[David Tiberia]

Hi everyone. Just to come back and keep people in the loop…I’m working through the issues and trying to do some benchmarking to try and quantify the issue.

To be honest, I haven’t spent much time diagnosing the real issues for very long…a lot of these are coming to me as reports from our post team. After doing some of my own research and talking to Bernard at Tiger, I’m wondering if my server might be getting over taxed at high usage times, and causing the file browsing issues.

Someone was asking what adapters we’re using for 10 gb…I’ve got an Intel x520-T2 in the server and Intel AT2s in the workstations.

Transfer speeds were in the upper 500 MB/s in testing today on our fastest disk RAIDS.

Still, I am going research into moving some workstations to FC….we’re wanting to potentially do more GFX and graphics design work on some workstations connected to the SAN.

Thanks for the thoughts and please let me know if you guys think of anything else…I’ll keep everyone posted on how it turns out.

– David

[David Tiberia]

Caspian,

This is really good info.

I can put more 10 gig e cards in my box, that’s not an issue. Also, I know that they are intel, I just don’t know which model…we bought right at a transition time and I can’t remember which model we got.

I was thinking about moving to Fiber Optic as an option, but wasn’t entirely sure if it reduced latency when using 10 gig ethernet protocols when compared to copper ethernet…I’ve got experience with Fiber Channel, just not fiber ethernet.

Let me grab some answers to questions when I get to the studio in the morning so I can fill in some more pertinent details.

Thanks.

– David

[David Tiberia]

I’ll have to go back and take a look. I’m certain that we used their guidelines when we set up block size, etc. the first time. But it’s worth a look.

I’m going to do a test on the server side as well in the morning to see if the latency persists when doing local copies…

– David T

[David Tiberia]

Great…thanks, that does answer my questions.

That would be about the same number of users on our system…and exactly how we would want to pull footage.

Leaving the source files on the SAN and rendering to a local drive will save us a lot of time in moving media around. It won’t take long to just drag the finished renders to the SAN drive compared to having to move the source file also.

– DT

[David Tiberia]

Thanks Bob,

Yeah, I got that….don’t render TO the San…..but maybe I’d be more clear if I put it this way. Can I render FROM the San? As in, can I have source files on the San (for AE graphics), but render my finished outputs to a local drive (and then of course drag them to the San)?

– DT

[David Tiberia]

Kind of…I was talking more about everyone’s favorite topic around here….SAN over gig E.

I know that rendering to the shared volume will bog down the system….so you usually render files from the NLE or AE to a local drive or drives. The question is can you use files on the shared volume in a graphics situation. I’d just like to not have to move all my source files to a local drive before I import them to AE….was trying to find out if this is possible.

Did I explain better?

– DT

[David Tiberia]

Any further thoughts on this issue? I have the exact same problem. Encore DVD 2.0 and Photoshop CS2 all installed clean from Production Studio Pro

[David Tiberia]

That should be a setting in the DVD player your using. Inside the setup menu, change your DVD player to output 16:9. There is only 1 way to have 16:9 on a DVD, and encore handles that fine. At least that is my experience…someone correct me if I’m wrong.