diglib: RE: data on MSU (was IR project)

[Corey Harper <charper@darkwing.uoregon.edu>]

The current MSU (Ambrosia) is nearly two thirds full - 185 out of 300 GB.

The Moorhouse collection takes up approximately 8 Gigabytes already, and 
that's only 100 images.  It will grow to approximately 250, or about 20 
GB.  Given the rate at which the Moorhouse project is moving, and the other 
projects that are going to be implemented in CONTENTdm in the near future, 
I would estimate that digital image projects will take up between 45 and 50 
GB by the end of 2003.  That's one sixth of the total disk capacity of 
Ambrosia, and almost half of the disk space that is currently free.

Current breakdown of large collections on Ambrosia:
GIS - 47 GB
Aerial Photographs -  34 GB
Ulmann Collection - 15 GB
Reference CD-ROMs - 52 GB

I would expect that many of these, especially the GIS and Aerial 
Photography collections, will be growing at least as fast as the CONTENTdm 
projects.

When discussing storage, I'm not sure I can see the value in making a 
distinction between a project like the IR and our other digital library 
projects.  The point of the above summary of disc usage is that regardless 
of whether the IR project files are lumped in with the rest of our 
collections, we are nearing the point where we will need to expand our MSU 
or add a new one.

Most of the projects described throughout this thread are still in the 
exploratory stages.  Although it may be possible to project storage needs 
for the short term, middle and long range numbers cannot be realistically 
estimated at this point.   I would say this is a strong argument against 
designating individual storage units to specific projects.  Instead, it 
would make sense to pool those resources together and get the most disk 
space we can.  A 1.5 Terabyte raid 5 array would cost only a little bit 
more than the existing 300 Gigabyte machine did 2 years ago.

This would give us the storage space to sustain ALL of the digital projects 
that we are currently exploring, and probably some we haven't even 
anticipated yet, without having to worry about guessing how much disk space 
an individual project will fill 3 years from today.

-Corey

At 09:34 AM 6/16/03 -0700, Carol Hixson wrote:
> I don't think we considered a project like the IR
> at the time we wrote the guidelines. It seems that
> what we need is a more comprehensive set of
> guidelines for storing/preserving a variety of
> digital collections.
>
> Carol
>
> At 08:46 AM 6/16/2003 -0700, Mark Watson wrote:
> > I agree with JQ that this is a valuable discussion.  While
> > many great theoretical points have been made, I asked JQ to get diglib
> > involved because this group seemed like the best place to
> > get an answer to the practical question of whether the IR
> > project files should be stored on the MSU.
> >
> > My reading of the Guidelines, as currently written, is that the
> > IR files do not meet the criteria for storage on the MSU.  As Heather
> > notes, these are not library collections/materials as defined in
> > the document.  I don't think this means that this isn't a digital
> > library project or a digital collection or that the library can't
> > view the IR files as an extension of its collection in some way, it's
> > just that we should store the material in a different place--unless
> > we want to revise the Guidelines.
> >
> > Mark
> Corey A Harper
> CMET Team Leader
> Knight Library
> University of Oregon
>  541/346.1854
> charper@darkwing.uoregon.edu