A customer with 3 edit suites is looking to get shared storage
primarily for backup and archiving - not necessarily for realtime
video access. They do have a departmental server but it's ancient,
and they may not have the funds for a new one.
I am thinking NAS: doesn't require a direct connection to any specific
computer, just connect it to a network, configure, go.
Any tips on a decent NAS with RAID5, a minimum of 6TB of usable space,
at least two load balancing GigE ports?
Any other ideas?
Thanks!
P.S. I'd recommend HP MediaSmart Server EX487 and fill it with 1.5TB
drives, but MS Home Server isn't compatible with domain environments.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Alex - DV411<alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A customer with 3 edit suites is looking to get shared storage
> primarily for backup and archiving - not necessarily for realtime
> video access. They do have a departmental server but it's ancient,
> and they may not have the funds for a new one.
> I am thinking NAS: doesn't require a direct connection to any specific
> computer, just connect it to a network, configure, go.
> Any tips on a decent NAS with RAID5, a minimum of 6TB of usable space,
> at least two load balancing GigE ports?
> Any other ideas?
> Thanks!
> P.S. I'd recommend HP MediaSmart Server EX487 and fill it with 1.5TB
> drives, but MS Home Server isn't compatible with domain environments.
What I hate about NAS is the single point of failure. There is no way in heck I want these people calling me in desperation at 7am some day telling me the whole place has ground to a halt and I must come and fix it immediately! But if you could limit it to backups and archiving, it might not be so bad. You certainly wouldn't need the added complexity (thus higher failure rate) of a RAID in that case. Just buy them some external drives. Simpler == lower failure rate; Multiple independent drives == less downtime.
Oh, and before anyone jumps in and claims a RAID can be configured to not lose files, note that as a RAID stripes a new disk in the array, the *ENTIRE RAID* is at risk. You can lose *everything*. RAIDs are sometimes necessary for speed, but should never be considered an archival or backup solution.
Online video storage is useless here. Even if I could justify the cost of it, the time it takes to recover files limits it's usefulness to smaller files only.
Bennett<randall.benn...@gmail.com> wrote: > My solution is to do Drobo + Mozy or other cloud backup service. > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Alex - DV411<alex...@gmail.com> wrote: >> A customer with 3 edit suites is looking to get shared storage >> primarily for backup and archiving - not necessarily for realtime >> video access. They do have a departmental server but it's ancient, >> and they may not have the funds for a new one.
>> I am thinking NAS: doesn't require a direct connection to any specific >> computer, just connect it to a network, configure, go.
Everyone who reads this list needs to go read about drobo now. It's
like all of the good parts about raid with none of the hassles.
You can add a drive at a time, and it automatically backs up. You can
subtract a drive at a time (WHILE ITS STILL ON) and keep going. It's a
huge lifesaver. That + fast FiOS equivalent internet is a solution for
anyone looking for some security, speed, and offsite backups.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Joe Parker<joepark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I hate about NAS is the single point of failure. There is no way
> in heck I want these people calling me in desperation at 7am some day
> telling me the whole place has ground to a halt and I must come and
> fix it immediately! But if you could limit it to backups and
> archiving, it might not be so bad. You certainly wouldn't need the
> added complexity (thus higher failure rate) of a RAID in that case.
> Just buy them some external drives. Simpler == lower failure rate;
> Multiple independent drives == less downtime.
> Oh, and before anyone jumps in and claims a RAID can be configured to
> not lose files, note that as a RAID stripes a new disk in the array,
> the *ENTIRE RAID* is at risk. You can lose *everything*. RAIDs are
> sometimes necessary for speed, but should never be considered an
> archival or backup solution.
> Online video storage is useless here. Even if I could justify the cost
> of it, the time it takes to recover files limits it's usefulness to
> smaller files only.
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Randall
> Bennett<randall.benn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My solution is to do Drobo + Mozy or other cloud backup service.
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Alex - DV411<alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> A customer with 3 edit suites is looking to get shared storage
>>> primarily for backup and archiving - not necessarily for realtime
>>> video access. They do have a departmental server but it's ancient,
>>> and they may not have the funds for a new one.
>>> I am thinking NAS: doesn't require a direct connection to any specific
>>> computer, just connect it to a network, configure, go.
Joe, RAID levels other than 0 have redundancy built-in. The data is safe with a single drive failure, and on RAID levels 6, 10, 50, etc. - it's protected from 2 or more simultaneous drive failures.
