They're just begging the controlling Europeans to being in a law to allow it.
https://petapixel.com/2022/03/22/mac-studio-m1-ultra-teardown-removable-ssd-is-upgradable-but-blocked-by-apple/
They're just begging the controlling Europeans to being in a law to allow it.
https://petapixel.com/2022/03/22/mac-studio-m1-ultra-teardown-removable-ssd-is-upgradable-but-blocked-by-apple/
They're just begging the controlling Europeans to being in a law to allow it.
https://petapixel.com/2022/03/22/mac-studio-m1-ultra-teardown-removable-ssd-is-upgradable-but-blocked-by-apple/
On 2022-03-22 18:36, RichA wrote:
They're just begging the controlling Europeans to being in a law to allow it.
https://petapixel.com/2022/03/22/mac-studio-m1-ultra-teardown-removable-ssd-is-upgradable-but-blocked-by-apple/
Article: "Even though the Mac Studio does make a strong case for itself
as an incredible value from the perspective of power for the price, the inability to upgrade storage is disappointing."
....
The best of both worlds for one person is not going to be the best for another person.
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or 64
GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for another 10
years just as this iMac has been good for the last 9 - coming up on 10
years.
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or 64
GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for another 10 years just as this iMac has been good for the last 9 - coming up on 10 years.
1TB is nothing. Unless you only use it for the OS and some minor storage.
But, as long as you can plug-in auxiliary storage, even though USB-3 is inferior
to an in-board hard drive.
Not clear where this will go on the Mx based Macs so far - but I won't
be getting rid of this iMac anytime soon either. It's not clear to me
that Parallels will run Windows (x86 translation|emulation) on the Mx
yet. Rosetta 2 performance for such TBS. Fusion won't attempt it from
what I can see (it will run ARM based Windows on the Mac Mx).
On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 14:56:57 UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or 64
GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for another 10
years just as this iMac has been good for the last 9 - coming up on 10
years.
1TB is nothing. Unless you only use it for the OS and some minor storage. But, as long as you can plug-in auxiliary storage, even though USB-3 is inferior to an in-board hard drive.
On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 14:56:57 UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2022-03-22 18:36, RichA wrote:
They're just begging the controlling Europeans to being in a law to allow it.
https://petapixel.com/2022/03/22/mac-studio-m1-ultra-teardown-removable-ssd-is-upgradable-but-blocked-by-apple/
Article: "Even though the Mac Studio does make a strong case for itself
as an incredible value from the perspective of power for the price, the inability to upgrade storage is disappointing."
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or 64
GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for another 10 years just as this iMac has been good for the last 9 - coming up on 10 years.
1TB is nothing. Unless you only use it for the OS and some minor storage.
But, as long as you can plug-in auxiliary storage, even though USB-3 is inferior to an in-board hard drive.
On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 14:56:57 UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2022-03-22 18:36, RichA wrote:
They're just begging the controlling Europeans to being in a law to allow it.Article: "Even though the Mac Studio does make a strong case for itself
https://petapixel.com/2022/03/22/mac-studio-m1-ultra-teardown-removable-ssd-is-upgradable-but-blocked-by-apple/
as an incredible value from the perspective of power for the price, the
inability to upgrade storage is disappointing."
....
The best of both worlds for one person is not going to be the best for
another person.
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or 64
GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for another 10
years just as this iMac has been good for the last 9 - coming up on 10
years.
1TB is nothing. Unless you only use it for the OS and some minor storage.
My understanding is that the constraint is apparently associated with the "T2"
security chip being integrated into the onboard storage. Since Apple wants to
sell a Studio with up to 8TB onboard which requires two ports, the two are thus both tied into the T2 chip, and thus, the observed behavior.
To have a DIY-esque upgrade capability will probably require two things.
The first is for the SSD hardware to be 3rd party sourced. If that will happen
will of course be dependent on the market to buy it, plus the second part.
The second will be some sort of software/firmware based upgrade protocol where a machine is upgraded with all current memory being wiped & reset
as part of the T2 interface/protocol restrictions.
-hh wrote:
My understanding is that the constraint is apparently associated with the "T2"
security chip being integrated into the onboard storage. Since Apple wants to
sell a Studio with up to 8TB onboard which requires two ports, the two are thus both tied into the T2 chip, and thus, the observed behavior.
apple silicon macs do not have a t2 chip because its functionality is
part of the processor itself.
To have a DIY-esque upgrade capability will probably require two things.
The first is for the SSD hardware to be 3rd party sourced. If that will happen
will of course be dependent on the market to buy it, plus the second part.
The second will be some sort of software/firmware based upgrade protocol where a machine is upgraded with all current memory being wiped & reset
as part of the T2 interface/protocol restrictions.
already been done.
My understanding is that the constraint is apparently associated with the "T2"
security chip being integrated into the onboard storage. Since Apple wants to
sell a Studio with up to 8TB onboard which requires two ports, the two are
thus both tied into the T2 chip, and thus, the observed behavior.
apple silicon macs do not have a t2 chip because its functionality is
part of the processor itself.
Point remains unchanged that Apple hasn't removed its T2-based lockdowns.
To have a DIY-esque upgrade capability will probably require two things.
The first is for the SSD hardware to be 3rd party sourced. If that will happen
will of course be dependent on the market to buy it, plus the second part.
The second will be some sort of software/firmware based upgrade protocol where a machine is upgraded with all current memory being wiped & reset as part of the T2 interface/protocol restrictions.
already been done.
Internal by Apple & for Apple, of course.
But what's offered on the cheap by
3rd Party providers that's within the reach of mortal DIY'ers for this application?
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or 64
GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for another 10
years
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or 64
GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for another 10 years
For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a joke.
I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or
64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for
another 10 years
For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a joke.
I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or
64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for
another 10 years
For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a joke.
I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD. Lot's of redundancies too.
Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of that
will be ignored for years and years at a time? Huge waste of money.
1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at what
is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave me 350 GB
of spare space.
For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a joke. >>
I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD. Lot's of redundancies too.
Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of that
will be ignored for years and years at a time? Huge waste of money.
1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at what
is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave me 350 GB
of spare space.
In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32
or 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for
another 10 years
For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a joke. >>>
I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD. Lot's of
redundancies too.
Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of that
will be ignored for years and years at a time? Huge waste of money.
1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at
what is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave me
350 GB of spare space.
In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
Am 27.03.2022 um 07:01 schrieb geoff:
On 27/03/2022 11:11 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 >>>>>> or 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for >>>>>> another 10 years
For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a
joke.
I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD. Lot's
of redundancies too.
Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of
that will be ignored for years and years at a time? Huge waste of
money.
1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at
what is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave
me 350 GB of spare space.
In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external drive(s)
- aren't these adequate for your purpose ?
Obviously I have backups.
On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
images at a mouse click,
fetching an external drive and connecting it by cable to the computer.
The other thing is that when I travel it's better not to have to carry
around an additional HDD just to be able to access the images.
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
simply absurdly small nowadays.
When I buy a new PC or notebook, they first thing I usually do is to
replace the SSD with a larger one. If a device such as the Apple
prevents you from doing so, it's a no-go for me.
On 27/03/2022 11:11 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32
or 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for
another 10 years
For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a
joke.
I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD. Lot's of
redundancies too.
Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of
that will be ignored for years and years at a time? Huge waste of
money.
1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at
what is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave
me 350 GB of spare space.
In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external drive(s) - aren't these adequate for your purpose ?
In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external drive(s) - aren't these adequate for your purpose ?
Obviously I have backups.
On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
images at a mouse click, i.e. not having to walk to another room,
fetching an external drive and connecting it by cable to the computer.
The other thing is that when I travel it's better not to have to carry
around an additional HDD just to be able to access the images.
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
simply absurdly small nowadays.
When I buy a new PC or notebook, they first thing I usually do is to
replace the SSD with a larger one.
If a device such as the Apple
prevents you from doing so, it's a no-go for me.
Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32
or 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for
another 10 years
For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a joke. >>>
I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD. Lot's of
redundancies too.
Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of that
will be ignored for years and years at a time? Huge waste of money.
1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at
what is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave me
350 GB of spare space.
In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
Alfred Molon wrote:
In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it. >> I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use
these images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external drive(s) - aren't these adequate for your purpose ?
Obviously I have backups.
On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
images at a mouse click, i.e. not having to walk to another room,
fetching an external drive and connecting it by cable to the computer.
The other thing is that when I travel it's better not to have to carry around an additional HDD just to be able to access the images.
the cloud solves that problem, including your own private cloud which
can easily be configured on your own nas, eliminating any concern about privacy.
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is simply absurdly small nowadays.
nonsense. 1tb is not 'absurdly small'.
it's more than enough for nearly everyone, especially for a desktop
computer which has *very* high speed peripheral connects, including
10gb-e & thunderbolt 4.
those who expect to be using more than 8tb, namely video production,
will be connecting to a san over 10gb-e (standard, not an extra card)
and not need more than 8tb internal, if they need anywhere close to
that.
On 27/03/2022 11:22 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 27.03.2022 um 07:01 schrieb geoff:
On 27/03/2022 11:11 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with
32 or 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me >>>>>>> for another 10 years
For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a >>>>>> joke.
I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD. Lot's
of redundancies too.
Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of
that will be ignored for years and years at a time? Huge waste of
money.
1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at
what is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave
me 350 GB of spare space.
In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it. >>>> I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use
these images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external
drive(s) - aren't these adequate for your purpose ?
Obviously I have backups.
On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
images at a mouse click,
NAS ?
Presumably not a problem to carry other larger things with you when you travel. Its not like it will be huge !
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is simply absurdly small nowadays.
nonsense. 1tb is not 'absurdly small'.
An interesting statement to make on a digital photography centric group, where discussions can easily center around the data consumption of RAW
files from a 20+MP dSLR, particularly since it is USENET, so the posters are more often old dogs who've owned data-hungry dSLRs for 20+ years to have accumulated a lot of personal digital image data in need of storage and management...
Case in point, I know that my own use cases are not mainstream, but that doesn't mean that I'm obligated to only consider mainstream solutions.
NAS ?
Could be an idea. But a NAS would have to be always on, connected to the
home WLAN. And there is the risk that some hacker could break into the network and get access to TB of data.
Presumably not a problem to carry other larger things with you when
you travel. Its not like it will be huge !
Yes, but still a brick connected by a cable to your laptop. I'm sick and tired of external bricks.
In any case, it's absurd that a company prevents you from upgrading the
SSD.
Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external
drive(s) - aren't these adequate for your purpose ?
Obviously I have backups.
On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
images at a mouse click,
NAS ?
Could be an idea. But a NAS would have to be always on, connected to the
home WLAN.
And there is the risk that some hacker could break into the
network and get access to TB of data.
Presumably not a problem to carry other larger things with you when you travel. Its not like it will be huge !
Yes, but still a brick connected by a cable to your laptop. I'm sick and tired of external bricks.
In any case, it's absurd that a company prevents you from upgrading the SSD.
It will likely be upgradeable but require a reset with Apple supplied
tools. To be seen - and likely - given that there is an open SSD port
in the system being discussed.
But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
the average user. I have tons of video and photos - but it's mainly
stored externally. When I travel I don't need access to all the raw files.
IAC, the computer being discussed is not even portable! It's a desktop system.
An interesting statement to make on a digital photography centric group, where discussions can easily center around the data consumption of RAW files from a 20+MP dSLR, particularly since it is USENET, so the posters are
more often old dogs who've owned data-hungry dSLRs for 20+ years to have accumulated a lot of personal digital image data in need of storage and management...
putting 20+ years of photos on an internal volume of a single computer
is incredibly dumb.
that should be on a nas, which itself provides redundancy in case of
drive failure, offers access from multiple devices on the lan and optionally the internet, plus is automatically backed up without user interaction either to another nas or to the cloud or both.
When the NAS is also the only copy, there's no difference in redundancy.
Because what is being claimed is "don't store it here, store it over there."
-hh wrote:
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is simply absurdly small nowadays.
nonsense. 1tb is not 'absurdly small'.
An interesting statement to make on a digital photography centric group, where discussions can easily center around the data consumption of RAW files from a 20+MP dSLR, particularly since it is USENET, so the posters are
more often old dogs who've owned data-hungry dSLRs for 20+ years to have accumulated a lot of personal digital image data in need of storage and management...
putting 20+ years of photos on an internal volume of a single computer
is incredibly dumb.
that should be on a nas, which itself provides redundancy in case of
drive failure, offers access from multiple devices on the lan and
optionally the internet, plus is automatically backed up without user interaction either to another nas or to the cloud or both.
My NAS has been on 24/7 for around 20 years and nobody has hacked it.
-hh wrote:
An interesting statement to make on a digital photography centric group,
where discussions can easily center around the data consumption of RAW files from a 20+MP dSLR, particularly since it is USENET, so the posters
are
more often old dogs who've owned data-hungry dSLRs for 20+ years to have
accumulated a lot of personal digital image data in need of storage and management...
putting 20+ years of photos on an internal volume of a single computer
is incredibly dumb.
that should be on a nas, which itself provides redundancy in case of drive failure, offers access from multiple devices on the lan and optionally the internet, plus is automatically backed up without user interaction either to another nas or to the cloud or both.
When the NAS is also the only copy, there's no difference in redundancy.
read it again. nowhere does it say the nas is the only copy. it
actually states the opposite.
do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you intentionally
lying about what i wrote?
Am 27.03.2022 um 12:34 schrieb geoff:
On 27/03/2022 11:22 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 27.03.2022 um 07:01 schrieb geoff:
On 27/03/2022 11:11 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with >>>>>>>> 32 or 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for >>>>>>>> me for another 10 years
For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply >>>>>>> a joke.
I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD. Lot's >>>>>> of redundancies too.
Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of
that will be ignored for years and years at a time? Huge waste of >>>>>> money.
1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at >>>>>> what is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would
leave me 350 GB of spare space.
In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it. >>>>> I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use
these images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external
drive(s) - aren't these adequate for your purpose ?
Obviously I have backups.
On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
images at a mouse click,
NAS ?
Could be an idea. But a NAS would have to be always on, connected to the
home WLAN. And there is the risk that some hacker could break into the network and get access to TB of data.
<snip>
Presumably not a problem to carry other larger things with you when
you travel. Its not like it will be huge !
Yes, but still a brick connected by a cable to your laptop. I'm sick and tired of external bricks.
An interesting statement to make on a digital photography centric group,
where discussions can easily center around the data consumption of RAW
files from a 20+MP dSLR, particularly since it is USENET, so the posters
are
more often old dogs who've owned data-hungry dSLRs for 20+ years to have
accumulated a lot of personal digital image data in need of storage and
management...
putting 20+ years of photos on an internal volume of a single computer is incredibly dumb.
that should be on a nas, which itself provides redundancy in case of drive failure, offers access from multiple devices on the lan and optionally the internet, plus is automatically backed up without user interaction either to another nas or to the cloud or both.
When the NAS is also the only copy, there's no difference in redundancy.
read it again. nowhere does it say the nas is the only copy. it
actually states the opposite.
But if that were true, then you'd be admitting that they still need the big internal drive *too*.
do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you intentionally
lying about what i wrote?
This hasn't been talking about backups,
but where the primary data instance
is to reside.
For that, your comment was to put it on a NAS. That means that it is there *instead of*
residing on internal storage: that's not a backup, but the primary data's instance.
Any other interpretation is an after-the-fact goalpost move attempt by you, based on
your personal biases of what you think their use case *should* be, instead of what
they stated they wanted it to be.
Now sure, we can go configure a NAS to be both the primary instance repository *and* for it
to be backup copy for the same, but to do so requires having greater storage capacity than
merely the size of the primary instance. Not likely to be cheaper at parity in size & performance.
And before one suggests using a RAID 5 or 6 (to have less overhead than RAID 1), note that
these formats are still using *one* instance, to which parity checks/etc are added to improve
improve its recovery reliability: it don't actually provide a fully standalone redundant backup copy.
But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
the average user.
If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage limit.
And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".
But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
the average user.
If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage limit.
The upper limit is 8GB (currently).
But few people need that. You're defending a silly position.
Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
the average user.
If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage limit.
And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".
In article <J-ydnfP55MrEQ93_nZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
My NAS has been on 24/7 for around 20 years and nobody has hacked it.
you might consider replacing the drives.
Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
the average user.
If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage limit.
And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".
On 28/03/2022 11:10 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
the average user.
If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage limit.
And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".
