FORUMS: list search recent posts

Shared storage and FCPX

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>

Tim Wilson
Re: Shared storage and FCPX
on Feb 8, 2017 at 6:03:39 pm

VERY nice! Thanks for sharing, Tom!

Terrific bit of writing from our old friend Peter Wiggins, but I have to tell you, speaking these days as a mere spectator to the game, I absolutely love what Sam Mestman is up to at LumaForge. As a member of a very small team trying to punch above our weight myself, I especially appreciate their dexterity and force of will. 😈 I haven't had a chance to check in with Sam yet this year, but I'm willing to bet that he and Noah are going to have some fun things for us to talk about at NAB again this year.

I'll circle back later with some actual conversation about the provocative stuff raised here, but thanks again for pointing it out, Tom!


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Shared storage and FCPX
on Feb 8, 2017 at 7:12:40 pm

Met sam in person at IBC last year - great guy. He has a brilliant product - really looking forwards to using one later this year.

For any editors wanting to work to a budget but requiring stunning performance from a shared raid should look no further!

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index


andy patterson
Re: Shared storage and FCPX
on Feb 9, 2017 at 4:53:15 pm

I see they used a Micro ATX form factor. The case is kind of unique. It is shorter than most mATX cases because the power supply is of to the side of the I/O ports but that will also make it wider.

Below is a quote from the article

"I think anybody including the old ‘seen it all before’ shared storage technicians would be impressed by 900 MB/s read/write on two iMacs from a desktop unit

That is simply the end result of RAID system. I am not knocking the system overall. The throughput is good but did they expect a read an write speed of only 200 MBPS? I can get serial ATA SCSI (SAS) controllers for $80.00 and 32 TB of storage (4 TB X 8) for about $880.00 SATA or $1600.00 SAS. Having said that I see a SATA drive in the picture. How much is this system?

If it is going to be traveling on flights wouldn't a rackmount system with hot swap drive bays in a flight case be better? I am just curious if the case below would work? If so you could easily stripe 12 SAS drives together and upgrade another 12 as needed.



Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Shared storage and FCPX
on Feb 9, 2017 at 6:24:11 pm

It's small enough for carry on or you can purchase a custom peli case. The company make much larger options which have been installed rackmount - for a Swiss TV station recently I believe. If you want more details have a look at the Lumaforge website.

The performance/ease of use/ease of use with fcpx(or Adobe or avid)/size/tech support/plug and play are big selling points - probably would be cheaper options out there but same issues as with home made PC - you need to DIY and solve issues yourself. Directly competes with g-tech on price but allows up to 6 editors to work on a project with up to 240TB of rushes in raw in realtime, via 10Ge connection with great performance. And a 3 year warranty and remote support!

This plus fcpx is a brilliant package for completing medium to large projects that before were unavailable.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Shared storage and FCPX
on Feb 10, 2017 at 1:11:26 am

[Tom Sefton] "It's small enough for carry on or you can purchase a custom peli case. The company make much larger options which have been installed rackmount - for a Swiss TV station recently I believe. If you want more details have a look at the Lumaforge website."

You can find smaller rackmount units that can use generic rackmount cases. The rackmount unit I showed has a lot of hot swap hard drive bays for adding drives as opposed to replacing hem. Although they can be replaced really quick by hot swapping them. No need to power it off.

[Tom Sefton] "The performance/ease of use/ease of use with fcpx(or Adobe or avid)/size/tech support/plug and play are big selling points - probably would be cheaper options out there but same issues as with home made PC - you need to DIY and solve issues yourself."

Aren't they in some ways just doing it themselves? I imagine I can buy all the same parts as they used. I would trust myself as much as them.

[Tom Sefton] "Directly competes with g-tech on price but allows up to 6 editors to work on a project with up to 240TB of rushes in raw in realtime, via 10Ge connection with great performance. And a 3 year warranty and remote support!"

I imagine it does compete with G-Tech. I was just hoping you could post the price. Having said that If you get more hard drive bays and 12 TB hard drives the storage space can be huge.

[Tom Sefton] "This plus fcpx is a brilliant package for completing medium to large projects that before were unavailable."

Can you elaborate? Can't Avid and Premiere work with this system as well as Mac and PC?


