File storage solution

Im writing an application which downloads web pages , parses them and then stores them on the computer.
Whats the best method to approach the storage solution.
Is it possible to store them as XML files ?
Im looking for a fairly simple method.
Thanks

if the app will be installed locally for each user and each user will download files locally, you probably do not want to go the db route (since in this scenario, all your data will be kept remotely on a db with all your users sharing the data)--UNLESS, you use an in memory rdbms such as hsql which is integrated into your user app which can then store the files in a db. otherwise, with non-techies, you probably want to go the flat-file route. i imagine the workflow to go something like this:
- using your app, the user downloads the page(s) desired
- the app then parses and translates the page to xml and saves the xml file down to the local filesystem
- your app (which will check the default save-down directory for files every time the user goes to the apps "view saved pages" screen) will display all saved files
- the user can then select the specified file to view and your app will read in the file from the filesystem and display it to the user
it will be far more tricky to translate proprietary formats such as .doc, but apis do exist to allow you to do so (to translate .doc files with java, use the jakarta project POI). you might be able to use an api called iText to translate/create .pdf and (maybe) .ps files.
hope this helps.

Similar Messages

Where can I find the java solution of online file storage ?

Hi,
I am facing a project about online file storage like box.net,xdrive..User can upload/download through http(web application) and ftp client or through other protocol such as SMB,share files,full-featured text index and search,the file directory structure and file records maybe persist in database(virtual directory)..
There are many online file storage service website in internet,but I can not find any technique article about how to build there website,I think I maybe need bothside code in the web server and the ftp server(different server may cause different code) or other server(such as SMB server) to process such as file uploading(write IO file ,write record to database,build file text index).
Any suggest is appreciated.
Thanks and regards.
L.J.W

YiNing,
Did you check this link,
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/87/3ef4403ae3db12e10000000a155106/content.htm
Does it help? Also did you look into the Java Docs Section,
https://help.sap.com/javadocs/index.html
Regards
Bhavesh

Best storage solution for central itunes library?

I'd like to create a 4 Gb central library, running itunes permantenly on a headless Mac Mini. The library will contain all music and videos and should be available to an Apple TV, PC and Iphones (remote).
I am not sure about what kind of storage solution to buy. I want a second disk for backups, ideally also for storage of system backups of my PC and iphones. Should I buy and install a NAS and connect via Ethernet or are two firewire or usb 3.0 external hdds connected to the Mac Mini a better solution? I want to avoid issues with corrupt itunes libraries, missing files, connection issues with home sharing, etc. And are external hdds built to run 24//24 in terms of life span, energy consumption and heating?
Thank you.

Derekeys wrote:
I believe there is a way to have my itunes library on an external, but can the iMac read the external and stream to Apple TV with quality?
No problems at all.
Get an external USB drive.
Copy the entire /Music/iTunes/ folder to the external drive.
Hold Option, launch iTunes, select Choose library... and select the iTunes folder on the external.
That is all you need to do.
You can do this with on the laptop and and later use the same iTunes library on another computer just by connecting the external, holding Option, selecintg Choose library... and selecting the iTunes folder on the external.

Online file storage with access control and file manager integrated to APEX website

I have APEX 4.2 website with few user accounts. I would like to share approximately 100 GB of documents to users. Some documents will be public (in some public folder) and everyone with account in my website will be able to download that public files. And some files/folders will be with restricted access and only user with appropriate credentials will be able to download it.
I would like to find some cheap cloud file storage.
Some storage that offers plugin/component = file manager that will be integrated to my APEX website and authentication will be transparent to my users (authentication with some API or URL). Every user will see only his files. I want some ready to use component and call only minimum API.
I would like to integrate that storage to my website or call some user specific URL and redirect my user to some page with file manager.
All files will be read only for all users.
Thanks for some tips

what will you be using for your file manager? Or do you even know yet?
I do not have tons of experience but if I had to come up with a solution I would build the interface with APEX and use the database to store the files inside so you can control access.
You can create a procedure that takes in parameters like username, session id, encrypted session id from the browser cookie and either return the file or give the user an error message letting them know they arent authorized. You could use plugins to give the users a better file managing experience like the 'multiple file upload' plugin that allows AJAX based multiple file uploading.
Id put this on an amazon EC2 cloud micro instance. It's uber cheap.