A decent NAS box with dual GigE failover / load balancing ports, RAID6 and redundant power supplies is protected from most common failures. My problem is, such boxes are usually expensive, and I am looking for a 6TB box for under $5K.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Joe Parker <joepark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I hate about NAS is the single point of failure.
> Oh, and before anyone jumps in and claims a RAID can be configured to > not lose files, note that as a RAID stripes a new disk in the array, > the *ENTIRE RAID* is at risk.
As I already pointed out, all of these entire systems are at risk when a replacement drive is striping. If you don't need a RAID for speed, don't make the system more complex than it has to be. What's the point?
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Alex G.<alex...@gmail.com> wrote: > Joe, > RAID levels other than 0 have redundancy built-in. The data is safe with a > single drive failure, and on RAID levels 6, 10, 50, etc. - it's protected > from 2 or more simultaneous drive failures. > A decent NAS box with dual GigE failover / load balancing ports, RAID6 and > redundant power supplies is protected from most common failures. My problem > is, such boxes are usually expensive, and I am looking for a 6TB box for > under $5K. > A.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Joe Parker<joepark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I already pointed out, all of these entire systems are at risk when
> a replacement drive is striping. If you don't need a RAID for speed,
> don't make the system more complex than it has to be. What's the
> point?
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Alex G.<alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Joe,
>> RAID levels other than 0 have redundancy built-in. The data is safe with a
>> single drive failure, and on RAID levels 6, 10, 50, etc. - it's protected
>> from 2 or more simultaneous drive failures.
>> A decent NAS box with dual GigE failover / load balancing ports, RAID6 and
>> redundant power supplies is protected from most common failures. My problem
>> is, such boxes are usually expensive, and I am looking for a 6TB box for
>> under $5K.
>> A.
Clearly they have _you_ convinced! I'm not sorry to be the one to burst your bubble, because you really need to understand the tradeoffs with RAID solutions.
>There are still sources of failure that can and do strike RAID systems. >If you examine this list of risks to your data, one thing will become >clear immediately: RAID not only doesn't protect against all of them, >it doesn't even protect against most of them!
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Joe Parker<joepark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As I already pointed out, all of these entire systems are at risk when >> a replacement drive is striping. If you don't need a RAID for speed, >> don't make the system more complex than it has to be. What's the >> point?
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Alex G.<alex...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Joe, >>> RAID levels other than 0 have redundancy built-in. The data is safe with a >>> single drive failure, and on RAID levels 6, 10, 50, etc. - it's protected >>> from 2 or more simultaneous drive failures. >>> A decent NAS box with dual GigE failover / load balancing ports, RAID6 and >>> redundant power supplies is protected from most common failures. My problem >>> is, such boxes are usually expensive, and I am looking for a 6TB box for >>> under $5K.
The Article referenced has some points but it is also 12 years old. We have been using raids and array for years. I can remember once
having a raid system die.
The obvious answer is use what is most practicle for you and your needs.
> Clearly they have _you_ convinced! I'm not sorry to be the one to
> burst your bubble, because you really need to understand the tradeoffs
> with RAID solutions.
>> There are still sources of failure that can and do strike RAID
>> systems.
>> If you examine this list of risks to your data, one thing will become
>> clear immediately: RAID not only doesn't protect against all of them,
>> it doesn't even protect against most of them!
> http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/why.htm
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Randall
> Bennett<randall.benn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> THe Drobo isn't. The Drobo has no striping risk.
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Joe Parker<joepark...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> As I already pointed out, all of these entire systems are at risk
>>> when
>>> a replacement drive is striping. If you don't need a RAID for speed,
>>> don't make the system more complex than it has to be. What's the
>>> point?
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Alex G.<alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Joe,
>>>> RAID levels other than 0 have redundancy built-in. The data is
>>>> safe with a
>>>> single drive failure, and on RAID levels 6, 10, 50, etc. - it's
>>>> protected
>>>> from 2 or more simultaneous drive failures.
>>>> A decent NAS box with dual GigE failover / load balancing ports,
>>>> RAID6 and
>>>> redundant power supplies is protected from most common
>>>> failures. My problem
>>>> is, such boxes are usually expensive, and I am looking for a 6TB
>>>> box for
>>>> under $5K.
