anyone have their RR on a home network w no problems?

[Mark F]

Nuke Nabber available at:
http://www.dynamsol.com/puppet/

Be safe,
Mark F.

------------------
OH NO, my retractable cup holder swallowed a CD

[nick_lear]

Thanks for all the help - that's good news, there seems to be no reason why I can't have my PC happily editing away on a network. Not that I've really been thinking of the advantages of that - it's my parents house that I'm living in and when my dad retires in Oct, he wants a computer at home, like me and mum. I just thought now that they'll both have lots of hdd space free (hopefully) for me to use - which I need when I return after this year travelling (i'm in morocco) - like now after 5 months I have about 7 hours of footage.

What other advantages are there of editing on a network?

Not that I've yet convinced my dad that a home network is what he needs, but I'm planning on it. And with the new 10mbps home phone line network cards... (somehow I think they might oppose CAT5 cabling going on)

For anyone reading this thread who is a newbie to networks like me, below are some good sites to check - it's now become very affordable and easy to have 2 or 3 PCs at home all linked up to share printers, one internet connection, etc. and you don't need Windows NT, nor new cabling if you don't want to.

www.sohointer.net
- very good overview, and talks about the Netbuei, TCP/IP, IPX security thing

www.timhiggins.com
- good on latest technology, like ethernet, vs. home phone lines, vs. wireless

www.firingsquad.com/guides/ics/ and www.infinisource.com/techfiles/ics.html
- on Win98SE's Internet Connection Sharing (ICS)

www.wown.com
- more advanced

[This message has been edited by nick_lear (edited 29 January 2000).]

[Elie]

Sorry duded but 10mb won't cut it for 3mbps sustained throughput if you want to use your fathers PC's drives for video editing.

Think about it 10MB = 10240MB (10x1024)
so 10240 divided by 8 = 1.280mbytes/ps not enough data through put. then because your sharing the bandwidth between 2 PC's you have to divide 1.280 by 2 which equals 640kbytes/ps. now that depends on what you doing.

100mbps = 102400mb divided by 8 = 12.800mbytes/ps divide that by 2 = 4.4 mbps more than enough to sustain video.

Note: The reason I divided the initial amount by 8 is to convert from bits to bytes.
8 bits = 1 byte

If anyone disagrees please feel free to comment.

Cheers,
Elie

[cjyo~]

I recently set up new machine to act as a network server, web server, IP sharing NAT and firewall.

Previously, I shared a cable connection thru a Win98 machine running Sygate, which is easy to setup an works great.
http://www.sybergen.com/products/gate_ov.htm

As for security, Norton Internet Security (NIS - formerly AtGuard) worked well for me. The default protections were good and it was easy to log attacks and add new firewall rules. It also has convenient drag and drop banner blocking. I was using it with Black Ice, then decided to take Black Ice off, since NIS was doing the job.

Once you install NIS, Black Ice, ConSeal or whatever, you will be very suprised how many people scan your computer. People scan whole network ranges (such as known cable modem/DSL ranges) all the time.

Unfortunately, my Win98 machine also has my Marvel G200 and all my video/sound editing software. So I decided to get another cheap machine to handle the serving/firewall load, so I can have a leaner system for editing.

I decided to experiment with Linux, so my new server is running Mandrake-Linux 7 (recommended - it's Pentium optimized Redhat with extra features). I have a Samba server (Windows compatable server), firewall, IP Sharing and Web Server running now. I also upgraded my old Ethernet Hub to a Fast Ethernet switch. I don't have to run Microsoft file or printer sharing at all, but my Linux Samba drive is mapped to my Win98 machine, so it comes up automatically when I turn on the computer.

This setup works great - I can even play huge max size/min compression Marvel video files off the Linux machine and out to TV at full speed (without jitter).

Having a seperate server is great for taking the load off the Marvel machine (I don't have to leave it on 24 hours a day either) and giving me more storage and playback space for video editing.

- cjyo~

This site has some good security info:
http://www.robertgraham.com/pubs/

This site will scan your computer briefly and give you a security report (free for basic scans):
http://hackerwhacker.com:4000/startdemo.dyn

ps - Does anyone have a dual-boot, lean Win98 editing system partition + 2nd bloated Win98 gaming/netsurfing partition setup? Is this possible or will new programs have trouble with two registries?

------------------
Please visit http://spincycle.n3.net - My System: Celeron 300a(@450/2v),ABit BH6, 128mb ram, Win98, Marvel G200TV, Diamond MX300, IBM 8.4gb UDMA Deskstar system drive, Adaptec 2940UW SCSI, 2x 9gb Seagate Barracuda UWSCSI video drives, Hitachi GD-2500 DVD-Rom, UltraPlex CD-Rom, Plexwriter CD-recorder, Viewsonic PT775, Soundworks 4.1 speakers

[Brian Ellis]

Elie

No-one is arguing with you. Just that an Indeo/MPEG 1/4 size file runs at typically 240 kbytes/s and can be viewed in real time over a 10 MHz network, quite comfortably. I've done it loads of times. A 10 MHz network is also quite adequate for archiving hi-res uncompressed video files from one computer to another. In practical terms, I've found a 2 Gbyte file will transfer from disk to disk in under about 30 minutes and you can do other things while this is happening on a 3-computer workgroup. I agree that 100 MHz would be better, but is it worth the extra hassle/cost of hubs and so-on? You would just be transferring the bottleneck from the network to the drives. Anyway, I have no intention of changing from 10 MHz on my peer-to-peer setup, 'coz it works and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

------------------
Brian (the terrible)

[Elie]

Hehe
I'm stuck on MJPEG at maximum quality over the network, I guess if that works everything else would huh

Regards,
Elie

[nick_lear]

Yeah, I knew that I couldn't transfer MJPEG at the required rate on 10mbps. What I was thinking about was just using hdd space for storage. E.g. filling my hdd with footage, cutting it down, transfering it to another PC, leaving my hdd empty to repeat the process. Then at the end, transfering all my clips back for timeline playout, obviously being limited by the size of he hdd space on my PC.

The thing is, I had so much trouble getting the thing to work originally that I never considered using a network to do the final output to video with some clips on other computers. But obviously it'd be great to do that - what I described above is both slow and doesn't use the extra space as much as it could be. Elie, do you have perfect timeline playout with clips distributed around the network?

Oh, and any other websites to learn about networks are appreciated. Thanks.

[This message has been edited by nick_lear (edited 02 February 2000).]