What's the FASTEST file storage option ?

Hi all,
Im building an application in Java where indexing and storing of data is a major area of the app. It should be able to store the data as well as retrieve them rapidly as well as the files should be small in size.
Knowing Java's popularity with XML, I've chosen that as one candidate, but the problem is Im not too sure how the above 2 criteria will match with XML.
1) Is XML fast enuf considering retrieval of data ?
2) And how about the[b] storage sizes ?
Or should I scrap XML and build my own version file structure such as a B-tree ?
How difficult would that be considering limited development time ?
thanx in advance ....

Anyway to deal with this post piece by piece.
I agree with you that database infact rules out other
options when it comes to speed and storage. Im not in
anyway trying to abuse XML as a storage mechanism. If
I had the freedom to use a database, I know I wudnt
even hav posted this question, cos database wins
hands down in ease of programmin, maintain, store and
rapid response.
Okay first of all my post was not a personal attack against you. There are plenty of people who abuse or ty to abuse XML as a storage mechanism with extremely unhappy results. I want to make that point clear not just to you but to any future readers of this thread so that if they are considering such a course of action they should come back to reality.
It wud be insane to ask the client to
to install a DBMS jus to make sure the P2P app wud
run. As for the details about the solution, it is a
P2P app, but not to share content as such traditional
ones. Its supposed to help ppl arrive at better
seacrh results on a Web Search Engine.Well this was dealt with previously. In short using JDBC does NOT imply a full blown database server. It could be a standalone database like Access or you could write your own driver that accesses a proprietary file directly or you could use a plain text driver.
The point is that if you use JDBC you decouple your application from the storage. This is the important point. Because it means you can switch the storage mechanism as best fits you later without having to rewrite gobs of code.
>
As for the requiremtns, I need a storage mechanism
sm to store the rankings a user might have given
indivuidually per page or website. I need to store
them as well as access them anytime I want and share
them with the peers. Not only rankings I need to
store other deatils like the search string, the
datetime of the query etc.All the more reason to look at a database of some sort... an embedded database would be fine.
>
I will let you know more of the requiremtns as soon
on as I advance onto it. Right now Im not
concentratin on the storage part of it. ( Jus
thinking of goin ahead with XML ) and rather
implementing the P2P communication area. I was jus
doing some research on what would be the best storage
option for dealing with the app's "data". I read
on a book that B-Tress and such data structures can
actually be implemented on file storage thus giving
better performance. And also I was looking for
material ( white papers and such ) discussing the
various issues of each storage option available
currently which will stand as proof for the final
solution I am gonna take.
Okay here is the problem with all this. How do you think databases implement indexes?
Hint: while it is all in the end vednor specific the answer is some sort of tree structure.
So again back to the point if you want to write your own tree structure go right ahead... I think it's pointless but go right ahead. What you should do though is write it so that your application accesses this structure through JDBC so that later when you decide that re-inventing the wheel was not such a hot idea you can change the storage implementation without destroying your application.