"Traditional RAID suffers from two major disadvantages:
1) Lock-in of RAID levels for the lifecycle of the data
2) a forced tradeoff between simplicity vs. safety and stability vs.
expandability "
Sound familiar?
If you've never used it in a professional environment, you can't
really appreciate how life changing this is. Seriously, it's one of
the craziest innovations to date.
It's like all of the raid benefits w/o any of the tradeoffs. I can't
describe it.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Joe Parker<joepark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Clearly they have _you_ convinced! I'm not sorry to be the one to
> burst your bubble, because you really need to understand the tradeoffs
> with RAID solutions.
>>There are still sources of failure that can and do strike RAID systems.
>>If you examine this list of risks to your data, one thing will become
>>clear immediately: RAID not only doesn't protect against all of them,
>>it doesn't even protect against most of them!
> http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/why.htm
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Randall
> Bennett<randall.benn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> THe Drobo isn't. The Drobo has no striping risk.
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Joe Parker<joepark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As I already pointed out, all of these entire systems are at risk when
>>> a replacement drive is striping. If you don't need a RAID for speed,
>>> don't make the system more complex than it has to be. What's the
>>> point?
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Alex G.<alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Joe,
>>>> RAID levels other than 0 have redundancy built-in. The data is safe with a
>>>> single drive failure, and on RAID levels 6, 10, 50, etc. - it's protected
>>>> from 2 or more simultaneous drive failures.
>>>> A decent NAS box with dual GigE failover / load balancing ports, RAID6 and
>>>> redundant power supplies is protected from most common failures. My problem
>>>> is, such boxes are usually expensive, and I am looking for a 6TB box for
>>>> under $5K.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Joe Parker <joepark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Clearly they have _you_ convinced! I'm not sorry to be the one to > burst your bubble, because you really need to understand the tradeoffs > with RAID solutions.
That's fine. I said way back in my first post that RAID is often required. Everything is a tradeoff. Now we're discovering that Drobo isn't a RAID anyway, just an expensive NAS.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Alex G.<alex...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ouch... :) > How about this, Joe: I gotta have RAID and I am prepared to deal with > consequences. :) That better?
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Joe Parker <joepark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's fine. I said way back in my first post that RAID is often > required. Everything is a tradeoff. Now we're discovering that Drobo > isn't a RAID anyway, just an expensive NAS.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Alex G.<alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Drobo *is* RAID, by any definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID).
> Drobo can be a NAS but is not only a NAS.
> It's certainly not any more expensive than similar NAS or DAS boxes.
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Joe Parker <joepark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's fine. I said way back in my first post that RAID is often
>> required. Everything is a tradeoff. Now we're discovering that Drobo
>> isn't a RAID anyway, just an expensive NAS.
Agreed, Drobo made RAID simple and accessible. It's the Apple of RAIDs. :) Thanks for the tip on Drobo - I ended up quoting Drobo Pro (8-bay) to the client. It seems to be the least expensive 8-bay NAS among all those I've looked at.
Congrats on the switcher rig. :)
A.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Randall Bennett <randall.benn...@gmail.com>wrote:
Hey, thanks for the mention of Wirecast. I may have a coverage coming up that requires a live webcast - this product makes it very cheap and easy. You are correct that its a game-changing technology.
Thanks also for the mention of DROBO. Not my need right now, but I can see how we will need it in the near future.
In the meantime, I have just read on Facebook that our friend Richard Lin has just received his Canon camcorder, but has chosen to fiddle with this Mini Cooper instead. I have taken the liberty of chastising him for not getting his priorities straight.
Hahahaa. Yes I have been chastised, lol. But I have a reason! I've got to drive to Colorado on Monday for a MINI event I sponsor every year, so I gotta have my broken MINI running before then! And THEN I can capture beautiful footage of nature with the HFS10!!!
I did pull the camera from the box and charge the batteries...so far nothing negative to report about its operation, other than it looks deceivingly simple on the outside, yet the instruction manual is phone book thick!
> In the meantime, I have just read on Facebook that our friend Richard > Lin has just received his Canon camcorder, but has chosen to fiddle > with this Mini Cooper instead. I have taken the liberty of chastising > him for not getting his priorities straight.
Would like to see how the cam renders fast movement - whip pan, pan following fast car, still camera but fast moving object in frame, rapid zoom out.
GIve us an update also on how it handles these fast moving stuff.
