This discussion is archived
3177 Views 6 Replies Latest reply: May 29, 2008 8:23 PM by A. Richards
Currently Being ModeratedApr 30, 2008 10:28 PM (in response to pkraft)Pete,
I don't quite understand the first part of your question, but I can address the second part (FCP stations accessing via AFP).
It can be done, but your results really depend on what kind of bandwidth you're pulling. In our case, we intentionally worked at "off-line rt", an extremely low bandwidth codec. We were able to support nearly 24 clients all working off of the same pool of media. All of these clients were funneled through two X-Serves that were attached as clients via fibre to the main storage pool. As you scale up the quality to DV or even better, the bandwidth will prevent this "trick" from working very well. You'll get dropped frames, the SBBD, and possibly even crash your ethernet network.
So, if you're goal is to avoid fibre, perhaps you should take a look at some of the other "specialized" gig e based solutions that are out there. By the way, a NAS is usually NOT recommended for sharing of video files for editing.
MarkX-SAN, Mac OS X (10.5.2)
Currently Being ModeratedMay 1, 2008 6:23 AM (in response to Mark Raudonis)Thanks for the info. We currently have 9TB of a clustered NAS that works well for up to 15 clients working at HDV/DV25 data rates. This currently takes 5 clustered NAS nodes on a GigE network to achieve. We can expand this system but it is prohibitively expensive. I was hoping that a load balanced cluster like this could be built using XSAN. I think that I could get 3 to 4 people editing from a single NAS node, more if I add additional GigE ports.
Anyway, thanks for the info, I appreciate it.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 1, 2008 7:22 PM (in response to pkraft)Pete,
NAS is a poor solution for online editing.
The issue is that TCP/IP just has no regard to latency. It cares about reliability, but housekeeping and a whole lot of things can get in the way. And throwing 5 NAS heads at a problem to let you do DV25 to 15 edit stations is farcical. Really, that's horrible. Basically it's a "throw good money after bad" type solution -- something a company like Isilon would push.
What specifically is the problem with building out a fibre channel infrastructure? If you're looking at using 3 or 4 Xserves as NAS heads, and connecting them to Xserve FC storage on the back end, it's really not going to be that much more money to just throw FC cards in the edit stations and go fibre end to end. And the latency will be fine; heck if you had 2 Promise RAID boxes on the back end with 2 Xserves, you'd have plenty of performance to do a couple DV25 streams to each workstation, with almost no chance of dropping a frame anywhere, ever.8-Core Mac Pro, Mac OS X (10.5.2)
Currently Being ModeratedMay 1, 2008 8:23 PM (in response to pkraft)Pete,
I should probably add that these "gig E" attached clients are in ADDITION to the 60+ fibre channel attached clients that we have. We've already got the bandwidth and connectivity for "true editing", and we were looking for access for producers, story editors, music dept. etc. These folks aren't really "editing", just looking, so we felt that they didn't need the fibre connection. However, as we transition to HD, and get away from the classic "off-line to on-line" workflow, it becomes harder to do this kind of access.
I agree with Mr. Loyd here. Bite the bullet and get fibre.
MarkX-SAN, Mac OS X (10.5.2)
Currently Being ModeratedMay 2, 2008 1:35 PM (in response to William Lloyd)I do not prefer the solution over a fibre channel installation either. It is not ideal. However, even though TCP/IP is not ideal, it works well when done properly.
This project is not dictated by my desire for a TCP/IP solution over a FCAL solution. Due to the special ethernet adapters we use there are not enough free slots in all of our editing stations to support the addition of a FCAL adapter. This means that I need to add ethernet storage or dump my existing solution.
If you want to buy 9TB of Isilon from me then I will consider doing that.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 29, 2008 8:23 PM (in response to pkraft)Too bad Apple doesn't offer the full feature set of StorNext 3 in Xsan 2. All the other platforms can use Distributed LAN Client when they connect to a StorNext SAN with Quantum's client. Apple needs to support this feature in Xsan, but who knows if it is in the pipeline. I'm lobbying them for it, but that and $1.50 will buy you a bottle of Coke.