But is what you feel that you would like to have actually what you
really need ? Your choice I guess, but if it were me I'd be
re-evaluating what approach is reasonable/rational ....
hh wrote:
An interesting statement to make on a digital photography centric group,
where discussions can easily center around the data consumption of RAW
files from a 20+MP dSLR, particularly since it is USENET, so the posters
are
more often old dogs who've owned data-hungry dSLRs for 20+ years to
have
accumulated a lot of personal digital image data in need of storage
and
management...
putting 20+ years of photos on an internal volume of a single computer
is incredibly dumb.
that should be on a nas, which itself provides redundancy in case of drive failure, offers access from multiple devices on the lan and optionally the internet, plus is automatically backed up without user
interaction either to another nas or to the cloud or both.
When the NAS is also the only copy, there's no difference in redundancy.
read it again. nowhere does it say the nas is the only copy. it
actually states the opposite.
But if that were true, then you'd be admitting that they still need the big
internal drive *too*.
it is true, ..
and without a need for a large internal volume.
it actually *reduces* the size of the internal volume.
Am 27.03.2022 um 07:01 schrieb geoff:
On 27/03/2022 11:11 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 >>>>> or 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for >>>>> another 10 years
For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a
joke.
I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD. Lot's of
redundancies too.
Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of
that will be ignored for years and years at a time? Huge waste of
money.
1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at
what is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave
me 350 GB of spare space.
In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external drive(s) - aren't these adequate for your purpose ?Obviously I have backups.
On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
images at a mouse click, i.e. not having to walk to another room,
fetching an external drive and connecting it by cable to the computer.
The other thing is that when I travel it's better not to have to carry
around an additional HDD just to be able to access the images.
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
simply absurdly small nowadays.
When I buy a new PC or notebook, they first thing I usually do is to
replace the SSD with a larger one.
If a device such as the Apple
prevents you from doing so, it's a no-go for me.
--
Alfred Molon
Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper
storage limit.
The upper limit is 8GB (currently).
But few people need that. You're defending a silly position.
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
simply absurdly small nowadays.
Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
seem to manage.
Why not buy one with the correct size ?
In article <yQ50K.628187$aT3.516845@fx09.iad>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for >>>> the average user.
If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage >>> limit.
The upper limit is 8GB (currently).
tb, not gb. :)
But is what you feel that you would like to have actually what you
really need ? Your choice I guess, but if it were me I'd be
re-evaluating what approach is reasonable/rational ....
Am 28.03.2022 um 00:47 schrieb Alan Browne:
If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper
storage limit.
The upper limit is 8GB (currently).
But few people need that. You're defending a silly position.
It's silly to insist that 1TB is sufficient for the next 10 years. Not
if you use modern digital cameras.
Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I
can the same with all my videos
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite
them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
<snip>
Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
<snip>
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
simply absurdly small nowadays.
Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie
producer , even those
documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island
or where ever
seem to manage.
With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc
and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:27:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 28/03/2022 11:10 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for >>>> the average user.
If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage >>> limit.
And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".
But is what you feel that you would like to have actually what you
really need ? Your choice I guess, but if it were me I'd be
re-evaluating what approach is reasonable/rational ....
And therein lies the rub: everyone who’s claimed that he doesn’t
need this has simply said, in effect, not much more than just a
“you’re wrong”. Until one understand the basis … and trades … of
their requirements (all of them, holistically), it is pretty damn foolish
to jump down their throat and summarily claim they’re wrong.
On 2022-03-27 21:03, -hh wrote:
On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:27:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 28/03/2022 11:10 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for >>>>> the average user.
If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper
storage
limit.
And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".
But is what you feel that you would like to have actually what you
really need ? Your choice I guess, but if it were me I'd be
re-evaluating what approach is reasonable/rational ....
And therein lies the rub: everyone who’s claimed that he doesn’t
need this has simply said, in effect, not much more than just a
“you’re wrong”. Until one understand the basis … and trades … of
That's quite false. Those of us (several) with experience in computing
have outlined various strategies to manage large sets of data in very
simple, effective, safe ways that also contribute to backups as well.
There's no need to expensive SSD (high speed read/write storage at that)
to store data unused and unseen for years at a time ... sheesh! I have
that in 1 TB because the effort to tidy up doesn't happen very often.
their requirements (all of them, holistically), it is pretty damn foolish
to jump down their throat and summarily claim they’re wrong.
If Mr. Molon had stated 2 or even 4 TB, I wouldn't have said a thing
(even though it's probably still too much).
We're talking about working storage here, not ones life accumulation of photos in all states raw to finished.
15 TB of raw photos would be some 600,000 images (depending on the
camera of course). We all know as photographers that either we shoot a
lot, fast and cull down to what is useful, or we shoot slow and
deliberate and cull down a little to what is useful.
Keeping all the culls around working storage is not a very useful thing
- esp. on expensive SSD's.
On 2022-03-28 13:08, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I
can the same with all my videos
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite
them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
<snip>
Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet
(lots of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
<snip>
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
simply absurdly small nowadays.
Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie
producer , even those
documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos
island or where ever
seem to manage.
With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files
etc and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
Once the culls have been dropped, once the edits are made ... why keep
all the duds. Send them to external storage. That's what it's for.
Not to mention *finding* what you think you remember you may have had,
or not.
On 29/03/2022 11:06 am, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2022-03-28 13:08, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that
I can the same with all my videos
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite
them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
<snip>
Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet
(lots of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
<snip>
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain >>>>> amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is >>>>> simply absurdly small nowadays.
Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie
producer , even those
documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos
island or where ever
seem to manage.
With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files
etc and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
Once the culls have been dropped, once the edits are made ... why keep
all the duds. Send them to external storage. That's what it's for.
Or if they are really duds, delete them for good.
On 2022-03-27 21:03, -hh wrote:
On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:27:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 28/03/2022 11:10 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for >>>> the average user.
If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage >>> limit.
And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".
But is what you feel that you would like to have actually what you
really need ? Your choice I guess, but if it were me I'd be
re-evaluating what approach is reasonable/rational ....
And therein lies the rub: everyone who’s claimed that he doesn’t
need this has simply said, in effect, not much more than just a “you’re wrong”. Until one understand the basis … and trades … of
That's quite false. Those of us (several) with experience in computing
have outlined various strategies to manage large sets of data in very simple, effective, safe ways that also contribute to backups as well.
There's no need to expensive SSD (high speed read/write storage at that)
to store data unused and unseen for years at a time ... sheesh! I have
that in 1 TB because the effort to tidy up doesn't happen very often.
their requirements (all of them, holistically), it is pretty damn foolish to jump down their throat and summarily claim they’re wrong.
If Mr. Molon had stated 2 or even 4 TB, I wouldn't have said a thing
(even though it's probably still too much).
We're talking about working storage here, not ones life accumulation of photos in all states raw to finished.
15 TB of raw photos would be some 600,000 images (depending on the
camera of course). We all know as photographers that either we shoot
a lot, fast and cull down to what is useful, or we shoot slow and
deliberate and cull down a little to what is useful.
Keeping all the culls around working storage is not a very useful thing
- esp. on expensive SSD's.
Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos<snip>
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
<snip>
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
simply absurdly small nowadays.
Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even thoseWith 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
seem to manage.
quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc
and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
Why not buy one with the correct size ?It may be cheaper to buy a PC with a small SSD and put a large one into it.
<snip>
--
Alfred Molon
Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos<snip>
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.
<snip>
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
simply absurdly small nowadays.
Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
seem to manage.
With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc
and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
But buying a larger SSD won't increase the speed of processing files.
My main reason to update my 2014 iMac isn't the size of the SSD at 500GB ...
... it's the 'speed' of the processor doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes per
track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.
I'd like my next iMac to have a larger screen than 27" maybe 30-32 , I'd like it to be a bit quieter as when the fans ramp up when I'm processing 4k movies one after another it gets a bit annoying and slightly worrying.
My largest time is spent uploading to youtube and then youtube processing from SD > HD > 4k 6, five min tracks I started uploading at about 10:30pm
by 1am they were all on youtube which hadn't fully processed them by 3am
so I went to bed.
I've enough free space on my SSD ~100 GB for over an hours video and
that's without having to delete the last few gigs (as in concerts) I went to so that about 70mins worth or more of 4k video, the battery in my camera
only lasts 80mins and I haven;t an SD card that can store 70 mins of video anyway, which would mean a 128+GB SD card.
Presently I can live without such a card having a few 64GB is enough.
I didn;t expect my camera to have a battery life of 3 or more hours when recording video, I was happy enough to be able to use another battery(s)
if I needed to.
Why not buy one with the correct size ?
It may be cheaper to buy a PC with a small SSD and put a large one into it.
That's always the case and I've found it even cheaper to use flikr ~$50 a year
for unlimited storage and more convenient as I don't have to carry my computer
to a friends house to show them my photos.
Remmber the good old days when a few people at most could flick through your photo album and you check to make sure their hands weren't dirty.
When it comes to sharing/showing I'd have to work out how much it would cost me and the PC to go to Australia so my ex flatmate could copy some of my photos,
as hers got stolen after he house was broken into.
On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos<snip>
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.
<snip>
With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generateIn any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
simply absurdly small nowadays.
Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
seem to manage.
quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc
and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
But buying a larger SSD won't increase the speed of processing files.
My main reason to update my 2014 iMac isn't the size of the SSD at 500GB it's the 'speed' of the processor
doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes per track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.
I'd like my next iMac to have a larger screen than 27" maybe 30-32 , I'd like it to be a bit quieter
as when the fans ramp up when I'm processing 4k movies one after another it gets a bit annoying and slightly worrying.
On 2022-03-28 12:54, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 28.03.2022 um 00:47 schrieb Alan Browne:
If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper
storage limit.
The upper limit is 8GB (currently).
But few people need that. You're defending a silly position.
It's silly to insist that 1TB is sufficient for the next 10 years. Not
if you use modern digital cameras.
The only photos I keep on my main store are _finished_ and useful
photos. As I can easily reject 50 - 100 photos before working on one as
a finished product, all that raw data has no purpose being on my
computer's main store. But - it does get backed up and stored elsewhere.
Data management: it's a thing.
On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:
typically didn't proactively throw out all the non-keeper negatives, which did enable subsequent retrospective sweeps back through old stuff
years & decades later.
On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
Overall, it seems that much of this conversation is a casualty of newer Mac designs consolidating down to a single local drive, resulting in an effective comingling of the discrete 'scratch' vs 'storage' requirements. It hasn't helped
how some of their 'easy to use' Apps assume a single local repository,
which is where things break down when the total capacity requirement stacks up to be greater than what's available. It seems that Apple's solution has been
for them to sell you their Cloud storage.
Am 28.03.2022 um 19:15 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2022-03-28 12:54, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 28.03.2022 um 00:47 schrieb Alan Browne:
If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper
storage limit.
The upper limit is 8GB (currently).
But few people need that. You're defending a silly position.
It's silly to insist that 1TB is sufficient for the next 10 years.
Not if you use modern digital cameras.
The only photos I keep on my main store are _finished_ and useful
photos. As I can easily reject 50 - 100 photos before working on one
as a finished product, all that raw data has no purpose being on my
computer's main store. But - it does get backed up and stored elsewhere. >>
Data management: it's a thing.
Then you don't shoot so much.
BTW, a 4K video, even a short one, can easily take more than 1GB.
On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2022-03-27 21:03, -hh wrote:
On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:27:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:That's quite false. Those of us (several) with experience in computing
On 28/03/2022 11:10 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for >>>>>> the average user.
If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage >>>>> limit.
And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".
But is what you feel that you would like to have actually what you
really need ? Your choice I guess, but if it were me I'd be
re-evaluating what approach is reasonable/rational ....
And therein lies the rub: everyone who’s claimed that he doesn’t
need this has simply said, in effect, not much more than just a
“you’re wrong”. Until one understand the basis … and trades … of >>
have outlined various strategies to manage large sets of data in very
simple, effective, safe ways that also contribute to backups as well.
Sorry, I didn't notice them in this thread; can you point to where these were previously provided?
There's no need to expensive SSD (high speed read/write storage at that)
to store data unused and unseen for years at a time ... sheesh! I have
that in 1 TB because the effort to tidy up doesn't happen very often.
Case in point, just which photo-centric DAM app does one recommend
for this workflow? For example, let's take Apple's "Photos" app: its default configuration is "one big glom" of all of one's image files, which pragmatically pushes to have them all consolidated onto a single media source: just what is the effective workflow for breaking down into using multiple Photos libraries while satisfying the use case here of having older works functionally recombined into a single archive to manage?
their requirements (all of them, holistically), it is pretty damn foolish >>> to jump down their throat and summarily claim they’re wrong.
If Mr. Molon had stated 2 or even 4 TB, I wouldn't have said a thing
(even though it's probably still too much).
We're talking about working storage here, not ones life accumulation of
photos in all states raw to finished.
You have a point regarding how much is needed for 'working' vs 'life', but that's not how I interpreted his requirement.
15 TB of raw photos would be some 600,000 images (depending on the
camera of course). We all know as photographers that either we shoot
a lot, fast and cull down to what is useful, or we shoot slow and
deliberate and cull down a little to what is useful.
And all of the workflows between. Part of the dilemma that we have
in this new age of digital is that one needs to be more deliberative to retain one's RAWs, particularly of non-keepers. In the film era, we typically didn't proactively throw out all the non-keeper negatives, which did enable subsequent retrospective sweeps back through old stuff
years & decades later. YMMV on if you're willing to lose this capability
of if you desire retaining it. For the latter, there's a cost to pay (of course).
Keeping all the culls around working storage is not a very useful thing
- esp. on expensive SSD's.
So your only complaint is the high cost of the enabling hardware
for their stated workflow requirement?
In perspective, the cost of a basic SSD is down to almost $100/TB, so 'needing' 10TB is ~$1K, or less than the cost of one body or lens.
Even Apple's high performance SSDs are ~$300/TB = $3K body/lens.
Compared to the price of the photo gear being used, a "SSD too expensive" argument had merit a decade ago, but today, it is starting to get weak.
On 30/03/2022 3:08 am, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
Overall, it seems that much of this conversation is a casualty of
newer Mac
designs consolidating down to a single local drive, resulting in an
effective
comingling of the discrete 'scratch' vs 'storage' requirements. It
hasn't helped
how some of their 'easy to use' Apps assume a single local repository,
which is where things break down when the total capacity requirement
stacks
up to be greater than what's available. It seems that Apple's
solution has been
for them to sell you their Cloud storage.
An other aspect - I don't know how common this is in the semi or pro community - is that all of my 'serious' computers have a RAID-1
(mirrored) main drive (and one with mirrored separate data drive), for
some degree of hardware redundancy.
Eggs/basket ?
On 29/03/2022 11:46 pm, -hh wrote:
On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:
In the film era, we
typically didn't proactively throw out all the non-keeper negatives, which did enable subsequent retrospective sweeps back through old stuff
years & decades later.
Yeah, but a lot more consideration went into things before making the commitment of pushing the shutter ;- )
(Hopefully) resulting in far fewer duds and a more manageable library !
On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos<snip>
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.
Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.
How does one
choose to manage / mitigate that type of risk? Moving to a new home is
going to be more expensive than buying an internal 8TB SSD.
<snip>
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain >> amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is >> simply absurdly small nowadays.
Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
seem to manage.
With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
But buying a larger SSD won't increase the speed of processing files.
My main reason to update my 2014 iMac isn't the size of the SSD at 500GB ...
But that 500GB SSD wasn't the base standard configuration for an iMac in 2014,
so it was a "future-proof" investment that you made back in 2014, to have gotten
this far in its useful lifespan.
... it's the 'speed' of the processor doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes perGoing from HD to 4K is another illustration of capability growth over time.
track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.
I'd like my next iMac to have a larger screen than 27" maybe 30-32 , I'd likeIs your plan for your next machine that it is never going to process anything more than 4K video, or do you anticipate a desire for 8K video processing in the future that you also want the next machine to be able to handle?
it to be a bit quieter as when the fans ramp up when I'm processing 4k movies
one after another it gets a bit annoying and slightly worrying.
Because some of this thread is touching on futureproofing too.
For me 10 years is just too far into the future.Just going to one music gig a month is about 40GB per month.
My largest time is spent uploading to youtube and then youtube processing from SD > HD > 4k 6, five min tracks I started uploading at about 10:30pm by 1am they were all on youtube which hadn't fully processed them by 3amI've looked at such calculations similarly too, for the prospects of using a Cloud service for an off-site data backup. The challenge with that is that even with a decent fiber connection, if a catastrophic crash occurs, the amount of time required to pull down a complete backup can start to get measured in days instead of just hours. Case in point, 5TB on a 300Mbps
so I went to bed.
fiber at 80% bandwidth utilization is 46 hours (~2 days), assuming no additional problems encountered (throttling from ISP, Cloud service, etc).
