need a new SAN solution-facilis ?

[Nathaniel Cooper]

Hey Mike,

As far as the question of do you need to transfer your associated media on a volume level system. The answer, with most applications is no. You only need to transfer the project files, which are always very small. Final Cut Pro doesn’t care, Avid does, but most vendors have ways to make Avid compatible.

There are two types of SAN software on the market. File level and volume level. A very quick overview on the differences:

File level (Xsan, MetaSAN, Unity…)
Basic principle: Large volume(s) that multiple users have read and write privileges.
Advantages: Fewer volumes, easier for users to conceptualize, usually more flexible with growing existing volumes
Disadvantages: Need for a metadata network in addition to the SAN network, cost tends to be more, greater need for support (both implementing and maintaining).

Volume Level (SANmp, Facilis, Commandsoft…)
Basic principle: Have multiple volumes, usually based on per project or per user, that a single users can write to and multiple users can read from simultaneously.
Advantages: Cost, speed, simplicity, tend to have greater compatibility with applications due to using native filesystems.
Disadvantages: Greater need for planned workflow, harder to conceptualize for end users, does not work in render farm applications, tends not to have support for Linux.

The question, simply boils down to what you have to spend and what is important to your facility. Both file level and volume level are great options to increase your workflow over a direct attached workflow. However, as you have experienced, it adds a whole new dimension of support.

If you are interested in a volume level solution, I can help design a workflow that will make it work. Most likely using existing hardware. Feel free to contact me if you’re interested, and good luck!

Nate Cooper
ncooper@studionetworksolutions.com
818 209 1331

[Michael Williams]

Thanks, Nate.

So, what I’m reporting about the Facilis is not correct? It must be a volume based system but all clients have read capabilities with the partition on other clients. Is that correct?

mike

Michael V. Williams
producer/editor
http://www.vernonvision.com

[Nathaniel Cooper]

The statement “to move a project from one client to another, all associated media has to be transferred as well” is incorrect and would defeat one of the great reasons to have a SAN.

And yes, all users in a volume based system can have read only access to all other data.

Historically Facilis has been completely volume based. They recently released a file level version of their software, however, currently only support windows for file locking.

Nate

[Matt Geier]

Michael,

What Nate told you, really is true, if you can afford and really want the management overhead for traditional Fibre Channel SAN implementations for your video editing. (Or pay someone a lot of money to do this for you…)

Don’t be afraid to consider Ethernet however, which is also a viable solution you can propose to your management team, and depending on what kind of work flow you need, can save you a load of money in software, hardware, and management overhead, and all the other hardware and software bits that are associated with a traditional SAN implementation.

What you should know —
Final Cut Pro supports File Level locking on the project files, while the media files can be shared between project files. — this means that all of your users can do their work on a single server, and allow Final Cut to do the project locking, leaving each user to be able to work on their own project files at the same time as the rest. (off one server .. or multiple servers, depending on how many connections you need.)

The one thing i cannot speak to though, is how your Facilis storage will hold up under the real time conditions of the environment, assuming you’re successful in hooking it all together. – Test it, and start pulling video streams off of it, if and when it’s start dropping frames, that’s how many streams of that video format you can pull from it at one time.

I would be proposing a new solution dedicated to the Final Cut Pro video editors. At the entire cost of an Ethernet based solution, your looking at a fraction of what a traditional SAN will run you.

If you’d like to talk some more about this in further detail, I can certainly introduce you to some alternative solutions to your FC based SAN that you had previously. Ethernet based environments can still provide the performance you need for Video Editing, and with things like Fibre Channel over Ethernet coming, anyone in an Ethernet based solution will be geared to getting into the next phase of where Ethernet is really going!

Let me know….

Matt Geier
651-209-6509 x 1

[Jordan Woods]

This client has a lot of decisions coming up. Most of them center around how much they are willing to spend. There are probably tons of upgrades that have to happen to all the machines and server room. Another big point to bring up with the editors and the post sup, how do they feel about moving from years working in file level locking to volume level?

Look at the cost of upgrading their XSAN vs buying and installing a Facilis.

-jordan

[Bob Zelin]

I am proud that the level of resonse on this forum, from hi end professionals is as good as it is – with no “bashing”. Studio Network Solutions, Small Tree, Active Storage, all discussing Facilis (a great company) – this is very cool.

You have a lot of options here, all professional companies.

Bob Zelin

[Mark Raudonis]

[Michael Williams] “every knowledgeable person has said they should scrap it and get something new.”

I’d question that opinion. You can easily upgrade your components to have a current system.

Full disclosure: It’s no secret that I’m a HUGE x-SAN fan. We’ve been using them for about five years now. While there are many other economical options out there, few of them can scale the way X-SAN can. If you anticipate much growth in the future, then many of the choices discussed above would seriously limit your ability to add clients. X-SAN’s expansion capability is so high that chances are you’ll run out of real estate before you run out of space on the SAN.

If you’ve already got X-SAN in place, I’d take a careful look at which of the components you have are still viable. You should not underestimate the benefits of a file based system as opposed to a volume based system. The larger your work group, the more important this distinction becomes. I could go on and on, but I’m curious, what’s driving the decision to toss what you’ve got?

By the way, that software version is WAAAAY old now. The current version is 2.2.

Mark

[Michael Williams]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback.

I found out the answer to my initial question earlier. Someone had been misinformed, which is what I thought, but I do understand the limitations of a volume based system over a file based system.

The problem I’m dealing with is that this client will not spend a lot of money and the main limitation I see with xsan is that if they do not pay for each client and the server to be covered under apple care, then we need to have somebody actively managing it. those options are not really feasible from a cost standpoint. If this was a larger facility with full-time support staff, I would recommend they upgrade the xsan for the reasons listed in above posts.

Given that they can probably create a viable workflow with the facilis, I think that is the way we are leaning.

We have also learned that the overall business has a SAN they are using for other puposes and we may have a way to simply add storage to that and tie our edit systems into it. I’ll have to learn more to find out if that is viable.

thanks again.

Mike

Michael V. Williams
producer/editor
http://www.vernonvision.com