Alex Gerulaitis
Forum Replies Created
-
[Dave Jones] ” is their any software or way to measure the speed?”
iPerf for the technically minded; you could also use disk benchmark (e.g. Blackmagic Speed Test) on a shared volume.
-
Two issues to worry about: (1) will the network be fast enough for your needs, and (2) how will potential conflicts be handled when two people attempt to access the same project files. If (2) never happens, then (1) is the main potential challenge.
You can start very cheap: share a volume / folder on one of your PCs and connect to it from another. I’d perhaps make two such shared volumes: one for source (and encoded) files, the other one for projects. Then see if editing on the 2nd PC with those shared files is tolerable. If not, you’d have to take a look where the bottlenecks are, possibly they can be addressed with a few configurations changes, possibly by upgrading your networking or storage hardware.
(If the PCs can each connect to the Internet then they’re likely already networked, and just need to have their settings adjusted so they can “see” each other – unless they already do.)
Hope this helps.
— Alex Gerulaitis | Systems Engineer | DV411 – Los Angeles, CA
-
GeForce GTX-680 Mac Edition unless you need 10-bit output or buffered stereo that are exclusive to Quadro cards, and in that case – Quadro K5000 Mac.
-
[Sergei Yakovlev] “FW800 (0.8Gb/s) was slower and cost about the same as 1GbE.”
I don’t think 1GbE was nearly as ubiquitous or cheap in 1997 as it is now – part of the reason IPoFW made sense.
-
Sergei,
Appreciate the response. You’re probably right about the AT review. I am too lazy to re-read it, but remember the impression of a quick-n-dirty test that wasn’t to be taken too seriously.
I do have a few petty issues with some of your points though. 🙂
[Sergei Yakovlev] “Mostly because TB is backed by Intel.”
Not just “backed” but “developed”, and then given up for exclusive use to Apple. Didn’t make sense to me then, still doesn’t now. Awesome tech with a fantastic potential usurped by a single company hell-bent on squeezing every penny out of it – and now several years later there is a big “FAILURE” stamp all over it: pathetic adoption.
OTOH FW was developed and “backed” by far more companies than TB was/ is, notably Sony and TI besides others. Marrying it to DV and putting it as an interface of choice on first digital camcorders quickly drove up its adoption – which I don’t see happening with TB. Years after its introduction, its adoption is still close to nil.
[Sergei Yakovlev] “TB2 (20Gb/s) is faster and cheaper than 10GbE (2-port TB2 controller costs just $10)”
Perhaps it’s cheaper between two MBPs. Or even in a five-seat workgroup with TB cables running wild – perhaps. Anything beyond that, with wiring, switching and routing included – still cheaper? How about scalability, does it look as good as with Ethernet?
Don’t get me wrong, Ethernet over TB is way cool for quick-n-dirty shoestring shared storage setups. Maybe even fast and maybe even reliable. We won’t know for a while. It just doesn’t seem to have much future.
-
Do these 10-second-long iPerf transfer tests really negate AT review? Just curious.
On a side note: reminds of the excitement of using FireWire for “high speed” networking back in 1997. Unlike TB, FireWire supports tree-like topology, isochronous transfers, can connect up to 63 devices… Future held promises of 3.2 and 6.4Gbs speeds with full backward compatibility. Cheap cables! FAAAAAAST!!!
Cross-OS support: even MS jumped on the bandwagon.
Didn’t pan out: security (same DMA vulnerabilities as TB) and other issues, and of course, Ethernet was already there, and wasn’t proprietary.
If, say, IpoTB absolutely kills IP over 10GbE on costs, deployment ease and speeds in some scenarios – isn’t it still a huge uphill battle to get it supported on multiple OSs and hardware platforms?
Until then, isn’t IPoTB just a cute little niche thingie, much like what TB is today?
-
Far as I know, Cow doesn’t (have the capacity to) verify all the promotions going through it, but I’d post this to Letters to the COW Team to see if they can help.
-
I don’t have enough data to make sweeping statements yet from a few cases, it seems that hybrid drives are faster / behave better. The exceptions mainly have to do with sustained read/write speeds, e.g. video playback without dropped frames or pausing – this is where 5400rpm are worse than 7200rpm ones, and where SSD caching doesn’t help much.
SSD caching does help with nearly anything else, and on a balance of things, they should be faster for AE purposes than non-hybrid 7200rpm drives.
-
Is it just one system you’re seeing this on, or several?
-
Hi Francisco.
You are in good shape with a single drive for SD, 2-3 drives in RAID0 for uncompressed 4:2:2 1080p30 10-bit.
10-bit uncompressed 1080p30 is roughly 155MB/s. Your average 7200rpm drive performs in the 80-160MB/s range. Three of those in RAID0 would have over 200MB/s transfer rates even at their worst.
You could get away with two if you keep them filled at less than 80% capacity.
Working with uncompressed 8-bit 480p30, you only need about 20MB/s, which even a single 5400rpm drive shouldn’t hiccup much on.
Hope this helps. 🙂