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Shared storage and FCPX
on Feb 9, 2017 at 9:21:33 pm

[andy patterson] "That is simply the end result of RAID system. I am not knocking the system overall. The throughput is good but did they expect a read an write speed of only 200 MBPS? "

That's 900MB/sec each reading and writing at the same time.

The nice thing, too, is that you don't need a separate switch as 2 - 10Gb, and 4 - 1Gb connections are built in.

This isn't a direct connect SATA raid, so to factor in your price, you need a 4 port 1GB card, and a two port 10Gb card, as well as the programming to unite and share those out to other machines, as well as the software not the client machine side to make it an easy system to setup.


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: Shared storage and FCPX
on Feb 9, 2017 at 11:42:12 pm

There is much more to this system than just storage. Most of the research and engineering has gone into creating the fastest pipeline possible between the head unit (server) inside the box and the direct attached user connections. But what really makes this system stand out is that Write actions (ingest, exporting etc...), even at high speed , do not affect the Read performance. That's why so many people chose this solution for high-speed editing against fierce deadlines.

Here you see one being used by the French company X-TREM Productions on the race circuit in Francorchamps for the Le Mans Formula racing championships. Multiple live streams from outside broadcast vans are ingested over 10 GbE in realtime onto the JellyFish while 2 lead editors and 2 journalists are editing the footage in FCP X at high speed while it is being ingested, outputting their edits near-live to national television and different online channels.



And here's a setup we did two days ago in Barcelona at Mediapro, one of the largest service providers in Europe. Actually the "little" JellyFish Mobile with its 8 bays ran circles around their current QNAP 24-bay shared storage system, as well in Read and Write performance, waveform caching and editing latency, running FCP X for the award-winning primetime long-form tv-show Salvados. In the picture you see how easy it is to transport this system in a Pelican case. It also gives an interesting view on how they have set up their new MacPros in the server rooms.



The JellyFish Mobile is the smallest system LumaForge sells and it has a constant total bandwidth of 1800 MBS Read AND Write with SSD caching and close to zero latency. Their larger JellyFish systems (both mobile and rack-mounted) deliver up to 8000 MB/s Read and Write bandwidth and can expand up to 580 TB of working (100% useable) storage. Finally, the enterprise-class LumaForge ShareStation systems (which are already in operation in different broadcast stations and major post houses all over the world) can go up to 3 Petabyte of storage and achieve bandwidths of over 12.000 MB/s running on 10GbE to 100 GbE fiber pipelines. There will be a lot of very interesting news from LumaForge at the coming NAB.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Shared storage and FCPX
on Feb 10, 2017 at 1:41:38 am

[Ronny Courtens] "There is much more to this system than just storage. Most of the research and engineering has gone into creating the fastest pipeline possible between the head unit (server) inside the box and the direct attached user connections. But what really makes this system stand out is that Write actions (ingest, exporting etc...), even at high speed , do not affect the Read performance. That's why so many people chose this solution for high-speed editing against fierce deadlines."

I hear what your are saying but I think I can go and buy all the same parts myself. I am not saying the system is not a good system. I imagine it works great for the price.

[Ronny Courtens] "In the picture you see how easy it is to transport this system in a Pelican case. It also gives an interesting view on how they have set up their new MacPros in the server rooms."

I am hip to the rackmount devices for the Mac Pro but I would prefer a generic rackmount form factor myself (for transporting and in the studio).

[Ronny Courtens] "The JellyFish Mobile is the smallest system LumaForge sells and it has a constant total bandwidth of 1800 MBS Read AND Write with SSD caching and close to zero latency."

If built a complete ATX editing system that could read and right at 1800 MBS would it be considered awesome or just a crappy DIY? I am not knocking the system over all. I just think if Apple did make a generic ATX computer the select few (5%) might be able to configure some awesome inexpensive systems on their own.


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Shared storage and FCPX
on Feb 10, 2017 at 1:43:00 am

[andy patterson] "I hear what your are saying but I think I can go and buy all the same parts myself. I am not saying the system is not a good system. I imagine it works great for the price. "

You do understand that this it's not just storage, right?


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Shared storage and FCPX
on Feb 10, 2017 at 3:09:02 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "You do understand that this it's not just storage, right?"

