[James Mckenna]

Sure, we sell systems that completely are Ethernet-only and have for some time, but like ISIS, we stop short of calling it a NAS. When a product is defined as NAS, the file system is one of the standard types (CIFS, SMB, NFS, AFP), and versions of these solutions can be built by any savvy engineer with a little IT knowledge. When a custom file system (or custom file system sharing) is deployed, it enters the world of SAN, regardless of connectivity type.

For example, iSCSI uses IP protocol but is actually a block-level device on the client, similar to fibre channel (they use the same SCSI underpinnings). Our shared FS isn’t iSCSI, we have our own optimized delivery of data though IP and/or FC interface which allows for emulation modes and a more linear scalability of bandwidth. The ability to connect via FC as well as Ethernet is a benefit even for all-network environments, because we can do things with FC that are nearly impossible for NAS (16Gb showing at IBC!).

Jim McKenna

[James Mckenna]

Hi Alex,

We work in video stream count, and although that may be a less popular benchmarking method for engineers that test hard drives for a living, we believe it is the more prudent method of determining the real-world performance of a SAN.

Having said that, a lot can be told by stream count. The best case scenario for optimized video storage is a single client reading as large a file as possible. Like 4K DPX, or even better, 4K streaming formal like QT. When doing that, we get into the 900MB/sec range. The best sustained throughput we qualify through published stream count is around 700MB/sec. So there is some head room there, which there needs to be since playback applications rely on memory buffering at a higher rate than the actual playback.

Switch any virtual volume into Single-user Write mode on a fibre channel client (we’re showing 16Gb fibre at IBC), and you can double that and then some.

Jim McKenna

[James Mckenna]

Hi Jay,

I can answer the easy one – grading suites (resolve, Scratch, Nucoda for example) will have a couple needs for shared storage – for source frames, ongoing render and final render/output target. I’m not sure about resolve, but I know the real-time “background” render on some grading workstations can put a lot of load on a shared system, especially if other high bandwidth clients are accessing the SAN simultaneously.

The way we suggest working with color grading suites is to connect to the shared volume for real-time access of source DPX shots, and output of the final sequence. Background render, that constant write traffic, can be send to local drive array since that material may not be needed by other clients on the SAN. You would need a fat pipe, like 8Gb fibre or 10Gb Ethernet to accomplish this. We suggest fibre because it offers the 2K stereo bandwidth through Single-user Write.

Of course, we can build a SAN that allows you to house everything in one location, but the cost may be very different, and the workflow may not be improved enough to justify it.

On the other question about alternative products, I have no suggestions. 🙂

Jim McKenna
Facilis Technology

[James Mckenna]

Hi Joris,

Sorry to cut in on Bob here but I think we would agree that you’ll not get a video-centric SAN for the price of a Qnap. You can certainly find solutions that fit your facility in a wide range of costs, even up to 6-figures, but in the sub $25K range you will indeed get what you pay for.

The 8XS is our low-end model, thus we offer only the 4Gbit aggregate throughput, good for about 300MB/sec. This is published in our video stream counts rather conservatively at 10 for Pro Res 4:2:2. However, we also carry fibre on board, in the form of dual-port 4Gbit. These pipes can be used to access the same data as your 1Gbit lines, but at substantial increase in throughput. All it takes is a cable and HBA (ATTO card) for the client. Thirdly, we still offer access through single-user Write, or our old volume-level locking methods on fibre channel. On an 8XS you’ll squeeze about 50% more throughput out of the system this way, albeit without the Multi-user Write feature set.

There are many other important features that I’m leaving out, because this isn’t my forum, it’s yours. I’d appreciate the opportunity to tell you about those offline.

Jim McKenna
Facilis Technology
james@facilis.com

[James Mckenna]

Thanks for the vote of confidence Bob! Along with fibre we also do 10GbE and 1GbE universally writable volumes on OSX, Win, Linux (very soon!) through our Shared File System. We’re the only turn-key solution that does that. Check out our Youtube page (youtube.com/user/FacilisTechnology) for some pictures and words that explain a lot about what we do.

Happy Holidays!

Jim McKenna
Facilis Tech

[James Mckenna]

Hi All,

The problem with AMA linking is that Avid strongly suggests transcoding. The AMA workflow is fine for basic assembly, but it’s likely you won’t be happy long-term with the performance of an AMA timeline, regardless of the storage system.

Avid uses a database file in a media directory that is owned by a single workstation. When multiple workstations write to the same drive, additional media directories have to be created so that the databases are unique for each workstation. This can be achieved to some level by tricks and virtualizations on the server side, but it’s best to let the Media Composer do the creation, which it will do when the media directory lives on a Unity/Isis. This is the same for the bin locking/project sharing feature.

Facilis offers the native media and project sharing that normally only exists when using Avid SAN solutions. We do this through an emulation mode that presents our Shared File System volumes as if they are native Avid storage. It works, it’s cross-platform Mac and Windows, and it’s been shipping since 2009.

Jim

[James Mckenna]

Hi Will,

Is this Single-user Write or Multi-user Write? If Single-user, they should be showing up as local drives, not Unity drives. If Multi-user Write, they will show up as Unity drives if File System Emulation is switched on in User Mode.

If the volumes had been used in Emulation mode, then mounted with Emulation mode off, you may get offline media because the files are not in the standard MXF/1 directory. Let me know if this helps.

Jim McKenna