[Bernard Lamborelle]

Hi Steve,

There are no known problems when capturing or rendering using FCP on metaSAN.

However, FCP has known issues when saving on external drives (not only SAN) and this issue is discussed in a couple of forums.

Here are some forum links:

https://www.mac-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51880

https://dvcreators.net/discuss/showthread.php?t=7827

https://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1186932&tstart=0

I saw you had some email exchange with support a few days ago. Have you come to a resolution?

FYI Someone told me that the latest version of FCP had a fix for this, but I did not get any confirmation yet. Perhaps someone else would know…

Regards,

Bernard

Bernard Lamborelle
bernard at tiger-technology dot com
http://www.tiger-technology.com
514-667-2015

[Bernard Lamborelle]

Hi Erik,

This is certainly very doable. In fact, there are a number of ways you could go. I would be happy to discuss these with you and offer some advice. We don’t sell direct, but if interrested I can connect you with one of our resellers that will gladly provide a detailed proposal for your setup.

Please feel free to drop me a personal email with contact or give me a ring.

Bernard Lamborelle
Tiger Technology
bernard at tiger-technology dot com
+1 514 667 2015

[Bernard Lamborelle]

It can be normal to experience some “lag” when working on a file-level sharing SAN such as metaSAN (as well as Xsan, Unity, Melio FS, and SANergy). The reason is that unlike a local drive, a file-level SAN client must refer to a central authority (the metadata controller or MDC) prior to accessing the storage. The role of the MDC is to maintain the integrity of the file system when multiple computers share access to it. It must therefore authorize each file i/o request. This request is sent over Ethernet, and when authorized, the client can access the file directly over fibre channel.

There is usually only one metadata transaction per file. When working with large files (such as audio and video clips), there is no visible impact. But when working with lots of very small files, you can start to feel it. Opening projects that refer to hundreds of clips or browsing very large folders are two cases involving large amount of metadata processing.

You will experience more sluggishness in environments where there is already lots of traffic on the office LAN. This is why a fast metadata controller and a dedicated network can only improve performances. There are also usually a few settings that can help optimize SAN performances during rendering operations, to minimize the amount of metadata. But in the end, most people feel that the numerous benefits associated with file-level sharing far outweigh this side effect…

Bernard

BTW The reason there is no need for metadata processing on a volume-level SAN (SANmp, Facilis, FibreJet) is because only ONE client can write to the SAN volume at any given time (others can only read from it). There is therefore no risk of file-system corruption. However, the burden is put on the user to manage their data and projects across multiple volumes… File-level sharing eliminates this constraint and allows everyone to simultaneously access the same volume.

[Bernard Lamborelle]

Could you try with say DPX images to see if it behaves the same?

This will help investigating.

Cheers,

Bernard

Bernard Lamborelle
bernard at tiger-technology dot com
http://www.tiger-technology.com
514-667-2015

[Bernard Lamborelle]

Hi Mike,

What resolution, file format, and codec is your texture file? Have you tried with another format?

Thanks,

Bernard Lamborelle
Tiger Technology
+1 514 667 2015

[Bernard Lamborelle]

I’ll let someone with experience on Max-T chime in, as I can only share my experience on the LAN portion…

There are lots of people taking advantage of Gb Ethernet for their DV and SD editing needs – some with more success than others.

The main issue on LAN is the fact that there is more limited bandwidth and that everyone fights for it. As a result, people experience uneven performances, which often lead to drop frames, etc. Another issue is the stability of the connection. Many people have reported that their capture would unexpectedly abort when using a regular connection.

For those working with a combination of Mac and PC, it can also be painful to setup a reliable network protocol that satisfies both types of clients. When you can find a happy medium, OS upgrades on either side are often source of new problems.

A number of users have opted to install metaLAN Server ($595 USD) on their server, and metaLAN ($295 USD) on their client workstations. It makes for an affordable “SAN” that lets them overcome these challenges.

I use the term SAN, because metaLAN provides block-level access to the storage (as oppose to using network file protocols). As such, the server appears to the client as a storage device (much like iSCSI Target software makes your server looks like a storage device) and mounts the shared volume on your desktop. The setup is easy: You only need a server with a functional network connection (TCP/IP). There is no need to setup a domain or even configure SMB/CIFS protocols.

metaLAN gives you bandwidth control so the server controls how much bandwidth each client is allowed to use. This can be used to adjust for fair utilization so everyone can enjoy reliable playback.

File system translation is handled automatically so PC clients can connect to your Mac servers, and vice-versa.

I always like to recommend the use of trunking on the server to increase the available throughput to LAN clients. SmallTree makes great NIC (www.small-tree.com) for Mac. Some users are trunking 6 ports and are delivering a sustained 65MB/sec to their client on a single port. For those with budgets, the use of 10Gb gives you top performances, but I find that trunking offers better value for the money.