Im completely new to Mac. Im swapping my windows laptop for macbook pro and looking for network storage solution which the Time Capsule seems to do. Is it possible to use this as NAS for my desktop Windows PC - windows 7

Im completely new to Mac. Im swapping my windows laptop for macbook pro and looking for network storage solution which the Time Capsule seems to do. Is it possible to use this as NAS for my desktop Windows PC - windows 7

Broadly speaking I want some sort of network storage( wireless or through my existing wifi router) that I can access files for both my windows PC and Macbook and also to access files to my iPad/ iPhone. Some sort of backup and sychronisation so that I can access certain files remotely.
Buy a real NAS.. synology or QNAP are the standard... although companies like Netgear and Western Digital and Seagate make them as well.
There is no problem sharing between Mac and PC now.. you do not even need a NAS to do that.. you simply share the hard disk directly. Mac talk SMB.. everything talks SMB nowadays.. so it is easy.
ipad and iphone are not designed to use NAS.. they are designed to backup only to the cloud or itunes.. but you can load an app like file browser if you want.
http://www.stratospherix.com/products/filebrowser/
Remote access to the Apple TC is somewhere between difficult, to impossible from a PC.. Apple use BTMM and iCloud but the service is not offered to PC.
A real NAS will offer HTTPS or SFTP or several other methods.. that both Mac and PC can use.
You simply plug it into the current wireless router.. it is a network device and assessable over the network. It is not necessary to buy another router.. in fact that is a waste.

MobileMe iDisk failed --- I want the iPhone as file storage

At first, yes it is nice. But why I can't save pictures from iDisk to my photo app on the iPhone? Why I can't save files from iDisk on the iPhone?
Why it isn't possible to use the iPhone as file storage? We are living in the year 2009. Since the first generation every iPod can be used as a mountable device.
Why Apple let me not save files on my iPhone by using USB?
I don't want to hack my iPhone for this feature. Wireless Apps are no solution for me?
But i feel to forced to hack my iPhone. Thank you Apple.
At last i want say.
Apple please stop the paternalism of customers!

You may not be able to save -- this is a sync service -- but you can use the app to mail the image or file to yourself and that would make it accessible. You could also mail from your desktop of course.
The iPhone and iPod touch are not mountable and use a different OS from the other iPods. It is not a problem with the platform, it was a deliberate decision by Apple not to have this. You say that you do not want to use wifi solutions, but there are several effective solutions, like Air Sharing, Files (and Files Lite) and the recently released Documents to Go.
If you feel that there is a feature that you would like on the iPhone, why not tell Apple, by using the Feeback pages provided for that purpose and not the users. You did read the conditions when you joined, didn't you?

ISCSI storage solution Recommendation ?

Hi I am trying to understand where exactly does iSCSI fit in the storage solutions.
is iSCSI recommended ?
My interest:
I would like to provide our users, access to our mass storage, provided by, Sun Fire V890 via 6130 Storage Arrays.
Our users working from their windows box would like to have their mass storage directories mounted as their network drive. Does iSCSI software initiative or hardware HBA's fit into these requirements ???
Can anyone please provide any form of guidance to develope an understanding of the requirements.
thank you!