And just wanted to mention - if I owned a mini like you, I would probably do the same thing (meaning work on the car FIRST). I just wont tell admit it to anyone, haha.
rgds/ RandyQ
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Richard Lin<r...@showcardetailing.com> wrote:
> Hahahaa. Yes I have been chastised, lol. But I have a reason! I've > got to drive to Colorado on Monday for a MINI event I sponsor every > year, so I gotta have my broken MINI running before then! And THEN I > can capture beautiful footage of nature with the HFS10!!!
Did you download the clips I posted on my server?? The ones of the classic Mini in Hong Kong, and the Metro that I took with the Flip? They look pretty good, all considering! I'll do the tests you've asked. but since there is no manual zoom..I'll be limited by the camera on just how rapid that will be, lol.
> Would like to see how the cam renders fast movement - whip pan, pan > following fast car, still camera but fast moving object in frame, > rapid zoom out.
> GIve us an update also on how it handles these fast moving stuff.
> And just wanted to mention - if I owned a mini like you, I would > probably do the same thing (meaning work on the car FIRST). I just > wont tell admit it to anyone, haha.
Like Wirecast, but (I think) simpler to use, lots more whiz banginess. Seems to need a beefier graphics card than Wirecast though. (I own both, have not had a good excuse to use them real world yet...)
Randy Quimpo wrote: > Hey, thanks for the mention of Wirecast. I may have a coverage coming > up that requires a live webcast - this product makes it very cheap and > easy. You are correct that its a game-changing technology.
<http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=11278>What's amazing is that it supports high-end features at this fantastically low price: AD integration, eSATA expansion. Unlike Drobo, does not seem to support iSCSI, and seems rather slow, with average transfer rates of 12-16 MB/s write, 22-32 MB/s read, over GigE.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Alex G. <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the tip on Drobo - I ended up quoting Drobo Pro (8-bay) to the > client. It seems to be the least expensive 8-bay NAS among all those I've > looked at.
So re: boinx / wirecast, I've found that wirecast does more for less
overhead and generally is more reliable. Boinx has given me constant
problems with frame droppage, etc, so for now I don't trust them,
though their interface seems top shelf.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Alex G.<alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LaCie makes a 10TB RAID5/6 NAS for under $2K:
> http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=11278 > What's amazing is that it supports high-end features at this fantastically
> low price: AD integration, eSATA expansion. Unlike Drobo, does not seem to
> support iSCSI, and seems rather slow, with average transfer rates of 12-16
> MB/s write, 22-32 MB/s read, over GigE.
> A.
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Alex G. <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the tip on Drobo - I ended up quoting Drobo Pro (8-bay) to the
>> client. It seems to be the least expensive 8-bay NAS among all those I've
>> looked at.
To bring RAID into the more general (editing) video world, RAID has been used almost exclusively for speed and thus RAID 0. The nature of using a RAID 'buffer' is fairly 'safe' because if a drive fails you only have to reload all the footage. It's a pain but it's not a disaster. It is sensible not to store project files on the RAID so that they can be used to rebuild what would otherwise be lost work. To put this in context with a previous discussion here, SDI-HD (uncompressed HD) is about 1.3Gb/s or about 170MB/s. This is a very serious data rate even for todays drives, and so RAID is still commonplace.
Storing general data or even program masters is an entirely different matter. Perry Mitchell
> To bring RAID into the more general (editing) video world, RAID has been
> used almost exclusively for speed and thus RAID 0. The nature of using a
> RAID 'buffer' is fairly 'safe' because if a drive fails you only have to
> reload all the footage. It's a pain but it's not a disaster. It is
> sensible
> not to store project files on the RAID so that they can be used to
> rebuild
> what would otherwise be lost work.
> To put this in context with a previous discussion here, SDI-HD
> (uncompressed
> HD) is about 1.3Gb/s or about 170MB/s. This is a very serious data rate
> even
> for todays drives, and so RAID is still commonplace.
> Storing general data or even program masters is an entirely different
> matter.
Right. Speed is one thing, but with more and more file based acquisition
media (be it hard drives or solid state memory) where the drives / cards
are re-used over and again, a very safe way of storing data is needed. Of
course you can back up on several separate drives, but in workflows where
speed and convenience are important, a RAID system (not striped Raid 0)
can be very useful.
Ton Guiking
|
