Andrew Richards
Forum Replies Created
-
That should go as high as Lion, we’d need to know the model year or part number to say if 10.8 would work. If it has an aluminum case, it can do Mountain Lion.
Best,
Andy -
[Tom Elgin] “Would it be correct to say that iSCSI and FC are the protocols that make SANs possible? “
Go one layer lower- SCSI is the protocol that makes SANs possible, and iSCSI, FC and SAS all utilize it. Those can all also be switched, using Ethernet, FC, or SAS switches respectively.
Best,
Andy -
[Tom Elgin] “Can a single switch be called/considered a fabric?”
As far as Fibre Channel is concerned, a fabric is one or more switches.
[Tom Elgin] “When you connect two or more switches together, is it given a different name, or is it still called a fabric?”
That’s a fabric.
[Tom Elgin] “Let’s say you have a server with two HBAs, each HBA is connected to a switch (but those switches are not connected together). Would you say you have two fabrics, or a single switch fabric?”
That’s one host connected to two fabrics.
Best,
Andy -
Netatalk has been AFP3.3/Lion-friendly since v2.2 back in January, v2.2.3 came out in May, and v3.0 just released in July. I’ve been using it successfully since 2.2.1 with Lion and now Mountain Lion on my FreeBSD ZFS NAS, so it does work. Hopefully Cache-A is working on updating their build to a newer version of Netatalk soon (I assume that is what is handling AFP services for Cache-A under the covers).
Best,
Andy -
[Kevin Patrick] “Once again, sorry. “
Kevin,
Don’t worry about it, I was only kidding that first time.
Best,
Andy -
[Kevin Patrick] “Aren’t you (we) mixing copyright with patent? “
Yes, but I said as much- that the term on copyright is Mickey + N and that I’m not aware of a similar axiom for patents.
Best,
Andy -
-
[Bob Zelin] “In my opinion, there is only one reason to pick G-Tech – and that is because they use Hitachi disk drives (G-Tech is now owned by Hitachi). OF course, Western Digital now owns G-Tech, and there are no more Hitachi drives – they are actually HGST drives – “
Yep, that’s my reason. Hitachi GST still seems to have its own label and SKUs despite the WD corporate ownership.
Best,
Andy -
Yeah I saw that. I was never too excited about a private ZFS port for OS X, because this is the kind of thing that can happen. Still very tragic that the original deal to put ZFS in Leopard and Snow Leopard died.
As with all things Apple lately, we can only wait and hope that the wisps of smoke visible in current products herald a brighter future. In this case, that wisp would be the nascent CoreStorage LVM that appeared in Lion could be the first step toward a modern filesystem for OS X. As great as ZFS is, I’d be content with an Apple-developed LVM-backed copy-on-write facsimile.
Best,
Andy -
[Nicholas Kleczewski] “While you can read in footage from any source, you can’t save events or projects to anything but internal or traditionally set up SANs. This eliminates systems like Final Share and others which are quite prevalent in post houses from any use which is a huge stumbling point for post houses.”
Don’t forget locally-attached disks, which are far and away the most widely utilized method for sharing work among editors. Yes, NAS shares do not work as SAN Locations. So if one method of sharing files isn’t working that means FCPX has no ability to function in a collaborative setting? It isn’t as wide-open as FCP Legend, but it does have facilities for collaborative editing.
Apple never supported editing over AFP for FCP Legend, it just happened to work once there was enough muscle avaiable in NAS servers and their back-end storage to overcome the limitations inherent to Ethernet-based media sharing. NAS systems like Final Share were always guerrilla shared storage vis-a-vis FCP. Just because your particular shared storage setup isn’t supported doesn’t mean FCPX has no collaborative features to speak of.
Look at it this way: you can’t just hook Avid up to a beefy NAS server and expect it to work collaboratively either- does that mean Media Composer isn’t built for collaborative editing? Of course not- because Avid and later some third parties brought to market a solution for multiple users to share their bins non-destructively from the same sort of strict database-style project store. Avid has its storage-related limitations for shared storage and collaboration, so does FCPX. Granted, SAN Locations don’t let other users read from projects or events the way Unity allows other users to read each other’s bins, but neither methodology is nearly as unregulated as sharing is for FCP Legend.
[Nicholas Kleczewski] “Also with the new database style of saving, there’s great potential for project and event near real time collaboration but without a system in place of knowing if someone is currently altering an event or others could be locked out or notified of other user status it’s far too dangerous to have the “always on” approach in place.”
Well, yeah, and that is exactly the kind of thing this patent seems like it could address. The technical hooks are already there in FCPX to permit that kind of thing being built. The question of course, is if.
[Nicholas Kleczewski] “So in a sense it’s completely unusable.”
I’m not saying I disagree that the more restrictive shared storage capabilities in FCPX aren’t a deal-breaker for a lot of facilities, but I don’t agree that this makes FCPX “completely unusable” in a collaborative setting. More limited? Yes. Unusable? Far from it.
Best,
Andy