Ripping with 4 BD drives at same time

[hart2hart]

Is ripping 4 BD discs at same time using AnyDVD a reasonable method to speed up process of getting collection loaded on HDD NAS?

 

[Ch3vr0n]

That's not an anydvd issue. That depends on how fast your NAS will be able to process the input over the network. That's beyond anydvd's control. You have to keep in mind that the cpu and hdd input will constantly have to swap between each active instance of anydvd and write the data over the network to the NAS. The speed difference (if any at all) will be negligible due to the constant input source swapping.

 

[aaronwt]

Is ripping 4 BD discs at same time using AnyDVD a reasonable method to speed up process of getting collection loaded on HDD NAS?

I ripped five and six Blu-ray Discs concurrently back in 2009. I did it on a regular basis when I first converted my BD collection to ISOs when I was using a Windows Home Server. Any DVD HD had no issues.

 

[ScreeZe]

I would recommend to rip onto a local SSD first and then copy in one go. reason behind is the way redfox is writing the data and IP as network protocol... not very effective :/

 

[hart2hart]

Thanks I am going to rip to local HDDs and then copy to NAS so resulting files are not fragmented.

 

[VirtualRipper]

I would recommend to rip onto a local SSD first and then copy in one go. reason behind is the way redfox is writing the data and IP as network protocol... not very effective :/

What? Doesn't make any sense. When CIFS is ready to write a block, it's going to write a block, whether it's from an SSD or Slysoft. I would surmise you will have less wall clock time writing directly to the NAS than writing to SSD first. The ripping computer can write to the network at the same time it's reading the next block from the BR drive. Reading from the BR will be much slower than writing to the NAS, therefore the NAS write time essentially free.

I can write to my NAS drive over GIGE at about 90MB/sec. My rip speed is about 10MB/Sec. Adding in some overhead, I could probably rip 7-8 BR disks at a time, at full speed, writing to the NAS.

If you have one of those crappy $200 ARM NASes, they can only write about 30MB/sec.

 

[Ch3vr0n]

Referencing to ssd is irrelevant. Op specifically mentions normal HDDs. Those will encounter a bottleneck if you try to many simultaneous writes. The needle constantly has to skip between sectors of every sector will be filled with data from every single disc read. That's not very effective, then there's the fact that none of us know either ops nas spec of network. The facts as they are known now are that doing multiple rips, over a network to standard hdd's will be bottlenecked and ripping to HDD first then transferring will be more efficient.

 

[VirtualRipper]

The facts as they are known now are that doing multiple rips, over a network to standard hdd's will be bottlenecked and ripping to HDD first then transferring will be more efficient.

These are not the facts in my experience. In my experience rip to NAS is less time than rip to local HD then copy to NAS. I can rip to my NAS drive at the same rate as my rip to a local drive. Now if I rip to the local drive then I have to copy to NAS, then you must add in the copy to NAS time.

Writing to a local drive will be faster than writing to NAS, assuming your write rate exceeds that of the GIG-E network. Since a 10MB/s rip is only about 1/10 the speed of a GIGE network, you would have to do be doing at least 6 or more rips at one time to make NAS slower than local disk. I'm sure not many of us do that.

As for fragmentation when writing multiple files, that shouldn't be much of a bottleneck, as the next block is simply allocated to whatever file pointer requests it. Fragmentation shouldn't affect performance until you try and read it back.

 

[Ch3vr0n]

That's because YOU know the specs of your internal network; NAS, PC. Going by the info we know of the OP, the basic IT principle, they are the facts.

 

[Frumpalumpoulus]

I couldn't see the CPU being the bottleneck on modern hardware: multi-core processors, fast memory bandwidth. Ripping ISOs is I/O bound.

Regardless, the best way to know for sure is to run some tests and measure the performance. Use the same discs each time: different quantities, ripping to HDD, SSD, NAS.

This could actually be a good test to run to know what the sweet spot for performance is. I would bet ripping two at a time is twice as efficient as ripping one at a time, but at some point, ripping more discs concurrently becomes I/O bound and should grow less efficient.

 

[VirtualRipper]

That's because YOU know the specs of your internal network; NAS, PC. Going by the info we know of the OP, the basic IT principle, they are the facts.