Hi,
Depending on your situation iSCSI might be a low-cost replacement of a Fibre Channel SAN.
Both are block-level storage solutions. That is, the protocols access devices by reading/writing blocks of raw data not knowing what file they belong to.
The advantages of iSCSI are that it communicates over IP and as such is even able to use the internet for connecting servers and storage placed in a remote location (FC is able to do that too but requires extra, expensive, routing hardware).
Furthermore, if it is about connecting local storage to a server iSCSI can use a basic UTP cabling based ethernet infrastucture which is a lot cheaper than an FC infrastructure. One should however keep in mind that iSCSI requires a separate network to be able to perform well, so connecting iSCSI devices over a company network that is used for other communications too is not a good idea.
To get good performance an iSCSI ethernet infrastructure should at least be Gigabit based and should be redundant to get availability.
FC SAN's are definetly the ones with the better performance. This is due to the infrastructures which are running at 4Gbit/s (most common in recent setups). iSCSI is mostly implemented based on a 1 Gbit/s infrastructure.
As said, both FC and iSCSI are block-based. If you need the storage to replace a fileserver both are not the right solation. In that case you need a NAS (network attached storage) solution which are able to get you file-sharing capabilities right away (CIF, NFS etc.).
(iSCSI and/or FC can be behind the NAS-device as the actual storage, that would involve so called gateways).
An issue that always comes up using iSCSI is that it is not fully vendor independant. The server to connect have to run a so called iSCSI Initiator and, to avoid problems, only those initiators can be used that are certified by the storage vendor. Furthermore the iSCSI initiator takes quite a lot of CPU power of the server to connect so the server should have a lot of CPU power left to handle it. There is a solution for this: using rather expensive networkcards that have an initiator implemented in hardware (so called iSCSI HBA's, or TOE= TCP Offload Engines, HBA's allow for booting from iSCSI too) but besides of being expensive these initiators need to be on the storage vendor's certified list too.
So iSCSI is not as open as it seems to be in the first place (Things are getting better however).
FC is not free of all these compatibiliy problems. In fact, depending on the storage vendor you chooce, there are several compatibiltyy matrices to be met in order for the total solution to be certified. You should leave the design of a FC SAN to a single specialist who knows were to find and how to use these matrices.
My advise would be to first decide on the budget (based on business requirements), than decide on wether file or block access is needed from the storage device and what OS-platforms are to connect, and decide on the performance you need.
This would lead you to the right choice for storage technology.
Regards,
Willeon

Best storage solution for a G5 tower?

Hello,
I'm trying to figure out what the best storage / performance strategy would be for Aperture/Lightroom/Photoshop use. I'm an amateur digital photographer, and I shoot with a 10 MP camera so my hard drives are filling up! I currently use a 74 GB Raptor as my boot drive/sandbox and a 400 GB WD as my OS & file storage drive. I love the speed of the Raptor, but it obviously has a massive storage size limitation.
I already need more storage space, so I'd like to change my set-up. Whatever changes I make, I'd like them to also make sense for a Mac Pro which I intend to upgrade to in about six months.
I've heard it's better when using Photoshop and Lightroom to keep photos 1) on an internal drive rather than an external one (not a problem with the Mac Pro's 4 drive bays) 2) on a different drive than the OS install (is this true?) and 3) on a drive with lots of free space.
With only two drive bays in the G5 tower, what's the best option in terms of maximizing speed and storage space?

I still feel the g5 is slow. I have a huge aperture library, on the magnitude of 95k photos, and I have a lot of slowdowns and beach balls, even with my RAID, and they are only 8 megapixel 20d files. I have plenty of RAM, don't run a lot of applications when I am running aperture. I have the slower video card (6600 I think), but I still have a lot of "loading image" time, which I think is RAM/cpu/disk access. In other words, get the Mac Pro with the mid level graphics card with enough RAM. I think you can load up the mac pro with a bunch of internal hard drives (get the enteprise class drives). I use apple RAID formatting; again, I like as much of it to be in the box as possible--third part solutions make me nervous; will the be available in the future? If my hardware raid controller goes down, can I still rebuild my drives? A lot of questions with no easy answers for me.
As for jrg_uk, I know firewire is just the enclosure, but there are new SATA external drives that can connect directly to your computer without going through the Firewire bridge (as I understand it). The reason why I am not a big fan of firewire is because of the bridge. I like the idea that my data is going through as few hoops as possible.
I have had several firewire drives fail on me. I just had a OWC RAID die on me three times in a row; all because the hardware failed inside the drive. It was in a metal case with a fan. I also recently had a LaCie big drive fail on me. I think it is a hard drive failure, (ie., not the enclosure, as I can still see the enclosure); although I cannot be sure. I have had a host of other drives fail as well, including another OWC drive with a fan, a grainite digital RAID enclosure, and a bunch of the notebook firewire enclosure. The only enclosure manufacturer that I would recommend is Wiebetech. I, and one of my friends who owns a retouching studio, have had very good results with their enclosures. I have two of them plus a drivedock. So far so good. But again, I only trust my mission critical stuff to SATA. Preferably internal, although I am hoping to get an external SATA RAID soon, as I am running out of space again.