I've enough free space on my SSD ~100 GB for over an hours video andOverall, it seems that much of this conversation is a casualty of newer Mac designs consolidating down to a single local drive, resulting in an effective comingling of the discrete 'scratch' vs 'storage' requirements. It hasn't helped
that's without having to delete the last few gigs (as in concerts) I went to
so that about 70mins worth or more of 4k video, the battery in my camera only lasts 80mins and I haven;t an SD card that can store 70 mins of video anyway, which would mean a 128+GB SD card.
how some of their 'easy to use' Apps assume a single local repository,
which is where things break down when the total capacity requirement stacks up to be greater than what's available. It seems that Apple's solution has been
for them to sell you their Cloud storage.
Presently I can live without such a card having a few 64GB is enough.The philosophy of media card capacity trade-offs is a whole 'nuther topic!
I didn;t expect my camera to have a battery life of 3 or more hours when recording video, I was happy enough to be able to use another battery(s)
if I needed to.
Why not buy one with the correct size ?
It may be cheaper to buy a PC with a small SSD and put a large one into it.
That's always the case and I've found it even cheaper to use flikr ~$50 a yearEvery approach has trades, of course.
for unlimited storage and more convenient as I don't have to carry my computer
to a friends house to show them my photos.
Remmber the good old days when a few people at most could flick through yourMy memory was more along the lines of gagging them & tying them into a chair while getting the slide projector & screen set up. /s
photo album and you check to make sure their hands weren't dirty.
When it comes to sharing/showing I'd have to work out how much it would costAnd thus, the loss of a plausible excuse to take a week's holiday in Oz...
me and the PC to go to Australia so my ex flatmate could copy some of my photos,
as hers got stolen after he house was broken into.
-hh
On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos<snip>
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss
from the other side of London or the world.
Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.
Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.
True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be able to get the
fastest speed possible than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the galopogos islands.
How does one choose to manage / mitigate that type of risk? Moving to a
new home is going to be more expensive than buying an internal 8TB SSD.
Some people move home more times than some people buy a new computer.
Price doesn't come into it.
<snip>
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain >> amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
simply absurdly small nowadays.
Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
seem to manage.
With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
But buying a larger SSD won't increase the speed of processing files.
My main reason to update my 2014 iMac isn't the size of the SSD at 500GB ...
But that 500GB SSD wasn't the base standard configuration for an iMac in 2014,
so it was a "future-proof" investment that you made back in 2014, to have gotten
this far in its useful lifespan.
yes and I couldn't buy a large enough SSD so I could have all my videos, photos,
music on my internal drive, even in 2014 when I was doing SD & HD.
I was future-proofing for about 4 years and that was it.
When I fist had a Macplus I had no idea just one of my picvtures of a cat would
take up more space than I had on a floppy drive ;-)
... it's the 'speed' of the processor doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes per
track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.
Going from HD to 4K is another illustration of capability growth over time.
Not sure I see the point in goinf to 8K but having just bought a VR heasset can;t
help but think I'd liike to create content for it.
I'd like my next iMac to have a larger screen than 27" maybe 30-32 , I'd like
it to be a bit quieter as when the fans ramp up when I'm processing 4k movies
one after another it gets a bit annoying and slightly worrying.
Is your plan for your next machine that it is never going to process anything
more than 4K video, or do you anticipate a desire for 8K video processing in
the future that you also want the next machine to be able to handle?
Handle in what context my 2014 can handle 4K it has a 5k screen too.
Because some of this thread is touching on futureproofing too.
I try futureproofing for the foreseeable, and that doens't including
keeping everything I do on the internal drive.
For me 10 years is just too far into the future.
My largest time is spent uploading to youtube and then youtube processing from SD > HD > 4k 6, five min tracks I started uploading at about 10:30pm by 1am they were all on youtube which hadn't fully processed them by 3am so I went to bed.
I've looked at such calculations similarly too, for the prospects of using a
Cloud service for an off-site data backup. The challenge with that is that even with a decent fiber connection, if a catastrophic crash occurs, the amount of time required to pull down a complete backup can start to get measured in days instead of just hours. Case in point, 5TB on a 300Mbps fiber at 80% bandwidth utilization is 46 hours (~2 days), assuming no additional problems encountered (throttling from ISP, Cloud service, etc).
Well I haven't had such a crash in over 20+ years but then I use a Mac and don't run windows
[...]
If your computer & software is that unrealible I'd find something to do about it.
Just how often to you need to do such a thing ?
You sound like a women who wants to take all her 100 pairs of shoes in a suitcase for a weekend away !
The philosophy of media card capacity trade-offs is a whole 'nuther topic!
Not really.
you'd never buy a camera hoping it'll still be ok in 10 years time by just adding new lenses.
One of the main reasons for going from my canon EOS M3 to M6 mkII was for 4k video
I doubt I'll be able to by any gadget that will convert my M6 mk2 to 8K video.
If I really want 8k I'll have to buy a new camera than that is that.
When it comes to sharing/showing I'd have to work out how much it would cost
me and the PC to go to Australia so my ex flatmate could copy some of my photos,
as hers got stolen after he house was broken into.
And thus, the loss of a plausible excuse to take a week's holiday in Oz...
A week wouldn't be enough for me to recover from jet lag, and TBH she can be a real pain being French and Female is my diagnosis of her problems, afterc sharing a flat with her for 4 years Sydney was about the furthers place I could
find to recomend as a new home.
On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos<snip>
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss
from the other side of London or the world.
Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.
Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today
that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.
True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be able to get theUnderstood. Point really was to recognize that everyone's current & future conditions
fastest speed possible than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the galopogos islands.
are subject to change, and that there can be some unpleasant surprises at times.
For example, awhile back my wife was starting to look at retirement properties and
we found a promising looking place in the countryside... until we noticed that the
listing said "Electricity Available". In looking further into what that meant, it was two
things: the first was that there would be an additional expense to run power lines.
But the second was that it didn't list telephone, internet, or cableTV as "available",
which meant those services weren't available at any cost: one would only be able
to rely on cellular/satellite...which would be a step backwards vs current capability,
and probably worse for future capability growth.
How does one choose to manage / mitigate that type of risk? Moving to a new home is going to be more expensive than buying an internal 8TB SSD.
Some people move home more times than some people buy a new computer.Of course; generalized comments doesn't exclude exceptions.
Price doesn't come into it.
<snip>
In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
simply absurdly small nowadays.
Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
seem to manage.
With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc
and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
But buying a larger SSD won't increase the speed of processing files. My main reason to update my 2014 iMac isn't the size of the SSD at 500GB ...
But that 500GB SSD wasn't the base standard configuration for an iMac in 2014,
so it was a "future-proof" investment that you made back in 2014, to have gotten
this far in its useful lifespan.
yes and I couldn't buy a large enough SSD so I could have all my videos, photos,At least directly from Apple.
music on my internal drive, even in 2014 when I was doing SD & HD.
I was future-proofing for about 4 years and that was it.A good point, as part of the question is what makes sense for the "how far out"
in terms of futureproof planning. Personally, I look for 5+ years, but with the
caveat that historically this was more for desktops which could have updates.
When I fist had a Macplus I had no idea just one of my picvtures of a cat wouldI wish that I'd taken a photo of my Mac+ before I replaced it with a IIvx ... it looked
take up more space than I had on a floppy drive ;-)
pretty rediculous with a pile of something like ~5 external HDD's ... each one was
something like ... 10MB?
... it's the 'speed' of the processor doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes per
track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.
Going from HD to 4K is another illustration of capability growth over time.
Not sure I see the point in goinf to 8K but having just bought a VR heasset can;tUnderstood; I only used 8K as an example of what a capability growth 'need' might be; VR is another existing example.
help but think I'd liike to create content for it.
I'd like my next iMac to have a larger screen than 27" maybe 30-32 , I'd like
it to be a bit quieter as when the fans ramp up when I'm processing 4k movies
one after another it gets a bit annoying and slightly worrying.
Is your plan for your next machine that it is never going to process anything
more than 4K video, or do you anticipate a desire for 8K video processing in
the future that you also want the next machine to be able to handle?
Handle in what context my 2014 can handle 4K it has a 5k screen too.But perhaps not VR?
Point still is that technology marches on, such that
we know its only a matter of time until current hardware gets left behind.
Challenge is in making good guesses ... neither over- nor under- spending ... for matching what's for sale today for one's needs, both of today's and
for how they may change, over the next X years.
Because some of this thread is touching on futureproofing too.
I try futureproofing for the foreseeable, and that doens't including keeping everything I do on the internal drive.Problem I have is that my current choice of DAM for photography
(Photos) isn't particularly conducive to fragmenting its storage
repository into 2+ pieces. Technically, there are some options,
but I've been admittedly lazy and just thrown an SSD RAID-0 at it.
For me 10 years is just too far into the future.Its a long stretch, sure, but it does somewhat (perhaps not intentionally?) acknowledge that migration between hardware solutions is a "tax" which
needs to be paid too, so there's the cost-benefit of paying a bit more so
as to stretch out useful lifespans so that one only has to do two migrations per decade instead of three. A lot of the question here comes back again
to personal preferences on what form one prefers the "payment" to be in
(eg, $ for hardware vs personal touch labor, etc).
My largest time is spent uploading to youtube and then youtube processing
from SD > HD > 4k 6, five min tracks I started uploading at about 10:30pm
by 1am they were all on youtube which hadn't fully processed them by 3am
so I went to bed.
I've looked at such calculations similarly too, for the prospects of using a
Cloud service for an off-site data backup. The challenge with that is that
even with a decent fiber connection, if a catastrophic crash occurs, the amount of time required to pull down a complete backup can start to get measured in days instead of just hours. Case in point, 5TB on a 300Mbps fiber at 80% bandwidth utilization is 46 hours (~2 days), assuming no additional problems encountered (throttling from ISP, Cloud service, etc).
Well I haven't had such a crash in over 20+ years but then I use a Mac and don't run windowsIts not. I've had one crash over ~30 years, couple of years ago now, which tested
[...]
If your computer & software is that unrealible I'd find something to do about it.
Just how often to you need to do such a thing ?
my backups. Nothing lost, but it identified where my backup strategies would benefit
from some improvements. Paying for Cloud would be one potential solution; my thoughts are that its bandwidth limit is a trade-off that wouldn't make it my first choice.
FWIW, this kind of relates back to a backup discussion from my wife's Corporate IT
team from way back - - they were doing incremental (eg nightly) remote site backups
to a remote site and what they had found in their contingency planning was that at the
time, if a mainframe went down & required a full backup to restore, it was higher net
bandwidth to have the physical magnetic tapes sent FedEx overnight than to push
the same data back electronically. FWIW, I don't really recall much more details than
this, but that their facility was consuming a couple of petabytes in the early 1990s.
You sound like a women who wants to take all her 100 pairs of shoes in a suitcase for a weekend away !No, I'm really looking at a desktop system, not a portable. So to tweak your shoes
analogy, it is that I want all the shoes to be stored in just one closet at home, instead
of scattered throughout multiple closets in the house.
The philosophy of media card capacity trade-offs is a whole 'nuther topic!
Not really.Depends on what one buys...again. I find my Canon 7D from 2009 to still be fine.
you'd never buy a camera hoping it'll still be ok in 10 years time by just adding new lenses.
Granted I also have a 7D Mk2 now too (2014); the main "upgrades" besides lenses
has been just some bigger CF cards to increase its magazine depth and reduce card swaps.
One of the main reasons for going from my canon EOS M3 to M6 mkII was for 4k videoI don't currently have 4K as I'm still more focused on Stills vs moving images; I've
I doubt I'll be able to by any gadget that will convert my M6 mk2 to 8K video.
If I really want 8k I'll have to buy a new camera than that is that.
figured that I don't need to invest in a body which does 4K until I've planned out
what desktop supports it well .. the Mac Studio looks like a solution here, as well
as likely a progression to 8K perhaps. Don't think I'll skip over 4K, unless someone
comes out with a cheap killer 8K to create that option.
When it comes to sharing/showing I'd have to work out how much it would cost
me and the PC to go to Australia so my ex flatmate could copy some of my photos,
as hers got stolen after he house was broken into.
And thus, the loss of a plausible excuse to take a week's holiday in Oz...
A week wouldn't be enough for me to recover from jet lag, and TBH she can beUmmm... TMI applies <g> for what was mostly just a throw-away joke on my part.
a real pain being French and Female is my diagnosis of her problems, afterc sharing a flat with her for 4 years Sydney was about the furthers place I could
find to recomend as a new home.
Thanks to CoVid , I've not had a true holiday away since late 2019 (finally got to
Rapa Nui),
so I've been champing at the bit...and then current events has turned up
the wick to kill off free time & holiday prospects thereof: 'tis Groundhog Day, again.
-hh
On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:39:11 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos<snip>
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss
from the other side of London or the world.
Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.
Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today
that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.
True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be able to get the
fastest speed possible than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the galopogos islands.
Understood. Point really was to recognize that everyone's current & future conditions
are subject to change, and that there can be some unpleasant surprises at times.
Yes but some things become more predictable.
It's unlikely that laptops and tablets will have removable internal drives or have a way
of changing the graphics card or memory.
Noticed this with car too, when I was a kid at the weekends you'd see those with cars tinkering about underneath them , I just don't see that anymore.
For example, awhile back my wife was starting to look at retirement properties and
we found a promising looking place in the countryside... until we noticed that the
listing said "Electricity Available". In looking further into what that meant, it was two
things: the first was that there would be an additional expense to run power lines.
But the second was that it didn't list telephone, internet, or cableTV as "available",
which meant those services weren't available at any cost: one would only be able
to rely on cellular/satellite...which would be a step backwards vs current capability,
and probably worse for future capability growth.
That wouldn't suprise me, I'd sort of expect that.
I doubt you'll find many retirment properties in the city centres with easy access
to nightclubs, good public transport and a vibrant night life.
But that 500GB SSD wasn't the base standard configuration for an iMac in 2014,
so it was a "future-proof" investment that you made back in 2014, to have gotten
this far in its useful lifespan.
yes and I couldn't buy a large enough SSD so I could have all my videos, photos,
music on my internal drive, even in 2014 when I was doing SD & HD.
At least directly from Apple.
Or from anywhere as an internal drive.
I was future-proofing for about 4 years and that was it.
A good point, as part of the question is what makes sense for the "how far out"
in terms of futureproof planning. Personally, I look for 5+ years, but with the
caveat that historically this was more for desktops which could have updates.
For me the only differnce between a laptop and a desktop is screen size and therefor portability and price.
Now we only store app and OS on the internal drive everything the students do is on networked drive. Everyone of my labs 92 PCs is connected to a network drives, where everything is backup. Probaly a bit expensive for a home users but the principle of not using the intenal drive for users files (unless backed up
regually) is a good practice.
... it's the 'speed' of the processor doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes
per track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.
Going from HD to 4K is another illustration of capability growth over time.
Not sure I see the point in goinf to 8K but having just bought a VR heasset can;t
help but think I'd liike to create content for it.
Understood; I only used 8K as an example of what a capability growth 'need' might be; VR is another existing example.
Whatever I do I don't plan on keeping the whole of my lifes computing on an internal drive.
An internal drive is for immidiate use, & apps/utilities and processing nothing more.
Challenge is in making good guesses ... neither over- nor under- spending ...
for matching what's for sale today for one's needs, both of today's and
for how they may change, over the next X years.
which is why I went for the SSD in my 2014 iMac rather than the 1TB fusion that was offered.
Because some of this thread is touching on futureproofing too.
I try futureproofing for the foreseeable, and that doens't including keeping everything I do on the internal drive.Problem I have is that my current choice of DAM for photography
(Photos) isn't particularly conducive to fragmenting its storage
repository into 2+ pieces. Technically, there are some options,
but I've been admittedly lazy and just thrown an SSD RAID-0 at it.
I have a 750GB iomega external drive connected to my imac via either USB or firewire
Most of the photos and videos from the past 4 years are on that drive or my internal 500GB.
Older stuff is acrchived off onto about four 3TB drives.
If I need to watch or find something that is a video more than 4 years ago
I have to get up of my chair walk a few metres collect a 3 TB HD and bring it back and connect it up.
If I want to see a photo from the 80s I go to flickr and within a few seconds there it is.
I can do this with video too if it's on youtube.
I'd rather have to do this than buy an internal 4-12GB SSD today or had one fitted in 2014.
I don't think I could justify buying one today let alone 8 years ago.
But I really wouldn;t want to totally restore even my 500GB drive via a cloud.
What's wrong with having a local removable drive on USB 3 or with Mac thunderbold
which is much faster but not something I'd jusify.
