|Yeah, it is a bit of an overestimate. But we're scanning mostly 8x10 photos,
some are black and white (which would reduce the file size).
I extrapolated from the 3 images that Greenstone stores: the imported file
(35MB tif), the display jpeg (1.5 MB), and the thumbnail (20K)...all of them
The display jpeg is too large right now, as well. And the master tiffs may
average less than the sample. But I was aiming for a high-end estimate.
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Diego Spano <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi Andy, what kind of images are you working on?. Size?. It seems to be a
> lot 370 Gb.....
> *De:* email@example.com [mailto:
> firstname.lastname@example.org] *En nombre de *Andy
> *Enviado el:* Lunes, 19 de Mayo de 2008 05:21 p.m.
> *Para:* email@example.com
> *Asunto:* [greenstone-users] server specs for a 10,000 image collection
> This may be an impossible question given all the variables. But, we're
> planning for what would be a collection of 10,000 scanned images (which will
> be moved toward slowly, given our staff and budget).
> I've done some back of the napkin numbers on the masters, submasters, and
> thumbnails files arriving at 370GB. We already have a system for backups.
> Is there a baseline in terms of processing power, memory, excess storage to
> make this work relatively smoothly? Or a resource to help make these
> Thank you in advance for any information.
> - Andy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...