Ah, yes, in an ideal world some of this might happen, but it won't happen
here. Our IT folk, as in many places, are in an understaffed and overworked
department.
I don't think saving data to one place and copying to another is such a big
deal, the network is pretty fast. At least you then have two copies of the
data. Perhaps if we had really huge multi-TB sized data sets it'd be a
problem, but not yet. Our flakiest instruments can't be networked anyway.
And compared to the months and years and people power it's taken to develop
and process the biological materials (plants in our case) to be imaged, the
time taken for imaging and data transfer is negligible. The subsequent
image and statistical analysis also takes much longer than collection of the
original images.
cheers,
Rosemary
On 13/07/09 7:44 PM, "Daniel James White" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Rosemary,
>
> That is something your IT people should even find interesting to work
> with you to solve.
> Is is something that should not happen if the network is set up right.
> It might be as simple as upgrading a switch in the server room,
> or upgrading part of the network to Gigabit.
>
> Obviously it pays off to have very good relations with the local IT
> people.
> Remember they are geeks, and love a challenge.
> If you frame a problem as an interesting challenge .... or even an "i
> bet you can t make this work"
> then often they jump on it because its fun for them .
>
> One day you WILL have a hard disk failure during an imaging session,
> and that sessions data will be lost.
> I does happen.
>
> Saving data directly to a place that is immediately mirrored in 2
> physical disks
> and also backed up to tape each night is the smart solution.
>
> You should not have to wast time on microscope systems that could be
> used for imaging,
> simply for data transfer. If the files are small, then not a big deal...
> but if they are large and numerous you would have users wasting hours
> of microscopy time every month
> just moving data around. That slows science down.
>
> cheers
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2009, at 7:03 AM, CONFOCALMICROSCOPY automatic digest
> system wrote:
>
>>
>> Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:32:47 +1000
>> From: Rosemary White <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: I.T. questions
>>
>> --B_3330246775_67752070
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>> Yes, we find this true also. We have little control over IT
>> arrangements a=
>> t
>> our institution, so if the cross-network flow is slowed or
>> interrupted for
>> any reason by IT rearranging things, the image capture software
>> crashes and
>> you tend to lose unsaved data. It=B9s easier to just save directly
>> to local
>> hard drive and copy across after a session.
>> Rosemary
>>
>> Rosemary White
>> CSIRO Plant Industry
>> GPO Box 1600
>> Canberra, ACT 2601
>>
>> ph 02 6246 5475
>> fx 02 6246 5334
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/07/09 3:51 AM, "Zoltan Cseresnyes" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> We found this true, and that's why we=A0disabled direct transfer
>>> (via remot=
>> e
>>> login)=A0from the local hard drives to personal computers.=A0
>>> Nowadays users
>>> transfer their images from the local hard drive to their server
>>> zone afte=
>> r the
>>> experiments are done; on a gigabit network this shouldn't take
>>> long.=A0 All
>>> access to confocal PCs and image analysis workstations are only
>>> possible =
>> via
>>> server login, thus the user is automatically connected to his/her
>>> server =
>> zone
>>> the whole time.=A0 We discourage saving data directly to the server
>>> due to
>>> occasional slow-down of network speed, which has been know to
>>> interfere w=
>> ith
>>> data integrity.=20
>>> =A0
>>> Zoltan
>>> =20
>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Kathryn Spencer <[log in to unmask]
>>>> w=
>> rote:
>>>> Hello all;
>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Nice to know I'm not the only meany who deletes
>>>> data each month a=
>> fter
>>>> ample warning and posted notices.
>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0We save our data directly to the equipment's HD,
>>>> then file transf=
>> er to
>>>> personal computers (institute server is way too small for images).
>>>> There=
>> are
>>>> some anecdotal secondhand ideas that acquisition is compromised if
>>>> a rem=
>> ote
>>>> user accesses the shared data folder (D:/) while someone else is
>>>> acquiri=
>> ng
>>>> images (the program and OS are on the C:/ drive). Is there any
>>>> truth to =
>> this?
>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Kathy
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> ]=
>> On
>>>> Behalf Of Daniel James White
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 2:20 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: I.T. questions
>>>> =20
>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>> =20
>>>> Good question.... it gives me chance to vent some of my strong
>>>> opinions on this subject!
>>>> =20
>>>> 1) We have a policy in place: "Data older than one month will be
>>>> deleted from microscope system computers"
>>>> This is on a very clear large notice at the microscope that users
>>>> can
>>>> not ignore.
>>>> It is not our responsibility to look after users data.
>>>> We have enough to do to keep the scopes running.
>>>> We have a computer department to deal with data security and
>>>> backups.
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>
>
> Dr. Daniel James White BSc. (Hons.) PhD
> Senior Microscopist / Image Visualisation, Processing and Analysis
> Light Microscopy and Image Processing Facilities
> Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics
> Pfotenhauerstrasse 108
> 01307 DRESDEN
> Germany
>
> +49 (0)15114966933 (German Mobile)
> +49 (0)351 210 2627 (Work phone at MPI-CBG)
> +49 (0)351 210 1078 (Fax MPI-CBG LMF)
>
> http://www.bioimagexd.net BioImageXD
> http://pacific.mpi-cbg.de Fiji Fiji is just ImageJ - Batteries Included
> http://www.chalkie.org.uk
> [log in to unmask]
> ( [log in to unmask] )
|