You sound like a women who wants to take all her 100 pairs of shoes in a suitcase for a weekend away !
No, I'm really looking at a desktop system, not a portable. So to tweak your shoes
analogy, it is that I want all the shoes to be stored in just one closet at home,
instead of scattered throughout multiple closets in the house.
Then maybe you need a new home with just one open plan living space where you can see all your shoes from anywhere in the room.
But as you don't seem to know how many shoes you'll have in the future
maybe buy yourself an island somewhere.
The philosophy of media card capacity trade-offs is a whole 'nuther topic!
Not really.
you'd never buy a camera hoping it'll still be ok in 10 years time by just adding new lenses.
Depends on what one buys...again. I find my Canon 7D from 2009 to still be fine.
Granted I also have a 7D Mk2 now too (2014); the main "upgrades" besides lenses
has been just some bigger CF cards to increase its magazine depth and reduce card swaps.
So how many photos do you have that must be on an internal drive.
How often to you view them and would using an external drive be to slow.
I find it difficult to believ that looking at photos from even a 7D mkII would
saturate the bandwidth of even USB 2 let alone USB 3.
Thanks to CoVid , I've not had a true holiday away since late 2019 (finally got to
Rapa Nui),
Wow, that's quite a journey, I'm guessing you didn't need to take 100 shoes or your printer/scanner
On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I >>>>>> can the same with all my videos<snip>
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them >>>>>> to travel accoss
from the other side of London or the world.
Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots >>>>> of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or
electricity.
Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today >>> that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.
True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be
able to get the
fastest speed possible than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the
galopogos islands.
Understood. Point really was to recognize that everyone's current &
future conditions
are subject to change, and that there can be some unpleasant surprises
at times.
For example, awhile back my wife was starting to look at retirement properties and
we found a promising looking place in the countryside... until we
noticed that the
listing said "Electricity Available". In looking further into what
that meant, it was two
things: the first was that there would be an additional expense to run
power lines.
But the second was that it didn't list telephone, internet, or cableTV
as "available",
which meant those services weren't available at any cost: one would
only be able
to rely on cellular/satellite...which would be a step backwards vs
current capability,
and probably worse for future capability growth.
On 2022-03-31 19:39:08 +0000, -hh said:
On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I >>>>>> can the same with all my videos<snip>
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them
to travel accoss
from the other side of London or the world.
Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or >>>> electricity.
Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today
that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.
True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be
able to get the
fastest speed possible than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the
galopogos islands.
Understood. Point really was to recognize that everyone's current &
future conditions
are subject to change, and that there can be some unpleasant surprises
at times.
For example, awhile back my wife was starting to look at retirement properties andLiving where I do, near Lake Nacimiento, on a gated community 13 miles
we found a promising looking place in the countryside... until we
noticed that the
listing said "Electricity Available". In looking further into what
that meant, it was two
things: the first was that there would be an additional expense to run power lines.
But the second was that it didn't list telephone, internet, or cableTV
as "available",
which meant those services weren't available at any cost: one would
only be able
to rely on cellular/satellite...which would be a step backwards vs
current capability,
and probably worse for future capability growth.
West of Paso Robles, California I get to be well away from an urban
center, and have no loss of technolgical connectivity. Back in 1993 Charter/Spectrum which was then owned by Paul Allen of MS ran fiber
optic cable the 13+ miles from Paso Robles to releive us from the
tedium of dial up.
That said, I bought myself a 14" MacBook Pro M1Max, with 10-core CPU,
24-core GPU, 16-core Neural Engine, 64GB unified memory, & 2TB SSD.
As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant to travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the
waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant to travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the
waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.
Am 02.04.2022 um 00:29 schrieb Savageduck:
[hh writing about travel]
As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant
to travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.
I believe here in Germany a retired police officer wouldn't be able to
afford a business class flight to South Africa (not out of the pension
money he gets from the government).
Am 02.04.2022 um 00:29 schrieb Savageduck:
As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home
because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant to
travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the
waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.
I believe here in Germany a retired police officer wouldn't be able to
afford a business class flight to South Africa (not out of the pension
money he gets from the government).
KLM World Business Class SFO-AMS-CPT return CPT-AMS-SFO was $7,578.57
and I can afford that. Economy Plus for the same trip would be about
$2,000.
Am 02.04.2022 um 16:18 schrieb Savageduck:
KLM World Business Class SFO-AMS-CPT return CPT-AMS-SFO was $7,578.57
and I can afford that. Economy Plus for the same trip would be about $2,000.
Munich to Cape Town return costs 677 Euro (with KLM via AMS; I entered 8.6-29.6 in skyscanner). The cheapest flight is 576 Euro (two stops on
the return leg). Economy class obviously.
Business class costs 2061 Euro (MUC-AMS-CPT, return is CPT-JNB-CDG-MUC).
It's amazing that flights in the USA are so expensive.
On Saturday, 2 April 2022 at 8:29:22 am UTC+10, Savageduck wrote:
On 2022-03-31 19:39:08 +0000, -hh said:
On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I<snip>
can the same with all my videos
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them
to travel accoss
from the other side of London or the world.
Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or
electricity.
Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today
that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.
True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be able to get the
fastest speed possible than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the galopogos islands.
Understood. Point really was to recognize that everyone's current&
future conditions
are subject to change, and that there can be some unpleasant surprises
at times.
For example, awhile back my wife was starting to look at retirement properties andLiving where I do, near Lake Nacimiento, on a gated community 13 miles
we found a promising looking place in the countryside... until we
noticed that the
listing said "Electricity Available". In looking further into what
that meant, it was two
things: the first was that there would be an additional expense to run power lines.
But the second was that it didn't list telephone, internet, or cableTV
as "available",
which meant those services weren't available at any cost: one would
only be able
to rely on cellular/satellite...which would be a step backwards vs current capability,
and probably worse for future capability growth.
West of Paso Robles, California I get to be well away from an urban
center, and have no loss of technolgical connectivity. Back in 1993 Charter/Spectrum which was then owned by Paul Allen of MS ran fiber
optic cable the 13+ miles from Paso Robles to releive us from the
tedium of dial up.
That said, I bought myself a 14" MacBook Pro M1Max, with 10-core CPU, 24-core GPU, 16-core Neural Engine, 64GB unified memory, & 2TB SSD.
As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant to travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the
waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.
Have a fantastic time! Are you taking the drone? From a cursory glance it looks like South Africa has reasonably sensible rules for recreational drones.
Ahhh, business class! I remember business class. That was from the days when my employer paid for my travel (and allowed me to keep the frequent flyer points for personal/family use). :-)
Am 02.04.2022 um 16:18 schrieb Savageduck:
KLM World Business Class SFO-AMS-CPT return CPT-AMS-SFO was $7,578.57
and I can afford that. Economy Plus for the same trip would be about $2,000.
Munich to Cape Town return costs 677 Euro (with KLM via AMS; I entered 8.6-29.6 in skyscanner). The cheapest flight is 576 Euro (two stops on
the return leg). Economy class obviously.
Business class costs 2061 Euro (MUC-AMS-CPT, return is CPT-JNB-CDG-MUC).
It's amazing that flights in the USA are so expensive.
BTW: KLM World Business Class SFO-AMS-CPT return CPT-AMS-SFO was
$7,578.57 and I can afford that. Economy Plus for the same trip would be about $2,000.
Here is the actual break down of my KLM cost for my trip: <https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DCwd9gX/0/e50e1d63/X2/i-DCwd9gX-X2.jpg>
Am 02.04.2022 um 16:18 schrieb Savageduck:
KLM World Business Class SFO-AMS-CPT return CPT-AMS-SFO was $7,578.57
and I can afford that. Economy Plus for the same trip would be about
$2,000.
Munich to Cape Town return costs 677 Euro (with KLM via AMS; I entered 8.6-29.6 in skyscanner). The cheapest flight is 576 Euro (two stops on
the return leg). Economy class obviously.
Business class costs 2061 Euro (MUC-AMS-CPT, return is CPT-JNB-CDG-MUC).
It's amazing that flights in the USA are so expensive.
On 2022-04-02 12:15, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 02.04.2022 um 16:18 schrieb Savageduck:
KLM World Business Class SFO-AMS-CPT return CPT-AMS-SFO was $7,578.57
and I can afford that. Economy Plus for the same trip would be about $2,000.
Munich to Cape Town return costs 677 Euro (with KLM via AMS; I entered 8.6-29.6 in skyscanner). The cheapest flight is 576 Euro (two stops on
the return leg). Economy class obviously.
Business class costs 2061 Euro (MUC-AMS-CPT, return is CPT-JNB-CDG-MUC).
It's amazing that flights in the USA are so expensive.
1. He's looking at the July price, which is one of the peak periods for
US travelers.
2. SFO-AMS is almost as ling a segment as the AMS-Cape Town
3. Generally American flights are expensive these days due to pent up
demand.
Am 02.04.2022 um 00:29 schrieb Savageduck:
As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home
because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant
to travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the
waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.
I believe here in Germany a retired police officer wouldn't be able to
afford a business class flight to South Africa (not out of the pension
money he gets from the government).
On 2022-04-02 10:18, Savageduck wrote:
BTW: KLM World Business Class SFO-AMS-CPT return CPT-AMS-SFO was
$7,578.57 and I can afford that. Economy Plus for the same trip would
be about $2,000.
I've done Montreal - AMS - Johannesburg - return for about CAD$3500 (J (business class)) - but that was a long time ago - we booked a lot of
KLM flights and I believe we had pretty good prices for that ... Also Montreal-LGA/taxi/JFK-Johberg on SA Airlines - return with a fuel stop
at Cape Verde on the westbound leg.
Only problem with the KLM route at the time was a pretty long layover at
AMS both ways.
On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 12:15:13 PM UTC-4, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 02.04.2022 um 16:18 schrieb Savageduck:
KLM World Business Class SFO-AMS-CPT return CPT-AMS-SFO was $7,578.57
and I can afford that. Economy Plus for the same trip would be about
$2,000.
Munich to Cape Town return costs 677 Euro (with KLM via AMS; I entered
8.6-29.6 in skyscanner). The cheapest flight is 576 Euro (two stops on
the return leg). Economy class obviously.
Business class costs 2061 Euro (MUC-AMS-CPT, return is CPT-JNB-CDG-MUC).
It's amazing that flights in the USA are so expensive.
You do realize that it is also twice as far, right? And that’s before noting that his specific itinerary is more of a dogleg thru EU, so
it’s closer to 3x the distance.
Likewise, having fewer flight changes will also usually
have a cost premium too…to do west coast of US all the
way to SA with only one flight change is pretty impressive.
Plus there’s also factors of demand vs availability, etc:
Corporations will maximize their profit opportunities
On 2/04/2022 11:31 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 02.04.2022 um 00:29 schrieb Savageduck:
As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant
to travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.
I believe here in Germany a retired police officer wouldn't be able to afford a business class flight to South Africa (not out of the pension money he gets from the government).
Well, maybe not if he had zero savings ....
On Apr 2, 2022, geoff wrotebig spending done while I was still working. The result has been a retirement income which exceeds my earnings while still working, along with reduced overhead spending leaves me quite comfortable, and able to afford the occasional luxury.
(in article<n8qdnSiH58i9q9T_nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>):
On 2/04/2022 11:31 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 02.04.2022 um 00:29 schrieb Savageduck:
As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home >>>> because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant
to travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the >>>> waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.
I believe here in Germany a retired police officer wouldn't be able to
afford a business class flight to South Africa (not out of the pension
money he gets from the government).
Well, maybe not if he had zero savings ....
I knew that ultimately I was going to be an old fart, so I had a solid retirement plan in place, and working for 25 years before I retired. That included being able to generate income beyond my State (CalPers) pension, home ownership, and most of my
...and still have savings.
On 2022-04-03 09:44, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 2, 2022, geoff wrote
(in article<n8qdnSiH58i9q9T_nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>):
On 2/04/2022 11:31 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 02.04.2022 um 00:29 schrieb Savageduck:
As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home >>>>> because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant >>>>> to travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the >>>>> waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.
I believe here in Germany a retired police officer wouldn't be able to >>>> afford a business class flight to South Africa (not out of the pension >>>> money he gets from the government).
Well, maybe not if he had zero savings ....
I knew that ultimately I was going to be an old fart, so I had a solid
retirement plan in place, and working for 25 years before I retired.
That included being able to generate income beyond my State (CalPers)
pension, home ownership, and most of my big spending done while I was
still working. The result has been a retirement income which exceeds my
earnings while still working, along with reduced overhead spending
leaves me quite comfortable, and able to afford the occasional luxury.
...and still have savings.
I'll sacrifice myself and allow you to put me in your will....
On 2022-04-03 15:59:29 +0000, Alan Browne said:
On 2022-04-03 09:44, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 2, 2022, geoff wrote
(in article<n8qdnSiH58i9q9T_nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>):
On 2/04/2022 11:31 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 02.04.2022 um 00:29 schrieb Savageduck:
As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to getI believe here in Germany a retired police officer wouldn't be able to >>>>> afford a business class flight to South Africa (not out of the pension >>>>> money he gets from the government).
home
because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant >>>>>> to travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test >>>>>> the
waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class. >>>>>
Well, maybe not if he had zero savings ....
I knew that ultimately I was going to be an old fart, so I had a
solid retirement plan in place, and working for 25 years before I
retired. That included being able to generate income beyond my State
(CalPers) pension, home ownership, and most of my big spending done
while I was still working. The result has been a retirement income
which exceeds my earnings while still working, along with reduced
overhead spending leaves me quite comfortable, and able to afford the
occasional luxury.
...and still have savings.
I'll sacrifice myself and allow you to put me in your will....
You would probably have to arm wrestle my stepdaughter-from-hell.
Am 02.04.2022 um 18:32 schrieb -hh:
On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 12:15:13 PM UTC-4, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 02.04.2022 um 16:18 schrieb Savageduck:
KLM World Business Class SFO-AMS-CPT return CPT-AMS-SFO was $7,578.57 >>> and I can afford that. Economy Plus for the same trip would be about
$2,000.
Munich to Cape Town return costs 677 Euro (with KLM via AMS; I entered
8.6-29.6 in skyscanner). The cheapest flight is 576 Euro (two stops on
the return leg). Economy class obviously.
Business class costs 2061 Euro (MUC-AMS-CPT, return is CPT-JNB-CDG-MUC). >>
It's amazing that flights in the USA are so expensive.
You do realize that it is also twice as far, right? And that’s before noting that his specific itinerary is more of a dogleg thru EU, so
it’s closer to 3x the distance.
Likewise, having fewer flight changes will also usually
have a cost premium too…to do west coast of US all the
way to SA with only one flight change is pretty impressive.
Plus there’s also factors of demand vs availability, etc:Twice as far, but not four times as far.
Corporations will maximize their profit opportunities
In any case, if I were retired I'd probably take that economy class 677
(or 576) Euro flight, instead of a 2000+ Euro flight (and use the money
I save for something else...).
Also, I'd probably not fly in peak season when the prices are highest.
On the other hand, I also can understand if Savageduck, because of the
huge distance, may want to have a more comfortable business class flight.
--
Alfred Molon
On the other hand, I also can understand if Savageduck, because of the
huge distance, may want to have a more comfortable business class flight.
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:06:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:39:11 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos<snip>
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss
from the other side of London or the world.
Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.
Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today
that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.
True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be able to get the
fastest speed possible than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the galopogos islands.
Understood. Point really was to recognize that everyone's current & future conditions
are subject to change, and that there can be some unpleasant surprises at times.
Yes but some things become more predictable.Agreed, the industry trend has become much more "disposable", which is why we have
It's unlikely that laptops and tablets will have removable internal drives or have a way
of changing the graphics card or memory.
these debates on how much to hand-wring about spending extra upfront in order to
try to 'future-proof' it some.
Noticed this with car too, when I was a kid at the weekends you'd see thoseYes, that too .. plus there's been tech changes which have dramatically decreased
with cars tinkering about underneath them , I just don't see that anymore.
the amount of day-to-day maintenance. I can recall my father "checking the car out"
for a run over to see the grandparents - a distance of 90 miles. Today, that is less
than what some people have as their daily commute to work.
For example, awhile back my wife was starting to look at retirement properties and
we found a promising looking place in the countryside... until we noticed that the
listing said "Electricity Available". In looking further into what that meant, it was two
things: the first was that there would be an additional expense to run power lines.
But the second was that it didn't list telephone, internet, or cableTV as "available",
which meant those services weren't available at any cost: one would only be able
to rely on cellular/satellite...which would be a step backwards vs current capability,
and probably worse for future capability growth.