Tiger offers 30 day evals for those that would like to try. There is no need for special hardware: If you have a Windows or Mac server and are experiencing some of the issues listed above, feel free to contact me and I’ll set you up with a reseller. There is no need to reformat your storage either…

Cheers,

Bernard Lamborelle
bernard at tiger-technology dot com
+1 514 667 2015

PS – metaLAN can also be used as a low cost alternative to Unity or LANShare as it allows multiple Avids (on PC only) to share access to the same media files, much like EditShare…

[Bernard Lamborelle]

Hi Peter,

If you are going to put your own iSCSI Target (as oppose to using an iSCSI appliance), you might be better off using MetaLAN Server with MetaLAN clients. Much like iSCSI, MetaLAN bypasses network protocols and sits on TCP/IP.

This will greatly simplify your setup. I would also strongly recommend using a multi-port NIC with link aggregation (IEEE 802.3ad) and a switch that supports it. This way, you get much more bandwidth on the LAN side.

MetaLAN will give you block-level access to the storage (so it can mount as a real drive as oppose to a network connection), bandwidth control, and easy cross-platform integration so your Mac and Windows machine can co-exist peacefully. MetaLAN also supports virtualization for Avid, allowing Media Composers, Adrenaline, etc. to simultaneously share mediafiles (Windows only).

Feel free to email or give me a call. I’m here to help.

Bernard Lamborelle
Tiger Technology
bernard at tiger-technology.com
+1 514 667 2015

[Bernard Lamborelle]

Hi Allan,

Yes, Apple sure knows how to keep its developers busy!

We are currently validating 10.4.11. This is sad, but we do not get releases from Apple before anyone else. So, until our QA cycle is completed (end of next week), MetaSAN users should hold back upgrading to 10.4.11.

Our engineers are also working to compile a new version of MetaSAN for Leopard (the current 2.2.3 build doesn’t support it), and so far, things are looking good. 🙂

Hope this helps,

Bernard Lamborelle
Tiger Technology
bernard at tiger-technology.com
http://www.tiger-technology.com
+1 514 667 2015

[Bernard Lamborelle]

These are all good options, worth investigating.

SANmp and FibreJet can be purchased as software only, but Terrablock and EditShare are integrated solutions. In this case, you trade your ability to purchase off-the-shelf storage down the road for a simplified setup. But considering that storage requirements doubles every 18 months, this also means having to pay a premium for every TB of data you will ever need…

Other than EditShare, all of the above solutions fall into the “Volume-Level” category. This means you need to split your shared storage in multiple volumes. That’s because only one computer has the ability to write a given volume at any given time – the other computer(s) can only read files (they cannot write). Personally (and I am obviously very biased!), I feel that File-level sharing is the most natural way of working, and offers the truest collaborative workflow. Everyone can gain access to a global pool of data: they can read and write all they want; the available space can be used for any projects; there is no need to shuffle content from one volume to another; no risk of versioning errors, etc. In the end, isn’t this the very reason you are looking into SAN technology in the first place??

There are two software-only solutions available on the Mac that will give you file-level sharing over FC: Apple Xsan (OEM of Quantum StorNext) and Tiger Technology MetaSAN. While Xsan is a complex file system in itself, MetaSAN manages your existing volumes. Both will give you comparable performances. The difference is that with MetaSAN, you can easily take any volume and attach it or disconnect it from your SAN (all files and data is preserved). With Xsan, you have to format your storage before you can add it to the SAN, and you have to re-format it again when removing it (losing everything). Of course, not everyone needs to add or remove volumes on a regular basis, but it is nevertheless reassuring to know you can always take your RAID, disconnect it from the SAN, and plug it straight into your Mac to get your job out on a stormy Friday night…

The drawback of a file-level sharing solution is that it is slightly more complex to setup because you need a metadata master that will act as a

[Bernard Lamborelle]

Hi Erik,

There are many viable options for building a shared storage solution for video editing. Please provide more information so people here can help:

1- What is the video format you are editing? Is it DV, DVCPro HD, uncompress SD, etc.

2- What kind of editing do you do? Are you pulling more than 2 video streams on each stations, or are you essentially doing A/B roll + titles?

3- What video application are you using? FCP, Avid, Adobe?

4- How sensitive are you to drop frames?

5- Do you have a reasonable budget to do this?

An Ethernet network might be sufficient for DV editing, but it will be more difficult to ensure there are no drop frames. If you primarely output to DVD, or encode for web, this might be just fine. But if you need to edit HD or capture and print to tape reliably while everyone else is working, you will definitely be better off with a Fibre-Channel based SAN… Of course, the two budgets are very different.

Cheers,

Bernard Lamborelle
Tiger Technology
+1 514 667 2015