This discussion is locked
Windows Tech
Level 1 (0 points)

Q: I have a small production client looking to run 1 workstation running Mac Lion 10.7.3 and two work stations running Windows7 64 bit. They will all be talking to the same storage array through 8Gb FC. What is there most cost effective way to do this?

I have a small production client looking to run 1 workstation running Mac Lion 10.7.3 and two work stations running Windows7 64 bit. They will all be talking to the same storage array through 8Gb FC. What is there most cost effective way to do this?

Mac OS X (10.7.3)

Posted on Jul 23, 2012 9:41 AM

Close
Windows Tech

Q: I have a small production client looking to run 1 workstation running Mac Lion 10.7.3 and two work stations running Windows7 64 bi ... more

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

  • by cinedigital,

    cinedigital cinedigital Jul 26, 2012 7:10 AM in response to Windows Tech
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jul 26, 2012 7:10 AM in response to Windows Tech

    The Windows client machines would neeed to run Quantum StorNext to work with XSan.

     

    This is expensive - around £2K per seat

     

    If you are looking to be cost effective, do you really need to run 8Gb fibre to all the clients?

     

    What kit do you already have and what kind of work is being done?

  • by Windows Tech,

    Windows Tech Windows Tech Jul 26, 2012 9:30 AM in response to cinedigital
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jul 26, 2012 9:30 AM in response to cinedigital

    Thank you for your help.

     

    The client has already made the jump to 8Gb including HBA's, switch and RAID Storage.

     

    The other question will be if they need a seperate Mac Server to run the Meta Data or are they able to use the current Mac they are running to do this?

     

    The Mac is a 201073 model they say with 12 Dual Core 2.66Mhz processors and 16 GB of Memory. This system is currently doing rendering. It has the XSAN Client but I understand for the solution to work they need to also run XSAN Server on a MDC.

  • by Blaidd Drwg,

    Blaidd Drwg Blaidd Drwg Jul 26, 2012 7:42 PM in response to Windows Tech
    Level 1 (109 points)
    Jul 26, 2012 7:42 PM in response to Windows Tech

    For best performance, your metadata controller should be dedicated to that role. An Xsan volume controlled by a Mac that is doing renders will be pretty slow.

  • by Windows Tech,

    Windows Tech Windows Tech Jul 27, 2012 12:32 PM in response to Blaidd Drwg
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jul 27, 2012 12:32 PM in response to Blaidd Drwg

    Thanks,

     

    Do you think then the best bet is for the client to buy a Mac Mini for use as the MDC? Is XSAN Server included in the OSX package?

  • by Blaidd Drwg,

    Blaidd Drwg Blaidd Drwg Jul 28, 2012 1:47 AM in response to Windows Tech
    Level 1 (109 points)
    Jul 28, 2012 1:47 AM in response to Windows Tech

    A Mac mini with Server would be the cheapest option for an MDC.

     

    Xsan is included with the OS in Lion and Mountain Lion. Xsan Admin comes with OS X Server and is required (on the MDC) to configure and manage the Xsan.

     

    Be sure you are using compatible versions of Xsan and StorNext:

     

    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1517

  • by Christopher Murphy,

    Christopher Murphy Christopher Murphy Jul 28, 2012 7:58 AM in response to Windows Tech
    Level 3 (555 points)
    Jul 28, 2012 7:58 AM in response to Windows Tech

    Mac Mini with Lion Server includes XSan MDC support, so yes you can use it as an MDC but it needs access to the LUNs via FC. So you will need a Thunderbolt to 8Gb FC.

     

    Because of the dependency on FC and dedicated MDCs, I see minimal advantage to XSan over open source solutions. I'd seriously consider unwinding this FC solution, and go 10GigE with an NFS based NAS. This requires no MDCs, and it's cross platform without fees, and you get away from FC, and it's scalable.

     

    What are the big changes in XSan in Mountain Lion? Any?