Moreover, a Mac driver is freely downloadable online, called arcmsr-1.3.1.pkg. Now you are ready to trust!
Having arc-1280 plugged, you start your Mac (happy to hear that card beep after startup) then install driver (the same is present online & on Areca's companion CD). A text appear:
« This driver supports...arc 1280...PCIE... Please note that this is a pre-release version of the driver for testing purpose, and is *NOT * for general distribution. ». But installation completes succesfully and you pay no attention to this frightening sentence hidden into Areca's driver package.
What then arise when you have your computer restarted? Nothing: except the beep at startup, Areca's high end Raid controller simply do not appear anywhere into Mac OS X!
As I cannot afford paying more than 1200 euro for just a startup beep, I decided to require help from distributor & Areca's very enigmatic support. Lastly distributor decided to try with another arc-1280 which was as useless on my Mac than the first one. I again protested, Areca's support seeming to have totally resign for quite a lot of time now, distributor blaming me not to have been carefull enough ?!
Distributor ask me now to re-send back the card. They will try to get their money back from Areca, then maybe will I have my money back ? They asked me to write a letter with a description of the problem & why I want a full refund.
This is now done, hoping this will help to avoid further misinformation.

MacGurus PCIE which are supported.
I saw the Areca reviewed xbitlabs
AMUG http://www.amug.com does great reviews of Mac compatible drives, enclosures, and controllers.

Areca Support in 10.6?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for