That wouldn't suprise me, I'd sort of expect that.Coming from a more developed region, it was a "OMG!" surprise of a moment that
we're glad that we caught, so as to not have it be an unpleasant surprise later.
I doubt you'll find many retirment properties in the city centres with easy accessActually, a more urban with "walkability" and mass transit infrastructure is also
to nightclubs, good public transport and a vibrant night life.
something we're considering now more. After that scouting trip, I actually found
an old, small department store (30,000 ft^2) on the main street of a small town
at a firesale price (US$0.5M) which got me thinking about its possibilities. Basically,
to take the ground floor and make it small retail shops to rent out, then convert the
2nd floor (1st floor in UK) into a condo for us, and convert the top floor into small
condo rental units for a small local college (assumes zoning approvals).
Plus it had
a "basement" level with a drive in (yes, indoor) loading dock, so indoor secure parking
for 5-6 automobiles too. Wife thought I was more than a bit insane. My research found
that the reason why the building was so cheap was because it needed around US$1M
for structural stabilization and asbestos removal. A quick look at Zillow today and I
see that it was sold, fixed up & is now worth $1.75M, so my swag was quite close.
But that 500GB SSD wasn't the base standard configuration for an iMac in 2014,
so it was a "future-proof" investment that you made back in 2014, to have gotten
this far in its useful lifespan.
yes and I couldn't buy a large enough SSD so I could have all my videos, photos,
music on my internal drive, even in 2014 when I was doing SD & HD.
At least directly from Apple.
Or from anywhere as an internal drive.
Oh, there were SSD's available in 2014, but at roughly $700 for 1TB, they weren't commonplace yet.
<https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/191934-the-best-ssds-of-2014-a-buyers-guide>
I was future-proofing for about 4 years and that was it.
A good point, as part of the question is what makes sense for the "how far out"
in terms of futureproof planning. Personally, I look for 5+ years, but with the
caveat that historically this was more for desktops which could have updates.
For me the only differnce between a laptop and a desktop is screen size andYes, laptops have 'caught up' with desktop performance within the past few years
therefor portability and price.
for mainstream performance .. there's still a gap in the higher end of power users,
even as the power user population has become a smaller pond because the tech is a "more than enough" for mainstream. Overall, this is effectively why we're now
considering 5+ year lifecycles instead of just ~3 years (or less: the early days of
PCs had business cases for performance which justified hardware replacements deployments cycles as frequent as every 12-18 months in some industries).
Now we only store app and OS on the internal drive everything the students doIt is, but what I'll point out is that your strategy of consolidation to a server was
is on networked drive. Everyone of my labs 92 PCs is connected to a network
drives, where everything is backup. Probaly a bit expensive for a home users
but the principle of not using the intenal drive for users files (unless backed up
regually) is a good practice.
probably motivated more by its productivity gain potential: your touch labor is
on just a single (& big) node to be maintained for backups, rather than having
to repeat that work 92 times across 92 (small) discrete nodes. The bang-for- the-buck calculus changes when you go from 1:92 to 1:1 (or 1:2, etc) in a home.
... it's the 'speed' of the processor doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes
per track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.
Going from HD to 4K is another illustration of capability growth over time.
Not sure I see the point in goinf to 8K but having just bought a VR heasset can;t
help but think I'd liike to create content for it.
Understood; I only used 8K as an example of what a capability growth 'need'
might be; VR is another existing example.
Whatever I do I don't plan on keeping the whole of my lifes computing on an internal drive.The observation is that "inventory tracking" is always going to be an overhead cost, and
An internal drive is for immidiate use, & apps/utilities and processing nothing more.
a more complex system (eg, multiple storage site) will cost more than a less complex
system. From this, the question is how is that higher overhead cost being justified today?
Its probably based on media cost, namely (cost per TB of SSD) vs (cost per TB of HDD).
The ramifications of this are that once the storage media costs get cheap enough, the
cost justification for spending extra overhead for "which closet?" tracking won't be as
strong of a justification, which means that it is at risk of being abandoned in favor of
a simpler system that incurs lower tracking overhead ... ie, a single destination.
To TL;DR illustrate, consider the following question: if it didn't cost you anything extra
to have a single huge internal SSD which completely obviates all need for a second
main drive and has no performance hit, would you want to have that, or would you
prefer to still have two drives? Why or why not?
Challenge is in making good guesses ... neither over- nor under- spending ...
for matching what's for sale today for one's needs, both of today's and for how they may change, over the next X years.
which is why I went for the SSD in my 2014 iMac rather than the 1TB fusion that was offered.And same for why I went with SS media in my 2012 cheesegrater ... and on my work
laptops even earlier (at least 2009).
Because some of this thread is touching on futureproofing too.
I try futureproofing for the foreseeable, and that doens't including keeping everything I do on the internal drive.Problem I have is that my current choice of DAM for photography
(Photos) isn't particularly conducive to fragmenting its storage repository into 2+ pieces. Technically, there are some options,
but I've been admittedly lazy and just thrown an SSD RAID-0 at it.
I have a 750GB iomega external drive connected to my imac via either USB or firewireMerely illustrating differences in use cases & preferences. I've been lazy (and stuck)
Most of the photos and videos from the past 4 years are on that drive or my internal 500GB.
Older stuff is acrchived off onto about four 3TB drives.
If I need to watch or find something that is a video more than 4 years ago I have to get up of my chair walk a few metres collect a 3 TB HD and bring it back and connect it up.
If I want to see a photo from the 80s I go to flickr and within a few seconds there it is.
I can do this with video too if it's on youtube.
on finding a DAM I really like, so its all in one Photos repository which has resided for
years on a 4TB RAID-0 (takes up more than half), which enables reasonably responsive
startup, searching, & use from one end to the other.
I'd rather have to do this than buy an internal 4-12GB SSD today or had one fitted in 2014.The newer system I'm building up currently has 6+TB of SSDs, most of which is already
I don't think I could justify buying one today let alone 8 years ago.
spoken for; the only use for HDDs is for backups / Time Machine. YMMV. Swapping
back & forth between new & old, I'm now noticing where the old system's UI is downright
laggy, mostly in HDD spool-up when hitting a new drive to access/search for something.
Its UI is not irritatingly slow ... yet ... but I know from past history that that's inevitable.
[big snip]
But I really wouldn;t want to totally restore even my 500GB drive via a cloud.Using the cloud is because I'm thinking further ahead to when I'm retired and won't have
What's wrong with having a local removable drive on USB 3 or with Mac thunderbold
which is much faster but not something I'd jusify.
my desk in the office for one of my free 'remote site' backup instances. Yes, it would
be horribly slow to download, but its purpose is to be an option if the house burns down
and the bank's safety deposit box (my other off-site) gets flooded the same week.
You sound like a women who wants to take all her 100 pairs of shoes in a
suitcase for a weekend away !
No, I'm really looking at a desktop system, not a portable. So to tweak your shoes
analogy, it is that I want all the shoes to be stored in just one closet at home,
instead of scattered throughout multiple closets in the house.
Then maybe you need a new home with just one open plan living space where youYeah, that's known as "one big drive" <g>
can see all your shoes from anywhere in the room.
But as you don't seem to know how many shoes you'll have in the future maybe buy yourself an island somewhere.Eh, I know that SSDs are hovering down to around $100/TB, so I know that whenever I need to grow my current 4TB array to rebuilt it at, say 6TB or 8TB
once that becomes needed just isn't going to be a huge hit to the pocketbook
The philosophy of media card capacity trade-offs is a whole 'nuther topic!
Not really.
you'd never buy a camera hoping it'll still be ok in 10 years time by just adding new lenses.
Depends on what one buys...again. I find my Canon 7D from 2009 to still be fine.
Granted I also have a 7D Mk2 now too (2014); the main "upgrades" besides lenses
has been just some bigger CF cards to increase its magazine depth and reduce card swaps.
So how many photos do you have that must be on an internal drive.A tad over 2TB.
How often to you view them and would using an external drive be to slow.The bog comes from the overhead of the DAM software. That's why its been stored on a RAID-0 to get the data transfer rates up ... and why I've been also
I find it difficult to believ that looking at photos from even a 7D mkII would
saturate the bandwidth of even USB 2 let alone USB 3.
looking for a better DAM app.
Thanks to CoVid , I've not had a true holiday away since late 2019 (finally got to
Rapa Nui),
Wow, that's quite a journey, I'm guessing you didn't need to take 100 shoes or your printer/scannerIts not as far from NYC vs London, but it still sucked up some days in transit. For gear,
my general philosophy is that I have more important things to do than to spend time on
a laptop doing post-, so I usually leave my laptop at home on personal trips and just make
sure to have enough memory cards for the duration:
<https://huntzinger.com/gallery/index.php/SAN/IMG_1798-cr25>
IIRC, there's almost 300GB worth of cards in that image. That's enough to
go 3-4 weeks at high "holiday" data consumption rates.
-hh
Living at the arse end of the planet and with family in the Europe and Canada
Am 04.04.2022 um 01:56 schrieb Magani:
Living at the arse end of the planet and with family in the Europe and
Canada
New Zealand is probably the remotest place on earth. Long flights needed
to get anywhere.
On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 20:11:48 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:06:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
[etc]
I doubt you'll find many retirment properties in the city centres with easy
access to nightclubs, good public transport and a vibrant night life.
Actually, a more urban with "walkability" and mass transit infrastructure is also
something we're considering now more. After that scouting trip, I actually found
an old, small department store (30,000 ft^2) on the main street of a small town
at a firesale price (US$0.5M) which got me thinking about its possibilities. Basically,
to take the ground floor and make it small retail shops to rent out, then convert the
2nd floor (1st floor in UK) into a condo for us, and convert the top floor into small
condo rental units for a small local college (assumes zoning approvals).
You really don't want to live below students, or very near them to be honest.
Oh, there were SSD's available in 2014, but at roughly $700 for 1TB, they weren't commonplace yet.
Well you can get 8TB SSD in a laptop today but I wouldn;t pay that much extra for one.
I'll wait until they come down in price.
Whatever I do I don't plan on keeping the whole of my lifes computing on an internal drive.
An internal drive is for immidiate use, & apps/utilities and processing nothing more.
The observation is that "inventory tracking" is always going to be an overhead cost, and
a more complex system (eg, multiple storage site) will cost more than a less complex
system. From this, the question is how is that higher overhead cost being justified today?
There's very little cost if anything. Well I don;t need every start trek episode I've ever
seen stored on my internal drive. I feel the same way about most photos I have. I really
don't need to have them on an internal drive, unless I'm working on them in some way.
Its probably based on media cost, namely (cost per TB of SSD) vs (cost per TB of HDD).
The ramifications of this are that once the storage media costs get cheap enough, the
cost justification for spending extra overhead for "which closet?" tracking won't be as
strong of a justification, which means that it is at risk of being abandoned in favor of
a simpler system that incurs lower tracking overhead ... ie, a single destination.
Doubt that will ever happen to the extent that external storage will not be needed.
To TL;DR illustrate, consider the following question: if it didn't cost you anything extra
to have a single huge internal SSD which completely obviates all need for a second
main drive and has no performance hit, would you want to have that, or would you
prefer to still have two drives? Why or why not?
Depends on whether I thinking real mode or in fantasy mode.
If this magic disc went faulty how many months would it take to restore it via the cloud
or even another drive. So in reality I'd prefer seperate drive a System with important stuff
and other drives with less important stuff.
Problem I have is that my current choice of DAM for photography (Photos) isn't particularly conducive to fragmenting its storage repository into 2+ pieces. Technically, there are some options,...
but I've been admittedly lazy and just thrown an SSD RAID-0 at it.
If I need to watch or find something that is a video more than 4 years ago
I have to get up of my chair walk a few metres collect a 3 TB HD and bring
it back and connect it up.
If I want to see a photo from the 80s I go to flickr and within a few seconds there it is.
I can do this with video too if it's on youtube.
Merely illustrating differences in use cases & preferences. I've been lazy (and stuck)
on finding a DAM I really like, so its all in one Photos repository which has resided for
years on a 4TB RAID-0 (takes up more than half), which enables reasonably responsive
startup, searching, & use from one end to the other.
I found this out years ago when using iphoto to store photos and videos and that was
when my camera could only do SD for 3mins. I gave up storing video files in the iPhotos app.
So I dragged them out and have a folder called Gig videos each band has it's own folder.
So I don;t find it hard to find anything although I perhaps could organise it a bit better via
track titles dates or venues. A friend did ask me if I could find the song where the singers
microphone went faulty. I asked what song, or what date or what venue and he couldn't
remember any of the details of that gig so I said no I can't find it then.
[big snip]
But I really wouldn;t want to totally restore even my 500GB drive via a cloud.
What's wrong with having a local removable drive on USB 3 or with Mac thunderbolt
which is much faster but not something I'd jusify.
Using the cloud is because I'm thinking further ahead to when I'm retired and won't have
my desk in the office for one of my free 'remote site' backup instances. Yes, it would
be horribly slow to download, but its purpose is to be an option if the house burns down
and the bank's safety deposit box (my other off-site) gets flooded the same week.
Well external HDs are still the best bed price wise and practability.
That could chage in 10 years so why risk investing any any tech that
might only have a short life span.
We might have quantauim storge where a drive has virtually no access time.
But as you don't seem to know how many shoes you'll have in the future maybe buy yourself an island somewhere.
Eh, I know that SSDs are hovering down to around $100/TB, so I know that whenever I need to grow my current 4TB array to rebuilt it at, say 6TB or 8TB
once that becomes needed just isn't going to be a huge hit to the pocketbook
Maybe not, but for me it's needs over wants.
The philosophy of media card capacity trade-offs is a whole 'nuther topic!
Not really.
you'd never buy a camera hoping it'll still be ok in 10 years time by just adding new lenses.
Depends on what one buys...again. I find my Canon 7D from 2009 to still be fine.
Granted I also have a 7D Mk2 now too (2014); the main "upgrades" besides lenses
has been just some bigger CF cards to increase its magazine depth and reduce card swaps.
So how many photos do you have that must be on an internal drive.A tad over 2TB.
What's that in number of photos ?.
How often to you view them and would using an external drive be to slow. I find it difficult to believ that looking at photos from even a 7D mkII would
saturate the bandwidth of even USB 2 let alone USB 3.
The bog comes from the overhead of the DAM software. That's why its been stored on a RAID-0 to get the data transfer rates up ... and why I've been also
looking for a better DAM app.
Don't know much about that software so can't really comment on it.
grp=15208053723&hsa_ad=44074791843&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=pla-334324747580&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=CjwKCAjwrqqSBhBbEiwAlQeqGhAntR4iCQtFRRRBL8qUfOUKUV5nEkk_82XPEEKil9tEyrGLs_JH_xoCJHYQAvD_BwE>Thanks to CoVid , I've not had a true holiday away since late 2019 (finally got to
Rapa Nui),
Wow, that's quite a journey, I'm guessing you didn't need to take 100 shoes or your printer/scannerIts not as far from NYC vs London, but it still sucked up some days in transit. For gear,
my general philosophy is that I have more important things to do than to spend time on
a laptop doing post-, so I usually leave my laptop at home on personal trips and just make
sure to have enough memory cards for the duration:
<https://huntzinger.com/gallery/index.php/SAN/IMG_1798-cr25>
IIRC, there's almost 300GB worth of cards in that image. That's enough to go 3-4 weeks at high "holiday" data consumption rates.
Think how long one of these would last you.
<https://transparent-uk.com/product/western-digital-wd-gold/?mkwid=s_dc|pcrid|44074791843|pkw||pmt|&mh_keyword=&bnine=true&utm_term=&utm_campaign=AA+Updated+-+IR+PLAs+%5BL%5D&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=3487650990&hsa_cam=221313363&hsa_
On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 20:11:48 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:06:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
[etc]
I doubt you'll find many retirment properties in the city centres with easy
access to nightclubs, good public transport and a vibrant night life.
Actually, a more urban with "walkability" and mass transit infrastructure is also
something we're considering now more. After that scouting trip, I actually found
an old, small department store (30,000 ft^2) on the main street of a small town
at a firesale price (US$0.5M) which got me thinking about its possibilities. Basically,
to take the ground floor and make it small retail shops to rent out, then convert the
2nd floor (1st floor in UK) into a condo for us, and convert the top floor into small
condo rental units for a small local college (assumes zoning approvals).
You really don't want to live below students, or very near them to be honest.Yes, that would have been a trade-off. Figured that having the "landlord" be so close
could help with dampening some of it down ... plus as we get older, we're more deaf <g>
Oh, there were SSD's available in 2014, but at roughly $700 for 1TB, they
weren't commonplace yet.