Isilon storage solution experiences?

We are a small community access facility with growing web streaming needs. We are currently running up to 5 individual CS 5x or 6x systems on Windows 7pro boxes, all core i7 $2k-ish builds; more like gamer PCs than higher NLE systems. Currently all active project\media storage is local on each system. Each system having 1.5 to 3 TB of dedicated media storage space.
We are being pitched some isilon storage solutions in the near future. I was hoping to get feedback from any users with experiences with such. I had always assumed that any reliable networked storage solution was way out of our price range. I also see a lot of posts in the user forums from people having issues using assets over a network.
I downloaded the white papers on Isilon's 1FS 6.5 Adobe CS 6 solution and, at a cursory glance without knowing prices, it seems like it might be cumbersome to manage.
Any practical knowledge or stories out there? Suggestions for network storage for in-edit projects that might suite a small fish facility?

John, the Adobe Premiere Pro QA team and Adobe Anywhere engineering team both have Isilon clusters they use to validate Premiere workflows on network attached storage. A number of there issues you point out are now are adressed by either running Adobe Premiere or following the recommendations in the white paper wfmc pointed out. In a nutshell, keep project and all directory settings local, but keep your media on NAS and you elminate the issues associated with multiple users accessing project metadata or updating each other's media indexes. If you're looking for true multi-user collaboration on the same project metadata, you'll need to look to Adobe Anywhere or MXFserver.
1.John T Smith,
Nov 8, 2012 5:26 PM in reply to wfmc staffer
Report
The best you can do now (see below) is use a file server to keep a master of your video files, and copy files to/from the master over to individual computer for editing... which does, of course, require some kind of file check out/in software so only one person has any given file at a time
No current version of Premiere works properly over a network
-you may NOT "map" your My Documents folder to a network drive
-you MUST give all users administrator accounts to use Premiere
-you MAY also need to... http://forums.adobe.com/thread/969395
-http://forums.adobe.com/thread/771151
-http://forums.adobe.com/thread/851602
-a work around, of sorts http://forums.adobe.com/thread/957523
-and not on a "domain" http://forums.adobe.com/thread/858977
-also PreEl see #5 http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1017199
-more PreEl problem http://forums.adobe.com/thread/975117
Someday, you will actually be able to USE files stored on a server
Adobe Anywhere http://forums.adobe.com/message/4682127
-Announced September 2012 for "future versions" of Premiere Pro
-NO information on pricing or availability date

Remote Storage Solution - PC as network drive?

Has anyone out there tried a remote storage solution for consolidating very large libraries?
I am currently having difficulties as I have over 2TB of iTunes content now, stored in multiple libraries (using iTunes Library Manager) across several remote hard drives (USB). My problem is that if I don't access one of the libraries for a while, often the software updates break links to the files, and I have various other problems organizing the disparate libraries (especially when I outgrow a USB hard drive).
I'm still expanding my storage needs rapidly as I encode more home video and import old records. I'm not entirely sold on the idea of an ever-increasing number of remote libraries and dozens of USB drives humming away. Any suggestions on a good high-capacity (and hopefully expandable) solution to consolidate my whole iTunes library in one place?
I have contemplated building a network PC and putting a bunch of 500GB/1TB drives in it, but would my iMac/iTunes still see those each as separate drives? Is there any solution out there to give me >3TB of space (affordably - eg, without having to buy a high-end multi-TB HDD) whilst still allowing me to "keep iTunes library organized"?

Never answered

What is the Best Storage Solution?

