Doug Hynes
Forum Replies Created
-
Tim –
When it comes down to it, many customers are actually looking for a more functional, open and workflow based solution – one that fits into their file-based pipelines and actually helps solve more of their challenges – not simply moving content from one place to another. If these features are not important to a customer, we (and they) walk away – as they are not our target audience.
As far as LTFS is concerned, your portrayal of it as an unreliable and unusable technology is just not true, as evidenced by the hundreds of customers we have using it every day in very critical environments.
One should also realize that Discovery’s inability to read LTFS tapes submitted to them has more to do with their very specific naming, placement of files (data and metadata) requirements, rather than the LTFS format itself. We’ve had to make several tweeks to our Discovery features based on a customers’ rejection from Discovery and not once has it had to do with the actual formatting of the tape. Once again, for this very specialized use case – many users are finding that it is worth paying for a good piece of software to be able to match those requirements – which DNA Evolution (and others) can do.
Even you have to admit – there must have been a reason why one of your own customers went as far as receiving a quote for a DNA Evolution system
– just sayin’
Regards,
Doug
-
Sorry – just checking in on this one recently.
The anecdotal information about StorageDNA pricing is incorrect.
Pricing of StorageDNA LTFS based solutions start under $8K and are turnkey, meaning they INCLUDE hardware, software, connectivity etc. and include many workflow features far and above just moving content from disk to tape.
Features like AAF/XML/EDL-based archive and restore jobs, conforming from LTO, camera master and NLE metadata search including Clip Names, metadata tagging, incremental archives and restores, lo-res proxy viewing, integration with CatDV, Avid Interplay Production and many others, ability to centrally manage more multiple libraries across an organization, Discovery Networks delivery formatting, import of any LTFS tape – to name just a few.
So, when you talk about pricing, please be sure to do a thorough comparison of what you are getting for $499.
Doug
-
Hi Asaf –
(vendor plug here)
Your desired workflow with CatDV can easily be achieved using StorageDNA’s DNA Evolution archiving solution. We have a direct plug-in that allows for “Send to (tape)” and “Restore from (tape) directly within CatDV’s interface, providing a seamless integration and workflow.
Feel free to contact me for further details.
Best Regards,
Doug Hynes
-
George,
As I said previously, there are archive solutions available today that use LTFS and achieve near line speeds of the LTO drives during both archive and restore functionality. These solutions are in use everyday and include workflows for feature film, episodic, reality, documentary, sports programming and more.
You can contact me if you’d like to learn more.
Best Regards,
Doug
-
Hi George –
When you are writing to an LTFS tape, the files are being written sequentially – so the speed at which these are copied is only gated by the connectivity to the storage where the original files reside on spinning disk and the write speed of the tape drive.
On restore, the OS generates a list of files to be copied from tape back to disk. The issue with restore is that the OS does not track how the files were written to tape and where they reside and therefore the list is typically in random order, which is causing the tape to be scanned for each file in the list and is causing the back and forth movement that many have called “shoe-shining”.
Archiving solutions that incorporate an intelligent software layer that can track where files reside on tape and provide most efficient movement based on that location are available today. These solutions can move content to/from tape at almost line speeds of the LTO Drives (140MB/Sec LTO-5, 160MB/Sec LTO-6), meaning an hour’s worth of content can be transferred in 10 minutes.