Well you can get 8TB SSD in a laptop today but I wouldn;t pay that much extra for one.
I'll wait until they come down in price.Broadly speaking, $100/TB was my break point for more broad SSD adoption. Seems
that there's CoVid rises on prices, as it seems that they've rebounded to ~$140/TB
Whatever I do I don't plan on keeping the whole of my lifes computing on an internal drive.
An internal drive is for immidiate use, & apps/utilities and processing nothing more.
The observation is that "inventory tracking" is always going to be an overhead cost, and
a more complex system (eg, multiple storage site) will cost more than a less complex
system. From this, the question is how is that higher overhead cost being justified today?
There's very little cost if anything. Well I don;t need every start trek episode I've everI'd say that what I've found is that having the photos archive on 'fast' I/O have made
seen stored on my internal drive. I feel the same way about most photos I have. I really
don't need to have them on an internal drive, unless I'm working on them in some way.
them much more readily accessible, which means I'm more willing to go hit the library
and thus, I'm seeing & enjoying my old stuff more. Been seeing a good amount of stuff
that I'm putting down as "should go reprocess / make new interpretation".
Its probably based on media cost, namely (cost per TB of SSD) vs (cost per TB of HDD).
The ramifications of this are that once the storage media costs get cheap enough, the
cost justification for spending extra overhead for "which closet?" tracking won't be as
strong of a justification, which means that it is at risk of being abandoned in favor of
a simpler system that incurs lower tracking overhead ... ie, a single destination.
Doubt that will ever happen to the extent that external storage will not be needed.I see it as that with the rise of SSDs, we wanted their I/O performance gains, so we
were willing to sacrifice local capacity size and go to a two tier storage system.
As SSDs become less expensive, the justification to use HDDs because they're cheap
declines, so our preference should migrate back to employing a single tier storage system.
To TL;DR illustrate, consider the following question: if it didn't cost you anything extra
to have a single huge internal SSD which completely obviates all need for a second
main drive and has no performance hit, would you want to have that, or would you
prefer to still have two drives? Why or why not?
Depends on whether I thinking real mode or in fantasy mode.There's always trade-offs. For example, the downtime can be close to zero lost time if
If this magic disc went faulty how many months would it take to restore it via the cloud
or even another drive. So in reality I'd prefer seperate drive a System with important stuff
and other drives with less important stuff.
one invested in provisioning a hot spare which gets incrementally mirrored nightly for the
system to do a failover to. I've already done this on my cheesegrater, as the cost was
just a 512GB SSD. FWIW, to go cheaper, one could choose to employ a hot-swap HDD
instead of an SSD, and the full capability will be retained, but performance will bog until
such time that one replaces the failed SSD and one mirrors it back over.
Problem I have is that my current choice of DAM for photography (Photos) isn't particularly conducive to fragmenting its storage repository into 2+ pieces. Technically, there are some options,...
but I've been admittedly lazy and just thrown an SSD RAID-0 at it.
If I need to watch or find something that is a video more than 4 years ago
I have to get up of my chair walk a few metres collect a 3 TB HD and bring
it back and connect it up.
If I want to see a photo from the 80s I go to flickr and within a few seconds there it is.
I can do this with video too if it's on youtube.
Merely illustrating differences in use cases & preferences. I've been lazy (and stuck)
on finding a DAM I really like, so its all in one Photos repository which has resided for
years on a 4TB RAID-0 (takes up more than half), which enables reasonably responsive
startup, searching, & use from one end to the other.
I found this out years ago when using iphoto to store photos and videos and that wasNot being able to find something that I know I have is what I find particularly frustrating.
when my camera could only do SD for 3mins. I gave up storing video files in the iPhotos app.
So I dragged them out and have a folder called Gig videos each band has it's own folder.
So I don;t find it hard to find anything although I perhaps could organise it a bit better via
track titles dates or venues. A friend did ask me if I could find the song where the singers
microphone went faulty. I asked what song, or what date or what venue and he couldn't
remember any of the details of that gig so I said no I can't find it then.
That's why I'm still looking for a better DAM and workflows to compliment.
[big snip]
But I really wouldn;t want to totally restore even my 500GB drive via a cloud.
What's wrong with having a local removable drive on USB 3 or with Mac thunderbolt
which is much faster but not something I'd jusify.
Using the cloud is because I'm thinking further ahead to when I'm retired and won't have
my desk in the office for one of my free 'remote site' backup instances. Yes, it would
be horribly slow to download, but its purpose is to be an option if the house burns down
and the bank's safety deposit box (my other off-site) gets flooded the same week.
Well external HDs are still the best bed price wise and practability.Sure, and the general trend today is that SSD prices continue to fall, so even though
That could chage in 10 years so why risk investing any any tech that
might only have a short life span.
We might have quantauim storge where a drive has virtually no access time.
HDDs are cheaper per TB, one may decide that SSDs are "cheap enough" to use for
one's first tier backup for the benefit of faster system restore times...and/or options
like running one as an available hot swap.
But as you don't seem to know how many shoes you'll have in the future maybe buy yourself an island somewhere.
Eh, I know that SSDs are hovering down to around $100/TB, so I know that whenever I need to grow my current 4TB array to rebuilt it at, say 6TB or 8TB
once that becomes needed just isn't going to be a huge hit to the pocketbook
Maybe not, but for me it's needs over wants.When its for a hobby, its always going to be "needs over wants" <g>
The philosophy of media card capacity trade-offs is a whole 'nuther topic!
Not really.
you'd never buy a camera hoping it'll still be ok in 10 years time by just adding new lenses.
Depends on what one buys...again. I find my Canon 7D from 2009 to still be fine.
Granted I also have a 7D Mk2 now too (2014); the main "upgrades" besides lenses
has been just some bigger CF cards to increase its magazine depth and reduce card swaps.
So how many photos do you have that must be on an internal drive.A tad over 2TB.
What's that in number of photos ?.Just queried the system (& Photos crashed afterwards): currently at 109,204. Plus another 20K in old school film that's much less pragmatically accessible.
How often to you view them and would using an external drive be to slow.
I find it difficult to believ that looking at photos from even a 7D mkII would
saturate the bandwidth of even USB 2 let alone USB 3.
The bog comes from the overhead of the DAM software. That's why its been stored on a RAID-0 to get the data transfer rates up ... and why I've been also
looking for a better DAM app.
Don't know much about that software so can't really comment on it.Apple Aperture, iPhoto, Photos, Adobe Bridge, Lightroom, Darkroom ... each DAM
has had their own pros/cons...
grp=15208053723&hsa_ad=44074791843&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=pla-334324747580&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=CjwKCAjwrqqSBhBbEiwAlQeqGhAntR4iCQtFRRRBL8qUfOUKUV5nEkk_82XPEEKil9tEyrGLs_JH_xoCJHYQAvD_BwE>Thanks to CoVid , I've not had a true holiday away since late 2019 (finally got to
Rapa Nui),
Wow, that's quite a journey, I'm guessing you didn't need to take 100 shoes or your printer/scannerIts not as far from NYC vs London, but it still sucked up some days in transit. For gear,
my general philosophy is that I have more important things to do than to spend time on
a laptop doing post-, so I usually leave my laptop at home on personal trips and just make
sure to have enough memory cards for the duration:
<https://huntzinger.com/gallery/index.php/SAN/IMG_1798-cr25>
IIRC, there's almost 300GB worth of cards in that image. That's enough to
go 3-4 weeks at high "holiday" data consumption rates.
Think how long one of these would last you.
<https://transparent-uk.com/product/western-digital-wd-gold/?mkwid=s_dc|pcrid|44074791843|pkw||pmt|&mh_keyword=&bnine=true&utm_term=&utm_campaign=AA+Updated+-+IR+PLAs+%5BL%5D&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=3487650990&hsa_cam=221313363&hsa_
Sure, but there's also a trade-off in "all eggs in one basket" when you're flying without
a safety net (data backups). At present, I'd say that 32GB is a decent compromise
for what I'm currently using on land, and 16GB for underwater (higher loss risk).
-hh
On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 14:33:25 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 20:11:48 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:06:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:Well you can get 8TB SSD in a laptop today but I wouldn;t pay that much extra for one.
[etc]
...
I'll wait until they come down in price.
Broadly speaking, $100/TB was my break point for more broad SSD adoption. Seems
that there's CoVid rises on prices, as it seems that they've rebounded to ~$140/TB
But it doesn't aviod the problem and I'm betting you didn;t buy your current computer with
a 4TB internal drive even though you say you need 4TB now.
If you plan to take more photos than you previously took them maybe you need a 20TB
drive in the next 4 years but problem is they don't make a 20TB internal drive today.
So I'm betting you'll always need external storage an internal drive will never be enough.
Doubt that will ever happen to the extent that external storage will not be needed.
I see it as that with the rise of SSDs, we wanted their I/O performance gains, so we
were willing to sacrifice local capacity size and go to a two tier storage system.
So you don;t think SSDs or the current ones won't get any faster so people will stick to this now
pretty old tech, and the new NVMe SSDs which I'm betting people will have to decide whether
they want ye olde SSDs at $100 per 1TB or the newer faster ones at $300 per TB and we
will have to make the decision just like we did with HDDs ATA, EID, SCSI, 10000RPM, SATA
As SSDs become less expensive, the justification to use HDDs because they're cheap
declines, so our preference should migrate back to employing a single tier storage system.
Won't happen, most still want speed over capacity as a priority, and that is what will be worked
on as well as battery life on the laptop. I think they are probably as light and as small as laptops
can get unless they devise a screen that unfolds like the Jame Webb telescope.
There's always trade-offs. For example, the downtime can be close to zero lost time if
one invested in provisioning a hot spare which gets incrementally mirrored nightly for the
system to do a failover to. I've already done this on my cheesegrater, as the cost was
just a 512GB SSD. FWIW, to go cheaper, one could choose to employ a hot-swap HDD
instead of an SSD, and the full capability will be retained, but performance will bog until
such time that one replaces the failed SSD and one mirrors it back over.
So the same problems still persist.
Even google still use HDDs their data centres mostly use HDDs and I doubt they will
go over to SSDs anytime soon. People are uploading vidoes at a ratev of about 1
petabyte per day or around 400 hours of new video every miniute.
Problem I have is that my current choice of DAM for photography ...
I found this out years ago when using iphoto to store photos and videos ...
Not being able to find something that I know I have is what I find particularly frustrating.
That's why I'm still looking for a better DAM and workflows to compliment.
I'm not sure how that would help , unless I bothered to type in the details at the time.
I doubt there's any current system that could do such a thing for me. Although we
do have AI and noew machine learning courses here that do look at such things it''s called big data , well it was a couple of years ago but names and terms keep
keeps changing and the buzz words too.
We might have quantauim storge where a drive has virtually no access time.Sure, and the general trend today is that SSD prices continue to fall, so even though
HDDs are cheaper per TB, one may decide that SSDs are "cheap enough" to use for
one's first tier backup for the benefit of faster system restore times...and/or options
like running one as an available hot swap.
Apple had that with Firewire but USB was much cheaper and got faster, and now we have
40 GB thunderbold and 10GB ethernet.
But as you don't seem to know how many shoes you'll have in the future
maybe buy yourself an island somewhere.
Eh, I know that SSDs are hovering down to around $100/TB, so I know that
whenever I need to grow my current 4TB array to rebuilt it at, say 6TB or 8TB
once that becomes needed just isn't going to be a huge hit to the pocketbook
Maybe not, but for me it's needs over wants.
When its for a hobby, its always going to be "needs over wants" <g>
then there's overheads like wives, girlfriends, pets that get in the way :-)
The philosophy of media card capacity trade-offs is a whole 'nuther topic!
Not really.
you'd never buy a camera hoping it'll still be ok in 10 years time by just adding new lenses.
Depends on what one buys...again. I find my Canon 7D from 2009 to still be fine.
Granted I also have a 7D Mk2 now too (2014); the main "upgrades" besides lenses
has been just some bigger CF cards to increase its magazine depth and reduce card swaps.
So how many photos do you have that must be on an internal drive.A tad over 2TB.
What's that in number of photos ?.Just queried the system (& Photos crashed afterwards): currently at 109,204.
Plus another 20K in old school film that's much less pragmatically accessible.
Well at a rought estimate if you looked at each picture for 10 seconds it'd take you
about 2 weeks to see them all provided you didn't take any breaks for sleep eating
or anything else.
On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 14:33:25 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 20:11:48 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:06:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:Well you can get 8TB SSD in a laptop today but I wouldn;t pay that much extra for one.
[etc]
...
I'll wait until they come down in price.
Broadly speaking, $100/TB was my break point for more broad SSD adoption. Seems
that there's CoVid rises on prices, as it seems that they've rebounded to ~$140/TB
But it doesn't aviod the problem and I'm betting you didn;t buy your current computer withOf course not, as my cheesegrater dates from a decade ago (2012) and the PCIe based SSD was just 256GB at the time which cost IIRC $600-$700 for its OS boot
a 4TB internal drive even though you say you need 4TB now.
drive, and the second 'data' drive was 2*2TB HDDs in a RAID-0 for another ~$300.
If you plan to take more photos than you previously took them maybe you need a 20TBThat's way high, but no matter, because for my current desktop, I could choose to buy
drive in the next 4 years but problem is they don't make a 20TB internal drive today.
an internal **32TB** SSD today, if I were so inclined: <https://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDACL4M232M/>
If I were content with a 2-spindle HDD RAID-0 performance for a 2nd drive repository
the same as how it was originally configured, its maximum effective size for off-the-shelf
hardware today would be to pick up a pair of 20TB 3.5" HDDs from WD or Seagate. That
would provision a 40TB data repository...and I needed more at that same performance
level, there's still a couple more internal SATA bays to go to more spindles on; 100TB
is within reach on this 2012 hardware (would have to doublecheck the OS, though).
So I'm betting you'll always need external storage an internal drive will never be enough.Your argument would be stronger if we're assuming only a laptop configuration,
but even there, there's currently 8TB SSD equipped systems sold, and from a capacity
only perspective, that's honestly adequate for my anticipated needs (see note) for a
good 6+ years.
(note: haven't thought much yet about demands for when I probably inevitably move
up to 4K or higher video ... I'm still very predominantly stills-centric).
Doubt that will ever happen to the extent that external storage will not be needed.
I see it as that with the rise of SSDs, we wanted their I/O performance gains, so we
were willing to sacrifice local capacity size and go to a two tier storage system.
So you don;t think SSDs or the current ones won't get any faster so people will stick to this nowOh, I've already been moving to NVMe based SSDs, as they don't really have all that much
pretty old tech, and the new NVMe SSDs which I'm betting people will have to decide whether
they want ye olde SSDs at $100 per 1TB or the newer faster ones at $300 per TB and we
will have to make the decision just like we did with HDDs ATA, EID, SCSI, 10000RPM, SATA
of a cost premium over SATA based SSDs, but give a nice bump in performance.
As SSDs become less expensive, the justification to use HDDs because they're cheap
declines, so our preference should migrate back to employing a single tier storage system.
Won't happen, most still want speed over capacity as a priority, and that is what will be workedIts a trade-off that depends on use case, for how you note the trend toward small/mobile.
on as well as battery life on the laptop. I think they are probably as light and as small as laptops
can get unless they devise a screen that unfolds like the Jame Webb telescope.
There's always trade-offs. For example, the downtime can be close to zero lost time if
one invested in provisioning a hot spare which gets incrementally mirrored nightly for the
system to do a failover to. I've already done this on my cheesegrater, as the cost was
just a 512GB SSD. FWIW, to go cheaper, one could choose to employ a hot-swap HDD
instead of an SSD, and the full capability will be retained, but performance will bog until
such time that one replaces the failed SSD and one mirrors it back over.
So the same problems still persist.Regardless of if it is a single- vs multiple- spindle system for the base capabilities
before additions to address backups/etc.
Even google still use HDDs their data centres mostly use HDDs and I doubt they willSure, but Google also uses uses SSD in their infrastructure, plus RAM cache too.
go over to SSDs anytime soon. People are uploading vidoes at a ratev of about 1
petabyte per day or around 400 hours of new video every miniute.
It really comes down to paying for the faster I/O where it has the most benefit.
Notionally, if my DAM applications were able to let me select where it stores its
database vs base data, that too would probably be 'good enough' to put just the
former on fast I/O SSD and the base on slower HDDs too. I imagine that I could
dive into the weeds to look to see where each piece is stored and perhaps use like an alias to move things around, but when the alternative is to throw a couple
of TB of SSDs at the problem for just a couple of hundred dollars, that wins out.