LOL. Sorry, but your facts aren't really facts. They are conjecture, because you don't know what the specs of OPs system is either. They don't even make any sense. Read my first reply on the subject and think about it. Doing something twice as you adovocate (2 writes of the same data) can not possibly be faster than doing it twice. Isn't that a common IT principle? I've got a 4 year degree in Computer Science and 20+ years in the industry and I've never heard of these basic IT principles that you speak of. Can you send me a link?

 

[VirtualRipper]

I couldn't see the CPU being the bottleneck on modern hardware: multi-core processors, fast memory bandwidth. Ripping ISOs is I/O bound.

Regardless, the best way to know for sure is to run some tests and measure the performance. Use the same discs each time: different quantities, ripping to HDD, SSD, NAS.

This could actually be a good test to run to know what the sweet spot for performance is. I would bet ripping two at a time is twice as efficient as ripping one at a time, but at some point, ripping more discs concurrently becomes I/O bound and should grow less efficient.

I don't think IO bound is the correct term to use here. Ripping a BDR is so pathetically trivial on any PC made in the last 8 or more years. The IO rate Redfox is giving me is 10MB/sec. That's the same speed as a 100Mbit network of 10 years ago. Ripping a single disc isn't IO bound, it's all wait time for the slow optical media to get the data to the computer.

A modern 3TB drive should easily sustain 100-150MB/sec sequential writes. That exceeds the data rate of a GIGE network.

Unfortunetly, most of the bargain NASes use ARM or similar CPU chips which are pathetically slow compared to even an old I3. My 2 bay $150 NAS can barely sustain 40MB/sec writes, but that's still 4x faster than what a single BD rip needs.

 

[WhiteFox]

I don't think IO bound is the correct term to use here. Ripping a BDR is so pathetically trivial on any PC made in the last 8 or more years. The IO rate Redfox is giving me is 10MB/sec. That's the same speed as a 100Mbit network of 10 years ago. Ripping a single disc isn't IO bound, it's all wait time for the slow optical media to get the data to the computer.

A modern 3TB drive should easily sustain 100-150MB/sec sequential writes. That exceeds the data rate of a GIGE network.

Unfortunetly, most of the bargain NASes use ARM or similar CPU chips which are pathetically slow compared to even an old I3. My 2 bay $150 NAS can barely sustain 40MB/sec writes, but that's still 4x faster than what a single BD rip needs.

Agree. I have a GIGE networked QNap TS-853 Pro-8G + 8 x HGST 6 TB and I could run more than 10 BR drives simultaneously on my i7 4770K Haswell PC .

I ripped five and six Blu-ray Discs concurrently back in 2009. I did it on a regular basis when I first converted my BD collection to ISOs when I was using a Windows Home Server. Any DVD HD had no issues.

Now I'm looking for something like that to hold 5-6 BluRay 5.25inch players so I can quickly rotate through them. My PC Tower doesn't have a spare bay. Anyone seen a multiple drive enclosure box for CD/DVD/BR size drives?

 

[ddjmagic]

The IO rate Redfox is giving me is 10MB/sec. That's the same speed as a 100Mbit network of 10 years ago.

Agree. I have a GIGE networked QNap TS-853 Pro-8G + 8 x HGST 6 TB and I could run more than 10 BR drives simultaneously on my i7 4770K Haswell PC .

Most decent BD drives can easily exceed 10MB/s.
I consistantly see 25MB/s + on a DL BD and 40MB/s on SL BD when ripping.
4+ rips would be a stretch over a Gigabit LAN (for me at least)

Now I'm looking for something like that to hold 5-6 BluRay 5.25inch players so I can quickly rotate through them. My PC Tower doesn't have a spare bay. Anyone seen a multiple drive enclosure box for CD/DVD/BR size drives?

I haven't seen an enclosure that big for 5.25" drives.
You could make something similar yourself -
Back when I was converting up my CD collection I brought a cheap empty 5 bay DVD duplicator case from Ebay (only had PSU no drives or controller) I fitted 3 cheap DVD drives inside, powered them locally from the duplicator PSU, then ran 3 SATA cables inside some braided sleeving from the duplicator drives to the SATA ports inside my PC case.
It worked fine and allowed me to convert 5 CD's at once (had 2 DVD drives in my PC already)

Not the most elegant or portable solution though, but an option if you just want to get an existing BD collection ripped quickly and can't find a 'proper enclosure'.
You could do the same thing with an old/spare PC tower/PSU too (even less elegant)

 

[Arkoon]

Is ripping 4 BD discs at same time using AnyDVD a reasonable method to speed up process of getting collection loaded on HDD NAS?