I have a laptop and an external drive E (where I store all my photos 9000plus). I would like some suggestions on the best (most reliable and long term) storage solutions. I was burning them on CD as well but now I have a Canon EOS Rebel GT (pictures are much larger files) I dont get many on a CD. I was wondering if I should get a DVD burner. I thought they probablly store a lot more pictures?? Wondering how many more?
Also, do I save all my tagged & edited pictures seperately from my originals (have two sets of photos)? And if so on the hard drive or on CD/DVD? Then I assume if I backup my catalogue when I get a new computer all I need to do is restore and everything is there?
Finally, any good stragegies on deleting pictures. I have 3 kids and have such a hard time deleting their photos. The obvious poor ones no problem but when I take rapid shot pictures they all seem so good. At this rate I will need to buy a bigger house to store all the hard drives and back up disks :)
Would love to hear what works well for you!
Thanks,
julie

The original poster asked the question whether or not to have two sets of photos (originals and edited).
What do most people do as far as this is concerned?
Do you include your original files in your Organizer catalogue or not?
The "workflow" that I have finished up with is this:
At the end of each day, I transfer all my camera shots into a folder such as C:\Negs\2006\0605\2006_0521Flowers ("Negs" because I think of them as equivalent to "negatives")
I do not use PSE4 downloader but use Fuji FinePixViewer simply because it came with my first camera and I have just continued with it. It makes it easy to rename the files to things like 0605210001.jpg (last 4 digits sequential for each date). I have tried descriptive file names but found them too difficult.
The word tacked onto the sub-folder name is a reminder of the general nature of the subject matter. I do not worry if there are a few shots that do not really belong but if there are a significant number of shots of totally unrelated subjects, I can cheat and artificially split the sub-folder in two. (The descriptive part of the folder name is pretty much redundant because of PSE4's tagging ability, it is really a carry-over from the Fuji program.)
I then go through and delete any completely useless shots.
I then copy and paste the sub-folder into a another folder named C:\Photos" which contains an identical sub-folder tree.
C:\Photos is watched by PSE4 so whatever is in it is automatically included in my catalogue.
I then go through and do my tagging.
I do my editing in the C:\Photos folder and save processed files in their original sub-folder but append _E to the file name to indicate that it has been edited. (I have a few other suffixes like _W for web images, _Q for max quality for large prints)
If I am not entirely satisified with my editing and think that maybe in a few days time I might be able to do a little better, I save my processed file as psd. Otherwise I flatten it and delete the un-edited version. (A copy of the original still being available in C:\Negs if required.)
Am I unusual in keeping my original shots outside Organizer? - my reason for doing it this way was to keep my Catalogue down to a manageable size.
As far as backing up is concerned, I have a comprehensive system that involves daily backups from C to D (a second internal drive) and monthly backups to external USB drives (used in rotation and kept off site).

Can I use one 2tb external hard drive for time capsule and file storage?

I would like to use time capsule, but also keep the hard drive on my desktop for file storage. Can I do this?

Apple advises against doing that.
Any data stored on the disk that Time Machine is backing up to can not be backed up.
Plus the data outside of the Time Machine backup database cause problems when Time Machine starts cleaned up old backups to recover space for new backups.
For these reason it is advised that the Time Capsule disk be used for one or the other but not both.
Allan

What's the best storage solution for a large iLife? RAID? NAS?