Problem I have is that my current choice of DAM for photography ...
I found this out years ago when using iphoto to store photos and videos ...
Not being able to find something that I know I have is what I find particularly frustrating.
That's why I'm still looking for a better DAM and workflows to compliment.
I'm not sure how that would help , unless I bothered to type in the details at the time.Understood; I've spent hundreds of hours manually tagging images with keywords
I doubt there's any current system that could do such a thing for me. Although we
do have AI and noew machine learning courses here that do look at such things
it''s called big data , well it was a couple of years ago but names and terms keep
keeps changing and the buzz words too.
and the good news is that 'Big Data' aspects of Machine Learning is starting to
become pretty decent at automating the keywording process.
[snip]
We might have quantauim storge where a drive has virtually no access time.Sure, and the general trend today is that SSD prices continue to fall, so even though
HDDs are cheaper per TB, one may decide that SSDs are "cheap enough" to use for
one's first tier backup for the benefit of faster system restore times...and/or options
like running one as an available hot swap.
Apple had that with Firewire but USB was much cheaper and got faster, and now we have
40 GB thunderbold and 10GB ethernet.
But as you don't seem to know how many shoes you'll have in the future
maybe buy yourself an island somewhere.
Eh, I know that SSDs are hovering down to around $100/TB, so I know that
whenever I need to grow my current 4TB array to rebuilt it at, say 6TB or 8TB
once that becomes needed just isn't going to be a huge hit to the pocketbook
Maybe not, but for me it's needs over wants.
When its for a hobby, its always going to be "needs over wants" <g>
then there's overheads like wives, girlfriends, pets that get in the way :-)
The philosophy of media card capacity trade-offs is a whole 'nuther topic!
Not really.
you'd never buy a camera hoping it'll still be ok in 10 years time by just adding new lenses.
Depends on what one buys...again. I find my Canon 7D from 2009 to still be fine.
Granted I also have a 7D Mk2 now too (2014); the main "upgrades" besides lenses
has been just some bigger CF cards to increase its magazine depth and reduce card swaps.
So how many photos do you have that must be on an internal drive.A tad over 2TB.
What's that in number of photos ?.Just queried the system (& Photos crashed afterwards): currently at 109,204.
Plus another 20K in old school film that's much less pragmatically accessible.
Well at a rought estimate if you looked at each picture for 10 seconds it'd take youSure, if a continuous, sequential slide show of every image was the use case. I'd say that what I've found is that I just want to randomly/casually browse.
about 2 weeks to see them all provided you didn't take any breaks for sleep eating
or anything else.
For browsing, the first barrier to that way of enjoying the portfolio is the amount
of delay to wait as the system cranks for the DAM initially opening its library.
Once that has opened, the next is that of the generalized 'scrolling' performance
without experiencing excessive lag. For both of these, going from HDD to SDD has "sped up" to make the UI experience much improved. Because the UI is so much less painful, I'll use the library rather than avoiding using it.
FWIW, I can recall some UI research from years ago, which quantified the productivity losses from response time lag, finding it to be nonlinear.
I forget the specifics, but if a 1sec hardware delay results in the human response to that UI adding +1sec (total turnaround of 2sec), when the hardware delay is 2sec, the same human response isn't +1, but +4sec
(for a 6 sec turnaround), and progressively worse as the hardware delays grow.
-hh
Had a simialr problem this morniung with 2 students.
We have a fun event where for 10 days we hide 2 little 3D printed bunnies in the lab.
The idea is that the students have to find them and when they do the first two students
to find them win an easter egg. So the first 2 studetns that send us a photo of them
wins the eggs.
So one student found it first and took a photo, then another student found it.
But looking at the dates of the emails which were about 1 miniute apart
the 2nd student must have taken about 30 seconds to add the image attachment & type
"I've found the bunny" and send it where as the first student to take the photo took about 15 mins
to attacht the photo and send the email so he lost and the 2nd person to find the bunny won the egg.
On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 20:53:36 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 14:33:25 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 20:11:48 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:06:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:Well you can get 8TB SSD in a laptop today but I wouldn;t pay that much extra for one.
[etc]
...
I'll wait until they come down in price.
Broadly speaking, $100/TB was my break point for more broad SSD adoption. Seems
that there's CoVid rises on prices, as it seems that they've rebounded to ~$140/TB
But it doesn't aviod the problem and I'm betting you didn;t buy your current computer withOf course not, as my cheesegrater dates from a decade ago (2012) and the PCIe
a 4TB internal drive even though you say you need 4TB now.
based SSD was just 256GB at the time which cost IIRC $600-$700 for its OS boot
drive, and the second 'data' drive was 2*2TB HDDs in a RAID-0 for another ~$300.
Seems risky to me to use RAID-0 unless you keep reqular backups.
Again you've chosen speed of access as more important than space.
Which is what I did, I went for a smaller SSD rather than a larger HDD. Because I knew I could get pretty cheap and larger HDD in the future.
Like most things the older tech tends to get cheaper when something
faster and better arrives, and that's been going on since paper tape.
So now I only 'plan' for about ~4 years ...
If you plan to take more photos than you previously took them maybe you need a 20TB
drive in the next 4 years but problem is they don't make a 20TB internal drive today.
That's way high, but no matter, because for my current desktop, I could choose to buy
an internal **32TB** SSD today, if I were so inclined: <https://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDACL4M232M/>
If I were content with a 2-spindle HDD RAID-0 performance for a 2nd drive repository
the same as how it was originally configured, its maximum effective size for off-the-shelf
hardware today would be to pick up a pair of 20TB 3.5" HDDs from WD or Seagate. That
would provision a 40TB data repository...and I needed more at that same performance
level, there's still a couple more internal SATA bays to go to more spindles on; 100TB
is within reach on this 2012 hardware (would have to doublecheck the OS, though).
Well you're still deciding which is more important speed or space ?.
Personally I'd opt for a new computer and I'm betting a new Mac studio 4 or 8 TB would be
much faster accessing photos whether internally or externally than a new 32TB SSD on the
2012 mac pro.
So I'm betting you'll always need external storage an internal drive will never be enough.Your argument would be stronger if we're assuming only a laptop configuration,
but even there, there's currently 8TB SSD equipped systems sold, and from a capacity
only perspective, that's honestly adequate for my anticipated needs (see note) for a
good 6+ years.
But they are a bit pricey, and I'd rather buy a 2nd larger monitor than spend so much on a 8TB SSD.
Or get faster internet.
(note: haven't thought much yet about demands for when I probably inevitably move
up to 4K or higher video ... I'm still very predominantly stills-centric).
I'm not sure how much better and hence larger single still photos will get. I'm finding jpg file sizes of about 3-5MB plenty. But some like storing everything as RAW ~40MB.
I'm not sure I'll ever need such files to be 1GB.
Won't happen, most still want speed over capacity as a priority, and that is what will be worked
on as well as battery life on the laptop. I think they are probably as light and as small as laptops
can get unless they devise a screen that unfolds like the Jame Webb telescope.
Its a trade-off that depends on use case, for how you note the trend toward small/mobile.
I doubt computers will get larger, very few are floor standing where you can mount 8 or 9 drives in
like the old mac quadra 950.
This is my concern with internal drives statement. If I connect up all my Five 3TB drives via USB3
to my 2014 iMac and then placed them all in the same box, I could then say they are internal
but would that be better than your current system with the RAID 0, faster ?, more storage capacity.
I don;t know, and that's just 2 years bewteen them.
Is a RAID 0 on a 2021 mac pro faster than and new M1 iMac or macbook with a 2TB internal or external drive. ?
It really comes down to paying for the faster I/O where it has the most benefit.
And presently that seems to be having everything on the same chip CPU, RAM, SSD,
which of course can't be user upgraded.
Notionally, if my DAM applications were able to let me select where it stores its
database vs base data, that too would probably be 'good enough' to put just the
former on fast I/O SSD and the base on slower HDDs too. I imagine that I could
dive into the weeds to look to see where each piece is stored and perhaps use
like an alias to move things around, but when the alternative is to throw a couple
of TB of SSDs at the problem for just a couple of hundred dollars, that wins out.
All depends on how important the time is and what sort of detail you search under.
Well at a rought estimate if you looked at each picture for 10 seconds it'd take you
about 2 weeks to see them all provided you didn't take any breaks for sleep eating
or anything else.
Sure, if a continuous, sequential slide show of every image was the use case.
I'd say that what I've found is that I just want to randomly/casually browse.
I'm suprised that the speed of HDDs, SSD and RAID 0 is noticable for stills.
For browsing, the first barrier to that way of enjoying the portfolio is the amount
of delay to wait as the system cranks for the DAM initially opening its library.
Maybe a badly written DAM or just not optimized or well written.
On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 00:23:10 UTC+1, David Brooks wrote:
On 08/04/2022 13:36, Whisky-dave wrote:
Had a simialr problem this morniung with 2 students.Haha! :-D Fun!
We have a fun event where for 10 days we hide 2 little 3D printed bunnies in the lab.
The idea is that the students have to find them and when they do the first two students
to find them win an easter egg. So the first 2 studetns that send us a photo of them
wins the eggs.
So one student found it first and took a photo, then another student found it.
But looking at the dates of the emails which were about 1 miniute apart
the 2nd student must have taken about 30 seconds to add the image attachment & type
"I've found the bunny" and send it where as the first student to take the photo took about 15 mins
to attacht the photo and send the email so he lost and the 2nd person to find the bunny won the egg.
What do you think of this little bit of guitar playing, Dave?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EgxSJwAXqYI
I think it outstanding - but what do I know?!!
Not really sure I can't play guitar so can't really judge.
Quite a few of my friends play guitar one was even on TOTPs, which was quite funny
On 08/04/2022 13:36, Whisky-dave wrote:
Had a simialr problem this morniung with 2 students.Haha! :-D Fun!
We have a fun event where for 10 days we hide 2 little 3D printed bunnies in the lab.
The idea is that the students have to find them and when they do the first two students
to find them win an easter egg. So the first 2 studetns that send us a photo of them
wins the eggs.
So one student found it first and took a photo, then another student found it.
But looking at the dates of the emails which were about 1 miniute apart
the 2nd student must have taken about 30 seconds to add the image attachment & type
"I've found the bunny" and send it where as the first student to take the photo took about 15 mins
to attacht the photo and send the email so he lost and the 2nd person to find the bunny won the egg.
What do you think of this little bit of guitar playing, Dave? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EgxSJwAXqYI
I think it outstanding - but what do I know?!!
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 8:36:47 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 20:53:36 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 14:33:25 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 20:11:48 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:06:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:Well you can get 8TB SSD in a laptop today but I wouldn;t pay that much extra for one.
[etc]
...
I'll wait until they come down in price.
Broadly speaking, $100/TB was my break point for more broad SSD adoption. Seems
that there's CoVid rises on prices, as it seems that they've rebounded to ~$140/TB
But it doesn't aviod the problem and I'm betting you didn;t buy your current computer withOf course not, as my cheesegrater dates from a decade ago (2012) and the PCIe
a 4TB internal drive even though you say you need 4TB now.
based SSD was just 256GB at the time which cost IIRC $600-$700 for its OS boot
drive, and the second 'data' drive was 2*2TB HDDs in a RAID-0 for another ~$300.
Seems risky to me to use RAID-0 unless you keep reqular backups.Oh, of course there's regular backups.
Again you've chosen speed of access as more important than space.Yes, that was the trade-off that I made a decade ago regarding SSD vs HDD. And since then, the SSD price has come down by 90%, which is the enabler for considering a different solution today, even despite capacity growth demand.
Which is what I did, I went for a smaller SSD rather than a larger HDD. Because I knew I could get pretty cheap and larger HDD in the future.
Like most things the older tech tends to get cheaper when something
faster and better arrives, and that's been going on since paper tape.
So now I only 'plan' for about ~4 years ...
I'd be pretty ticked off it a new system didn't go at least 4 years, unless my
use cases dramatically changed.
If you plan to take more photos than you previously took them maybe you need a 20TB
drive in the next 4 years but problem is they don't make a 20TB internal drive today.
That's way high, but no matter, because for my current desktop, I could choose to buy
an internal **32TB** SSD today, if I were so inclined: <https://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDACL4M232M/>
If I were content with a 2-spindle HDD RAID-0 performance for a 2nd drive repository
the same as how it was originally configured, its maximum effective size for off-the-shelf
hardware today would be to pick up a pair of 20TB 3.5" HDDs from WD or Seagate. That
would provision a 40TB data repository...and I needed more at that same performance
level, there's still a couple more internal SATA bays to go to more spindles on; 100TB
is within reach on this 2012 hardware (would have to doublecheck the OS, though).
Well you're still deciding which is more important speed or space ?.I can have both, if I'm willing to flex the 3rd variable, namely cost.
Personally I'd opt for a new computer and I'm betting a new Mac studio 4 or 8 TB would beOf course it would, which is why I'm contemplating doing just that rather than to drop $6K
much faster accessing photos whether internally or externally than a new 32TB SSD on the
2012 mac pro.
into a decade-old desktop. I only mentioned the 32GB SSD card because you said that
that capacity doesn't exist today.
Even sticking with what just Apple currently offers on the
Studio, that's 8GB, which is 2x what I have today, and thus adequate for IMO 6+ years of image
portfolio growth.
So I'm betting you'll always need external storage an internal drive will never be enough.Your argument would be stronger if we're assuming only a laptop configuration,
but even there, there's currently 8TB SSD equipped systems sold, and from a capacity
only perspective, that's honestly adequate for my anticipated needs (see note) for a
good 6+ years.
But they are a bit pricey, and I'd rather buy a 2nd larger monitor than spend so much on a 8TB SSD.Therein lies the rub on future-proofing: if one spends $X for just what one needs today, skipping
Or get faster internet.
the +$Y (or $Y1) addition for future proofing, then how long does it last until one outgrows it and
starts the cycle again? The optimization math is that of cost minimization, where one compares
the options: (($X)/4 years) vs (($X+$Y)/5 years) vs (($X+$Y1)/6 years) and so on....and the fun
part is the uncertainty in what cost factors are going to affect "lifespan" and by how much.
(note: haven't thought much yet about demands for when I probably inevitably move
up to 4K or higher video ... I'm still very predominantly stills-centric).
I'm not sure how much better and hence larger single still photos will get.Oh, my point here is merely that use cases changes are uncertainty risks: the assumptions
I'm finding jpg file sizes of about 3-5MB plenty. But some like storing everything as RAW ~40MB.
I'm not sure I'll ever need such files to be 1GB.
which are being used to gage variables like lifespan get tossed out the window, so one
can (should) do a sensitivity analysis on them...again, it can be part of risk-reduction.
Won't happen, most still want speed over capacity as a priority, and that is what will be worked
on as well as battery life on the laptop. I think they are probably as light and as small as laptops
can get unless they devise a screen that unfolds like the Jame Webb telescope.
Its a trade-off that depends on use case, for how you note the trend toward small/mobile.
I doubt computers will get larger, very few are floor standing where you can mount 8 or 9 drives inThanks to advances in storage media technology, the use cases for needing that many bays has
like the old mac quadra 950.
gone way down, particularly with the rise of faster I/O protocols such as NVMe which lessens
the bang-for-the-buck of multi-spindled RAID-0 architectures.
This is my concern with internal drives statement. If I connect up all my Five 3TB drives via USB3Figuratively speaking, we only employ externals because we either couldn't provision it internally,
to my 2014 iMac and then placed them all in the same box, I could then say they are internal
but would that be better than your current system with the RAID 0, faster ?, more storage capacity.
I don;t know, and that's just 2 years bewteen them.
are lazy, or we have some reason to move/remote that storage (plus combinations of the above).
Overall, the work flow & use cases are going to have a demand signal for "X" amount of storage
of certain parameters (speed, removability, etc). The good news is that technologies such as
Firewire, USB-3, USB-C, Thunderbolt, etc ... have modified the performance hit of being external.
Is a RAID 0 on a 2021 mac pro faster than and new M1 iMac or macbook with a 2TB internal or external drive. ?I'd certainly hope that it isn't as fast as an M1's internal SSD! <g>
FWIW, I have done some benchmarking over the years with the Cheesegrater; except for the
last, those were the "as built" condition back in 2012; some approximate values:
PCIe SSD runs 450/600 (R/W) MB/sec
SATA-2 2x2TB HDD RAID-0 runs 250/250 (R/W) MB/sec
USB-C (3a?) external SSD RAID-0 runs 450/600 (R/W) MB/sec
I've not downloaded this utility yet for the M1 mini to personally give it a whirl, but the
reviews I've seen put it at over 2000 / 2500 (R/W) MB/sec. Perception wise, I'd say
that it feels more snappy, but I don't think it is "4x faster" .. would have to do a proper
A-B test with timers to really know for sure (and control for placebo effect -type biases).