I used to rip 3 BluRays at a time. Loaded all three, right clicked the red fox icon in tray to set up each BD drive, then start one, wait until it started showing progress, then the second, etc. Never had much for problems. I was not able to utilize the BD drives on a separate computer on the network to use them at the same time, though.

 

[jwjohnson]

I routinely do an AnyDVD rip to Image or rip Videodisk to Hardrive from two LG burners at the same time. Depending on the discs I'm seeing 10-20 MB/s speeds.

 

[WhiteFox]

Most decent BD drives can easily exceed 10MB/s.
I consistantly see 25MB/s + on a DL BD and 40MB/s on SL BD when ripping.
4+ rips would be a stretch over a Gigabit LAN (for me at least)

I haven't seen an enclosure that big for 5.25" drives.
You could make something similar yourself -
Back when I was converting up my CD collection I brought a cheap empty 5 bay DVD duplicator case from Ebay (only had PSU no drives or controller) I fitted 3 cheap DVD drives inside, powered them locally from the duplicator PSU, then ran 3 SATA cables inside some braided sleeving from the duplicator drives to the SATA ports inside my PC case.
It worked fine and allowed me to convert 5 CD's at once (had 2 DVD drives in my PC already)

Not the most elegant or portable solution though, but an option if you just want to get an existing BD collection ripped quickly and can't find a 'proper enclosure'.
You could do the same thing with an old/spare PC tower/PSU too (even less elegant)

I found a couple options here:

• 7 Bay SATA $92
• 4 Bay eSATA/SATA $199
• 4 Bay SATA $189

Have to figure out which is the best way to go. I have a ton of DVD to rip in addition to fewer BR, so probably try the 4 Bay.

 

[miketheripper]

I regularly rip 2 DVDs at a time using 2 VMs connected to my 2 drives (1 Blu-Ray and 1 DVD drive) with AnyDvd and Clone DVD or Shrink 3.2 running in each of them with no problems.

The rips are put onto my SSD and can then be put onto external HDDs.

This would certainly work with more drives and I presume the rips could also be put onto a NAS although I have no experience of the latter.

 

[PrimalNaCl]

Is ripping 4 BD discs at same time using AnyDVD a reasonable method to speed up process of getting collection loaded on HDD NAS?

As others have stated it's not an obvious, 'yes'. Up until about 3 months ago, I had been using a setup I made from an old tower w/11 5.25" bays. I filled them w/10 br-rw drives. Connection is drives -> external SATA port multipliers -> 2 eSATA USB controllers -> USB 3.0 hub -> older notebook w/USB 3.0, cygwin for a real shell, some custom shell scripts to run imgburn, and off I went. I had a portable USB br-r and the notebook's internal br-rw make 12 drives. Note that 12 br-r streams saturates USB 3.0 and definite Gig-E to the NAS. As you can see this is not going to be faster in that regard. How it _will_ be faster, and all I really cared about when I put it together, is the 'fire and forget' wrt disk changes. I could stick 12 disks into the thing and go to bed or before heading off to work in the morning and when I returned that would be 12 disks instead of 1 or 2. When looking at 1k discrete upc (series and whatnot == more than that in actual disks), 2-4/day was pretty miserable wrt ever finishing.

So...depending on what you care about it may or may not be swell. Wrt 4 parallel bd-r streams, assuming 16x reads (~69MiB/s) you'll saturate Gig-e w/2. If they are less and/or you don't/can't achieve that kind of throughput for whatever reason you can back out the math. W/4 they would just throttle to just under half the rated speed. This also assumes your the host system is not so anemic that it can handle that kind of data rate as well as the end point, NAS/whatever.

About 3ish months ago, I discovered the Nimbie. It's a USB 3.0 robot changer. It only has 1 drive but a capacity of 100 discs. I just load it up, and a few days later it's empty. It's _so_ much better. Imgburn supports robots as well. It's made by a company called Acronova. It also comes with software, but it's more for duplication rather than just wanting to create .isos. It's not entirely cheap, but _much_ cheaper than what I spent on the parts to make the 10 drive ripping tower.

Hope that helps!

 

[Ch3vr0n]

I'll move this to hardware section, anydvd has no or negligible impact on the desired process.