or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › How many movies can be streamed from one HDD simultaneously?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How many movies can be streamed from one HDD simultaneously? - Page 2

post #31 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

Just for fun, I started playing a bunch of my MKV blu-ray rips with VLC. They were all playing from the same HDD (a 4TB Hitachi 5400rpm) over a Gbit ethernet connection from my linux server (samba) to my Windows computer. I went up to nine and did not notice any obvious playback issues, but it is somewhat difficult to tell. The sound was a horrendous din, but I did spend a few seconds watching the video of each and I did not see any obvious jumps or freezes. So probably I could have kept going, but nine was enough fun for me.

http://i.imgur.com/QapiGZf.jpg
That's pretty close to my guess. I figured 10+ with a green drive: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1438027/planning-to-rebuild-my-20tb-whs-flexraid-server-information-requested/420#post_22847208


Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

A dubious claim. Feel free to present some data to back it up.
I would need to see data to back up that claim as well. I can see the benefit of a cache drive for video editing, but for simple playback... no.
post #32 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

That's pretty close to my guess. I figured 10+ with a green drive: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1438027/planning-to-rebuild-my-20tb-whs-flexraid-server-information-requested/420#post_22847208
I would need to see data to back up that claim as well. I can see the benefit of a cache drive for video editing, but for simple playback... no.

So you're saying the white papers on the subject are incorrect? Interesting. You should email the authors and let them know that all their data is incorrect.
post #33 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

So you're saying the white papers on the subject are incorrect? Interesting. You should email the authors and let them know that all their data is incorrect.

What specific data from exactly which "white papers" are you referring to? Provide a link with a page number and a quote so that we can see exactly what you are claiming.
post #34 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

What specific data from exactly which "white papers" are you referring to? Provide a link with a page number and a quote so that we can see exactly what you are claiming.

I've already done that. Feel free to read it or remain ignorant.
post #35 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

I've already done that. Feel free to read it or remain ignorant.

Do you understand the meaning of the words "specific", "page number", and "quote"?
post #36 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Yet there are tons of people who benefit in the exact scenario.... including myself rolleyes.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

That's pretty close to my guess. I figured 10+ with a green drive: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1438027/planning-to-rebuild-my-20tb-whs-flexraid-server-information-requested/420#post_22847208
I would need to see data to back up that claim as well. I can see the benefit of a cache drive for video editing, but for simple playback... no.

So you're saying the white papers on the subject are incorrect? Interesting. You should email the authors and let them know that all their data is incorrect.
I'll bet it really helps you stream your 6 GB blu-ray rips. Point me to a whitepaper or two that show a speed up advantage to caching a one time only stream and I might change my mind. I could see an edge to encoding in that a good encoder will look ahead and behind to optimize the encode, often several times, but for playback, NO.

PS: I just read some of the citation you pointed to a few posts back and it really seemed to apply to Rebecca Black's Friday or other viral video. Most of the citation(s) pertained to hard drive striping to increase bandwidth. That was necessary back in the 90s when that paper was written. Today we have SATA3 and RAID.
Edited by olyteddy - 5/18/13 at 9:57am
post #37 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

So you're saying the white papers on the subject are incorrect? Interesting. You should email the authors and let them know that all their data is incorrect.
You have either completely misunderstood or completely misrepresented the single white paper you cited. They discuss algorithms for caching videos by striping the data across multiple partitions/disks in order to overcome the throughput limitations of hard drives in 1999 (they are assuming a maximum drive read speed of 10MB/s).

Fast forward almost 15 years later (today) to where single mechanical drive (with much more/better internal cache) has the ability to saturate a single gigabit ethernet connection and those limitations do not exist. We won't even get into a striped RAID configuration.
post #38 of 44
http://www.seagate.com/internal-hard-drives/consumer-electronics/video-3-5-hdd/?cmpid=friendly-_-video-hdd-us
Quote:
Seagate® Video 3.5 HDDs are designed to deliver reliable 24×7 operation— optimized for low-power consumption, quiet operation, smooth video streaming, high reliability and high capacity.

Reliably delivers up to 16 simultaneous streams of HD content
post #39 of 44
This is all semantics ... A normal HDD can exceed the performance needed for multiple streams so I don't see the point in even discussing it further.
post #40 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

Do you understand the meaning of the words "specific", "page number", and "quote"?

Don't hold your breath. This is where arguments end with this particular claimee. Just sayin'.
post #41 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

Don't hold your breath. This is where arguments end with this particular claimee. Just sayin'.

I'm not going to waste my time with people who argue just to argue and don't even know what they are talking about. Every time I provide facts and details arguments from the other side are "no you can't" and "you don't know what you're talking about".... I'm not going to waste any more time responding to that nonsense. You don't know the basics of prefetching and buffering video streams. Fine. We all get it.
post #42 of 44
Then why waste our time with your theories and nonsense? I've personally never seen you back up any of your claims with any relevant facts, your modus operandi is to either turn defensive (case in point above) or just walk away without an answer. Here's your chance to prove that you are in fact a know-it-all. Put up or shut up, it's your choice.
post #43 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

I've personally never seen you back up any of your claims with any relevant facts, your modus operandi is to either turn defensive (case in point above) or just walk away without an answer. Here's your chance to prove that you are in fact a know-it-all. Put up or shut up, it's your choice.

I noticed that, too. As soon as I asked him for a specific quote with page number and reference to a specific article, he got quiet. Since it obviously takes little effort to provide such a quote if it exists, the obvious conclusion is that he is unable to provide such a quote because it does not exist.
post #44 of 44
If you stream from a server and not locally (like a real pro smile.gif ) then the debate how fast a HDD is or if cache SSD improves doesn't matter since you LAN network speed is 125MB sec, and slower than most HDDs.

At giga speed I'm sure you could stream more than 5 at once but I don't own enough machines to test.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › How many movies can be streamed from one HDD simultaneously?