Anybody use wireless network for photo editing?

[boomerd35]

Originally Posted by awsilver

For the wireless setup I'd definately look into Syncback and mirror to the network storage.

I'm going to look into that. Without running cable, something like that would be best for my situtation. I'm not a techie, and I'm not processing photos that get too much bigger than 8-10 mb (I don't usually save to PSD- one more file to keep track of). I guess I need to increase my workflow.

All this techinical talk has prompted me to change my signature quote (see below)

[Ray]

Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer???

[awsilver]

I'm going to look into that. Without running cable, something like that would be best for my situtation. I'm not a techie, and I'm not processing photos that get too much bigger than 8-10 mb (I don't usually save to PSD- one more file to keep track of). I guess I need to increase my workflow.

http://www.2brightsparks.com/downloads.html

The freeware SE version should work fine for what your planning on doing.

[boomerd35]

Originally Posted by Ray

Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer???

Yes. Actually, Unfrozen Caveman Photographer:

I don't understand these modern picture machines. Do gremlins inside the box draw pictures when you press the button?

[awsilver]

Originally Posted by boomerd35

I don't understand these modern picture machines. Do gremlins inside the box draw pictures when you press the button?

PFM!

AW

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by awsilver

http://www.2brightsparks.com/downloads.html

The freeware SE version should work fine for what your planning on doing.

I've been using 'unison' for a while for similar purpose.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/unison/

[engstrom]

Originally Posted by GordonMcGregor

Well, a decent RAID5 setup should be able to throw out data faster than a single local disk, so it should be possible to get faster editing over a network than on a local machine because of that.

I disagree with that statement. RAID5 writes are expensive. Cache helps mitigate the overhead but you're still going to pay at least a little penalty. You have to re-read part of the blocks that aren't being rewritten to recalculate the new parity. Large sequential writes on a defragmented disk are an optimal situation (and often what you do when you're editing) but still I never manage to keep my disks unfragmented for long.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by engstrom

I disagree with that statement. RAID5 writes are expensive. Cache helps mitigate the overhead but you're still going to pay at least a little penalty. You have to re-read part of the blocks that aren't being rewritten to recalculate the new parity. Large sequential writes on a defragmented disk are an optimal situation (and often what you do when you're editing) but still I never manage to keep my disks unfragmented for long.

I didn't say anything about writes. Editing should be read only, with writes going to a local disk/ cache. I specifically said 'throw out data' i.e., read

Because you can interleave the accesses, you can read data faster than from a single disk. Also, conceptually, you have 2, 3 or 4 times the amount of cache available for writes, so there should be some improvement there as well (assuming one disk or a raid array of the same disks)

[engstrom]

Absolutely reading from a RAID 5 set is faster - n-1 time faster (where n is the number of drives in the RAID set). Writing, even with the cache from each of the disks, still involves reading enough data from the drives to calculate parity if you are not writing enough to span blacks on all of the drives.

But you're right, for editing the files all you have to do is read it in. I assumed you were also talking about saving the edited file.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by engstrom

But you're right, for editing the files all you have to do is read it in. I assumed you were also talking about saving the edited file.

I'd just be happier if the read access times were better - I do a whole lot more reading/ catalogueing/ modifying and saving somewhere else from my archive than anything else.