I'm looking for an affordable RAID storage solution for my Time Machine, iTunes Library, iMovie videos, and iPhoto Library. To this point I've been doing a hodgepodge of external hard drives without the saftey of redundancy and I've finaly been bitten with HD failures. So I'm trying to determine what would be the best recommendation for my scenario. Small Home Office for my wife's business (just her), and me with all our media. I currentlty have a mid-2010 Mac Mini (no Thunderbolt), she has an aging 2007 iMac and 2006 MacBook Pro (funny that they're all about the same benchmark speed). We have an AppleTV (original), iPad2 and two iPhone 4S's.
1st Question: Is it better to get a RAID and connect it to my Airport Extreme Base Station USB port as a shared disk? OR to connect it directly to my Mac Mini and share through Home Sharing? OR Should I go with a NAS RAID?
2nd Question: Simple is Better. Should I go with a Mac Mini Server and connect drives to it? (convert my Mac Mini into a server) or Should I just get one of those nice all-in-one 4-bay RAID drive solutions that I can expand with?
Requirements:
1. Expandable and Upgradeable. I don't want something limited to 2TB drives, but as drives get bigger and cheaper I want to easily throw one in w/o concerns.
2. Simple integration with Time Machine and my iLife: iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto. If iTune's Home Sharing feature is currently the best way of using my media across multiple devices then why mess with it? I see "DLNA certified" storage on some devices and wonder if that would just add another layer of complexity I don't need. One more piece to make compatible.
3. Inexpensive. I totally believe in the "You Get What You Pay For" concept. But I also realize sometimes I'm buying marketing, not product. I imagine that to start, I'm going to want a diskless system (because of $$$) to throw all my drives into, and then upgrade bigger drives as my data and funds grow.
4. Security. I don't know if its practical, but I like the idea of being able to pop two drives out and put them in my safe and then pop them back in once a week for the backup/mirroring. I like this idea because I'm concerned that onsite backup is not always the safest. Unfortunately those cloud based services aren't designed for Terabytes of raw family video, or an entire media library that isn't wholey from the iTunes Store. I can't be the only one facing this challenge. Surely there's an affordable way to keep a safe backup for the average Joe. But what is it?
5. Not WD. I've had bad experiences with Western Digital drives, and I loathe their consumer packaged backup software that comes preloaded on their external drives. They are what I meant when I say you get what you pay for. Prettily packed garbage.
6. Relatively Fast. I have put all my media on an external drive before (back when it fit on one drive) and there's noticeable spool-up hang time. Thunderbolt's nice and all, but so new that its not easily available across devices, nor is it cheap. eSata is not really an option. I love Firewire but I'm getting the feeling that Apple has made it the red-headed step-child of connections. USB 3.0 looks decent, but like eSata, Apple doesn't recognize it exists. Where does that leave us? Considering this dilemma I really liked Seagate's GoFlex external drives because it meant I could always buy a new base and still be compatible. But that only works with single drives. And as impressive as Seagate is, we can't expect them to consistently double drive sizes every two years like they have been -cool as that may be.
So help me out without getting too technical. What's the best setup? Is it Drobo? Thecus? ReadyNAS? Seagate's BlackArmor? Or something else entirely?
All comments are appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I am currently using WD 2TB Thunderbolt hard drive for my iTunes, which i love and is works great. i am connected directly to my Mac Book Pro. I am running low on Memory and thinking of buying a bigger Hard drive. My question is should I buy 6TB thunderbolt HD or 6TB NAS drive to work solely for iTunes. I have home sharing enabled for my Apple TV
I also have my time capsule connected just as back up only.

.tdm file storage vi's slow editing vi's

I am developing software using Labview 8.5 and have recently added some file storage vi's for the .tdm format for use in DIAdem 10.2. Upon using the open storage, set file properties, write channel group, write channel, and close storage vi's, the editing has become extremely slow - for any operation I try to perform there is a 10-15seconds delay before it occurs. If I remove the .tdm vi's from my diagram then the editing goes back to normal and changes/operations occur almost instantaneously as expected. My project is not large as far as I am concerned (Front panel - 121k, block diagram=1538k, code=0.2k, data=957k, total=2617k, total vi size on disk=389k)
I saw a similar post to the .tdm storage vi's causing this to occur back in 2005 and was supposed to have been on the fix list but it does not appear that it has 3 years later. I am sure many others are using these vi's so not sure what I may have done differently to cause the editing to slow down so much.
Anyone with ideas and fix would be greatly appreciated as I cannot afford to sit around 10-15 seconds for every step of my developement.

Yes, sometimes Storage VIs are slow. But They are Express VIs, supplying the easy configuration for users. If you feel they are too slow, I suggest that you can use TDMS files instead.

File storage solution

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for