Antoine Durr
Forum Replies Created
-
Graphics card and/or playback software would be my guess. With 8 840 Pro’s you’ve got plenty of bandwidth. However, it being Windows, you could theoretically run into a fragmentation issue, and though the SSD’s will mitigate most of that, it might be the difference between realtime and not realtime. However, if your frame rate is solid (albeit low), then most likely it’s not an issue of patterns on disk. The playback software has to read the file, decode it, send it to the graphics card, which then has to scale it down so that you can see the entire image on your monitor/projector. Try different playback software, e.g. something like Resolve or Scratch. Try transcoding the sequence to a different, more native, format. For grins, try converting the frames to jpg and see what you get that way. Try a different graphics card, esp. one of the newer ones that are designed to play back 4k or UHD, e.g. K5000, Radeon 7950.
-
It could, but those PCIe SSD’s are insanely expensive (albeit the Intel’s are cheaper than most). Reading one of the reviews on the Intel 910, it seems to present itself as 4 200GB drives, thus I’d have to do an OS based RAID 00 (stripe of a stripe?), raiding the 4 internal ones and then the two cards. That’s 8 drives at RAID0, not my favorite combination!
-
I know for sure that 16 spindles won’t do the job. For dual 4k DPX streams I’ll probably need 40+ spindles, and I’m trying to avoid having to add that many spindles. I’m wondering if there’s an Apple like Fusion Drive solution, where you front-end the spindles with an SSD raid. I’ve seen some pretty huge read speeds on SSD raids, e.g. 3+GB/sec with a Highpoint card (yeah, I know, there’s not a lot of love for Highpoint cards around these parts!).
My current direction is to just make a separate SSD RAID volume with the second card. 8 fast SSDs would most likely give me enough read speed. It’s just that it’s a separate volume, which is not an ideal setup, IMO. The workflow would be to copy needed data to the fast RAID, do color grading or whatever, and then replace it with the next batch of imagery.
-
I found a review of the 1882 (using SSDs) in which there is also some comparison to the 1880.
-
I am bit suspicious of those numbers with 1) only 8 drives, and 2) the large disparity between read and write speeds on RAID5/6. They are admittedly using SAS drives, but even at each drive’s rated sustained throughput of 155MB/sec, you’d only get 1240 MB/sec read speed with 8 drives, and that’s theoretical. I suspect some caching got into some of these tests.
-
The data rate quoted is 1800 MB/sec to run a single stream of 4k DPX files, so a single 16-drive chassis like this will not achieve a smooth running 24fps. I’m not sure if the 1800MB/sec includes some pad, as the raw data rate of 4K DPX files is just below 1200 MB/sec.
And some of the work I do is 30fps planetarium material, which is 4k x 4k, so that’s probably in the 2300 MB/sec range, per eye!
I will be working on 2K proxies of the 4K material. The 2K’s will run in realtime. And if I run 4K’s, they’ll just run slower than realtime.
What are the dangers of running a RAID 60 setup? Is a RAID60 more “hazardous” than a dual RAID6 setup?