It really comes down to paying for the faster I/O where it has the most benefit.
And presently that seems to be having everything on the same chip CPU, RAM, SSD,Where the trade-off is upfront costs & useful lifespan.
which of course can't be user upgraded.
Notionally, if my DAM applications were able to let me select where it stores its
database vs base data, that too would probably be 'good enough' to put just the
former on fast I/O SSD and the base on slower HDDs too. I imagine that I could
dive into the weeds to look to see where each piece is stored and perhaps use
like an alias to move things around, but when the alternative is to throw a couple
of TB of SSDs at the problem for just a couple of hundred dollars, that wins out.
All depends on how important the time is and what sort of detail you search under.Of course; its functionally a "pay me now, or pay me later" in two different dimensions.
Well at a rought estimate if you looked at each picture for 10 seconds it'd take you
about 2 weeks to see them all provided you didn't take any breaks for sleep eating
or anything else.
Sure, if a continuous, sequential slide show of every image was the use case.
I'd say that what I've found is that I just want to randomly/casually browse.
I'm suprised that the speed of HDDs, SSD and RAID 0 is noticable for stills.Its the "database" of the DAM that's serving up thumbnails.
FWIW, Apple Aperture was a real resource pig back at Revision 1; a lot of the market
chose Adobe Lightroom simply because it didn't bog as much with the same dataset.
For browsing, the first barrier to that way of enjoying the portfolio is the amount
of delay to wait as the system cranks for the DAM initially opening its library.
Maybe a badly written DAM or just not optimized or well written.See above; Apple loves to add bells & whistles, and assumes that everyone wants
"rich" over "fast" .. and then doesn't stress-test the UI well enough with large sets.
This is still the case where one can see how Apple has been ... slim ... on the storage
levels of iCloud it sells. I've frequently read Apple iCloud announcements and (again)
concluded that the service level that I'd need was not available from Apple at any price.
For example, I'm over the 2TB maximum iCloud Storage capacity plan size, so I'd have to
use the 'backdoor' trick to stack a iCloud 2TB plan with Apple One Premier to get to 4TB
and it would be "just barely" adequate: ~0.25TB to spare and "just" $40/month. Plus had
I done a couple of photo trips if not for CoVid, even that wouldn't have sufficed.
-hh
On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 02:20:47 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 8:36:47 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 20:53:36 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 14:33:25 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 20:11:48 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:06:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:Well you can get 8TB SSD in a laptop today but I wouldn;t pay that much extra for one.
[etc]
...
I'll wait until they come down in price.
Broadly speaking, $100/TB was my break point for more broad SSD adoption. Seems
that there's CoVid rises on prices, as it seems that they've rebounded to ~$140/TB
But it doesn't aviod the problem and I'm betting you didn;t buy your current computer withOf course not, as my cheesegrater dates from a decade ago (2012) and the PCIe
a 4TB internal drive even though you say you need 4TB now.
based SSD was just 256GB at the time which cost IIRC $600-$700 for its OS boot
drive, and the second 'data' drive was 2*2TB HDDs in a RAID-0 for another ~$300.
Seems risky to me to use RAID-0 unless you keep reqular backups.Oh, of course there's regular backups.
So you do use external storage ...
...which is why I can''t understand why you must have everything on an internal drive.
I know you say it's related to speed of access which might increase more with a new
processor, graphics card, and everything else that comes with having everything on
the same chip/board. Rather than the speed of the SSD which is likely to be faster
in a new computer than the ten year old one you have.
and there are other things that make computers faster than just the boot 'drive'
So now I only 'plan' for about ~4 years ...
I'd be pretty ticked off it a new system didn't go at least 4 years, unless my
use cases dramatically changed.
I don't really know what my use case will be in even 2 years time.
In 2014 I didn't know I'd spend time filming my first 2 goldfinches on a bird feeder and a barking squirrel in 4k
https://youtu.be/3xjMY3h0trY
and a barking squirrel
https://youtu.be/_b1fJbdF97Q
These files were about 35GB in total I don't feel the need to keep the originals
and back them up multiple times. Kept the files I uploaded to youtube about 2GB on my internal drive for now until I need the space. Which might be at the end of may my next planned gig so will need about 40GB for that presently have ~70GB free.
Even sticking with what just Apple currently offers on the Studio, that's 8GB,
which is 2x what I have today, and thus adequate for IMO 6+ years of image portfolio growth.
I'd have to wonder whether I might be better off spending the money on a faster
processor/more cores or more RAM and use the remaining money and get a thunderbold external drive.
I'm not sure how much better and hence larger single still photos will get.
I'm finding jpg file sizes of about 3-5MB plenty. But some like storing everything
as RAW ~40MB. I'm not sure I'll ever need such files to be 1GB.
Oh, my point here is merely that use cases changes are uncertainty risks: the assumptions
which are being used to gage variables like lifespan get tossed out the window, so one
can (should) do a sensitivity analysis on them...again, it can be part of risk-reduction.
For me lifespan is how long I expect the computer to last, Which is more linked the warrenty
rather than how long it will be usable for my uses.
PCs in my lab seem to need replacing after 3-4 years. We've already had to replace the
1TB HDDs with SSDs only about £100 each. but 3 years ago this would have been to expensive
to buy 100 PCs with internal 1 TB SSDs otherwise we'd have bought them I assume.
It really comes down to paying for the faster I/O where it has the most benefit.
And presently that seems to be having everything on the same chip CPU, RAM, SSD,
which of course can't be user upgraded.
Where the trade-off is upfront costs & useful lifespan.
Which is the difficult part, same with most tech products, ...
I can't see the point in upgrading my 2016 iPhone7 unless there come out with some serious slow-mo, like 1000fps or more.
I spent quite a bit of time and film trying to film a ballon bursting in the mid 70s.
On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:00:39 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 02:20:47 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 8:36:47 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 20:53:36 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 14:33:25 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 20:11:48 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:06:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:Well you can get 8TB SSD in a laptop today but I wouldn;t pay that much extra for one.
[etc]
...
I'll wait until they come down in price.
Broadly speaking, $100/TB was my break point for more broad SSD adoption. Seems
that there's CoVid rises on prices, as it seems that they've rebounded to ~$140/TB
But it doesn't aviod the problem and I'm betting you didn;t buy your current computer withOf course not, as my cheesegrater dates from a decade ago (2012) and the PCIe
a 4TB internal drive even though you say you need 4TB now.
based SSD was just 256GB at the time which cost IIRC $600-$700 for its OS boot
drive, and the second 'data' drive was 2*2TB HDDs in a RAID-0 for another ~$300.
Seems risky to me to use RAID-0 unless you keep reqular backups.Oh, of course there's regular backups.
So you do use external storage ...
That too, but the primary backups are onboard (internal). Granted, this does invoke a
trade-off on convenience/reliability vs single point of failure...
...which is why I can''t understand why you must have everything on an internal drive.
It depends on the use case. For backups, its not a "must" as much as it is a preference,
as such additions add a tangle of wires for signal & power that have to be managed too.
Case in point, I'm overdue to 'detangle' the cheesegrater's power systems again, as an
ethernet switch snuck on there somehow ... a quick glance this AM behind the monitor
found no less than 13 plugs on the power trays.
I know you say it's related to speed of access which might increase more with a newOf course we want all of the specs to take a step up when we buy a new system;
processor, graphics card, and everything else that comes with having everything on
the same chip/board. Rather than the speed of the SSD which is likely to be faster
in a new computer than the ten year old one you have.
question is how much is worth how much. My lessons-learned from my current system is that the I/O bandwidth has been performance/UI pacing element, which
was why I'd invested in hardware to open up that particular bottleneck. As such,
my motivation now is that if I'm going to be laying out money to replace it, I don't
want to a step backwards, or even to just tread water; I'd like to have "more", so
long as it is reasonably attainable.
and there are other things that make computers faster than just the boot 'drive'But of course. Each subsystem contributes in its own way. For example, my legacy desktop has had 24GB of RAM since it was brought up in 2012, and I've monitored page swaps to see if that's enough or not.
FWIW, a friend has a Windows PC build for an interesting use case and he's found
a throughput bottleneck here; his trade-off is to either spend a ~manyear to rework
his code to get it to run faster, or he can just "throw money at the problem" by
bumping the hardware from 64GB to 128GB for a similar amount of gain. From a business sense, the hardware route is the most cost-effective "make or buy" answer.
So now I only 'plan' for about ~4 years ...
I'd be pretty ticked off it a new system didn't go at least 4 years, unless my
use cases dramatically changed.
I don't really know what my use case will be in even 2 years time.
In 2014 I didn't know I'd spend time filming my first 2 goldfinches on a bird
feeder and a barking squirrel in 4k
https://youtu.be/3xjMY3h0trY
and a barking squirrel
https://youtu.be/_b1fJbdF97Q
These files were about 35GB in total I don't feel the need to keep the originalsA good illustration of how capability needs grow in generally unexpected ways,
and back them up multiple times. Kept the files I uploaded to youtube about
2GB on my internal drive for now until I need the space. Which might be at the end of may my next planned gig so will need about 40GB for that presently have ~70GB free.
even though in retrospect, we could have looked at the tech of 4K from back when you bought the machine to try to guess if it was a realistic growth direction.
FWIW, this is why I'm so concerned about my own 'future proofing':
I think that
its a given that I'll want to do 4K ... but the open question is if that will also include
wanting to process 8K too, which would be more demanding (and $$) on today's hardware. This is the inherent challenge on assessing future-proofing even for
shorter periods of time (eg, <5yrs): one of my current work projects is trying to
assess if we can develop an effective ~25 year futureproofing strategy, because
of the levels of money involved for implementing any major configuration change.
Even sticking with what just Apple currently offers on the Studio, that's 8GB,
which is 2x what I have today, and thus adequate for IMO 6+ years of image
portfolio growth.
I'd have to wonder whether I might be better off spending the money on a fasterDepends on one's workflows and where the performance bottleneck(s) are which affect your UI along the way, and which portion of the UI is the one that you're
processor/more cores or more RAM and use the remaining money and get a thunderbold external drive.
prioritizing improvements for.
I'm not sure how much better and hence larger single still photos will get.
I'm finding jpg file sizes of about 3-5MB plenty. But some like storing everything
as RAW ~40MB. I'm not sure I'll ever need such files to be 1GB.
Oh, my point here is merely that use cases changes are uncertainty risks: the assumptions
which are being used to gage variables like lifespan get tossed out the window, so one
can (should) do a sensitivity analysis on them...again, it can be part of risk-reduction.
For me lifespan is how long I expect the computer to last, Which is more linked the warrentyMuch depends on the use case(s) and what the effects are of any considered change:
rather than how long it will be usable for my uses.
PCs in my lab seem to need replacing after 3-4 years. We've already had to replace the
1TB HDDs with SSDs only about £100 each. but 3 years ago this would have been to expensive
to buy 100 PCs with internal 1 TB SSDs otherwise we'd have bought them I assume.
that which is a good business decision to make for a lab of 100 machines for students
just isn't going to be the same as for a small cluster of 3-5 high end machines used by
specialists who get paid six digit salaries: spending an extra $1000 for the latter to be
more productive can have very short Return on Investment periods (months or weeks).
It really comes down to paying for the faster I/O where it has the most benefit.
And presently that seems to be having everything on the same chip CPU, RAM, SSD,
which of course can't be user upgraded.
Where the trade-off is upfront costs & useful lifespan.
Which is the difficult part, same with most tech products, ...
Yup. Its also more challenging when the use case is "hobby" instead of business, as
it is harder to objectively quantify a notional ROI ... plus there's no tax write-off (!).
I can't see the point in upgrading my 2016 iPhone7 unless there come out with some serious slow-mo, like 1000fps or more.Sounds like a classic "Papa Flash" experiment.
I spent quite a bit of time and film trying to film a ballon bursting in the mid 70s.
My work has been more in lines
with "making applesauce at MIT"; the camera I bought for the lab in 2002 was something like just 640x640 pixels in B&W; we could have opted for color, but doing
so decreased its light sensitivity by ~2 stops, and with the era's pre-LED illumination,
we were throwing some heat on frame rates above 10K fps. With the RAM upgrade to
allow 4sec of total capture time, it was just under our $100K limit. A lot has changed
in the past 20 years.
-hh
On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 14:44:31 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:00:39 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 02:20:47 UTC+1, -hh wrote:...
[etc]
That too, but the primary backups are onboard (internal). Granted, this does
invoke a trade-off on convenience/reliability vs single point of failure...
Personally I wouldn't use internal drive for backup other then as a temproy measure while I play with an orginal file.
Case in point, I'm overdue to 'detangle' the cheesegrater's power systems again, as an
ethernet switch snuck on there somehow ... a quick glance this AM behind the monitor
found no less than 13 plugs on the power trays.
There's this thing called wireless , it might not be the fastest method but it can be done 24/7.
I think that
its a given that I'll want to do 4K ... but the open question is if that will also include
wanting to process 8K too, which would be more demanding (and $$) on today's
hardware. This is the inherent challenge on assessing future-proofing even for
shorter periods of time (eg, <5yrs): one of my current work projects is trying to
assess if we can develop an effective ~25 year futureproofing strategy, because
of the levels of money involved for implementing any major configuration change.
I think that is impossible. Try using a 25 year old computer try connecting it to a 8TB disc
Yep research machines are like that. Which is why I have an old research iMac.
Still working fine a bit slow to start up with it''s 1TB HDD. Still have 750GB free.
Have lots of software I don't need or use. But office 2011 can't be updated, and the 3D printer software I use can't be updated iether so even if someone offered me
an 32TB SSD it'd be pretty useless because of the system software can't be updated.
I can't see the point in upgrading my 2016 iPhone7 unless there come out with some serious slow-mo, like 1000fps or more. I spent quite a bit of time and film trying to film a balloon bursting in the mid 70s.
Sounds like a classic "Papa Flash" experiment.
You can get arrested for that sort of thing, well in public.
On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:38:28 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 14:44:31 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:00:39 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 02:20:47 UTC+1, -hh wrote:...
[etc]
That too, but the primary backups are onboard (internal). Granted, this does
invoke a trade-off on convenience/reliability vs single point of failure...
Personally I wouldn't use internal drive for backup other then as a temproy measure while I play with an orginal file.I tend to organize into tiers; as each tier becomes less proximate, it should be
less vulnerable to single point of failure risks. But the trade tends to be that
they are of lower I/O bandwidth (so any recovery will be slower), with less frequent backup rates (so newest updates may be lost) ...just more trades.
Case in point, I'm overdue to 'detangle' the cheesegrater's power systems again, as an
ethernet switch snuck on there somehow ... a quick glance this AM behind the monitor
found no less than 13 plugs on the power trays.
There's this thing called wireless , it might not be the fastest method but it can be done 24/7.Sure, but wireless doesn't eliminate power wires.
...
I think that
its a given that I'll want to do 4K ... but the open question is if that will also include
wanting to process 8K too, which would be more demanding (and $$) on today's
hardware. This is the inherent challenge on assessing future-proofing even for
shorter periods of time (eg, <5yrs): one of my current work projects is trying to
assess if we can develop an effective ~25 year futureproofing strategy, because
of the levels of money involved for implementing any major configuration change.
I think that is impossible. Try using a 25 year old computer try connecting it to a 8TB discWell, the SATA interface dates from 2000, so its already 22 years old. It still
lives because it was able to be incrementally improved; my effort is similar to planning out how SATA advanced from SATA-1, to SATA-2, SATA-3..
Yep research machines are like that. Which is why I have an old research iMac.Think I got one of those laying around here someplace, along with a PATA interface
Still working fine a bit slow to start up with it''s 1TB HDD. Still have 750GB free.
Have lots of software I don't need or use. But office 2011 can't be updated,
and the 3D printer software I use can't be updated iether so even if someone offered me
an 32TB SSD it'd be pretty useless because of the system software can't be updated.
for it...was kicking around the idea of a home project to get an old Cube running <g>.
I can't see the point in upgrading my 2016 iPhone7 unless there come out
with some serious slow-mo, like 1000fps or more. I spent quite a bit of time and film trying to film a balloon bursting in the mid 70s.
Sounds like a classic "Papa Flash" experiment.
You can get arrested for that sort of thing, well in public.Only when skin diving, as "Doc" Edgerton did strobe development with Cousteau too...
-hh
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 155:40:19 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| Messages: | 6,417,848 |