Yes I do. I am not saying it is not a good system for the price. I am kind of stating the obvious don't you think? Why doesn't Apple offer a generic ATX system? Obviously some people need their Apple computers rackmounted don't they? Some users want the Apple OS to be set free as a generic install. No more Hackintosh just another PC build in general. I know Apple will not do it but the images prove that it would be useful don't you think? Do you kind of see my point? Install the OS X on a generic ATX computer. Three our four years later when you upgrade why not be able to use the older system to create a system like the Jellyfish (for the 5%)? You cannot even add a generic USB 3.1 PCIE card to the Mac Pro. I am not saying you would want to but you cannot ad any new technology.


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Shared storage and FCPX
on Feb 10, 2017 at 8:39:05 am

How was a link to a great piece of tech that enables smaller production companies to compete with bigger firms on shared editing projects been swung around so you can bang on about Apple's non upgradable parts policy?? How..!!!??? Is this actually Steve Woz posting through an alter ego on the cow, venting his spleen about the direction his company took, angry that billions of people have chosen to trust one firm to build them something that works instead of fiddling around with parts and building a super computer for less money? The fools!!!

If you think you can build something like this and write the code to leverage the performance from the drives whilst making it plug and play, and easy to use, and put it in a different rackmount case that fits in a different bloody box and doesn't have a handle on top to make it easy to carry, and get 5 colleagues or co-workers to work at the same time as you to test performance, then go ahead. Come back and write your findings here. If it works better than this one perhaps you can start selling it to people and offer a warranty and tech support and can build up a list of clients that trust you with their data and their business. Why stop there - maybe you could get yourself a rotary kiln and produce the purest aluminium around, meaning you can reduce weight whilst building a more fuel efficient and powerful car engine.

When exactly in my working week am I supposed to learn how to build all of these things - the hackintosh that is less than a Mac Pro and the shared raid, and the internal raid? I want to do my job. I want to buy something that works immediately and has a warranty and that someone else has used and found reliable. It's all getting a bit silly with the DIY angle now - if you can't see the value in a product like this from a small company, then what exactly is your point?

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index


andy patterson
Re: Shared storage and FCPX
on Feb 10, 2017 at 10:30:44 am

[Tom Sefton] "How was a link to a great piece of tech that enables smaller production companies to compete with bigger firms on shared editing projects been swung around so you can bang on about Apple's non upgradable parts policy?? How..!!!??? Is this actually Steve Woz posting through an alter ego on the cow, venting his spleen about the direction his company took, angry that billions of people have chosen to trust one firm to build them something that works instead of fiddling around with parts and building a super computer for less money? The fools!!!"

I read the article and seen the Jellyfish and made a few comments. I stated if they travel with it wouldn't a rackmount system be better. Did you not look at the photo Ronny Courtens posted with the rackmount unit? I know several places that have rackmount gear. My comments are fair to make.

[Tom Sefton] "If you think you can build something like this and write the code to leverage the performance from the drives whilst making it plug and play, and easy to use, and put it in a different rackmount case that fits in a different bloody box and doesn't have a handle on top to make it easy to carry, and get 5 colleagues or co-workers to work at the same time as you to test performance, then go ahead. Come back and write your findings here."

I am simply asking questions and stated when hard drives are in a RAID you will get great performance. I even said the throughput of the Jellyfish was good.

[Tom Sefton] "If it works better than this one perhaps you can start selling it to people and offer a warranty and tech support and can build up a list of clients that trust you with their data and their business. Why stop there - maybe you could get yourself a rotary kiln and produce the purest aluminium around, meaning you can reduce weight whilst building a more fuel efficient and powerful car engine."

I asked valid questions. All you have to do is say "yes rackmount solutions are offered or no they are not". Someone else posted a photo of rackmount gear for the Mac Pro helping to prove my point and validate my question about rackmount gear.

[Tom Sefton] "When exactly in my working week am I supposed to learn how to build all of these things - the hackintosh that is less than a Mac Pro and the shared raid, and the internal raid? I want to do my job."

You posted a link and I asked a few questions. I did not say you should build your own server system.

[Tom Sefton] "I want to do my job. I want to buy something that works immediately and has a warranty and that someone else has used and found reliable. It's all getting a bit silly with the DIY angle now - if you can't see the value in a product like this from a small company, then what exactly is your point?"

I asked a few simple questions. As I have stated before some people like the fact that with the old Mac Pro you could configure your own RAID system. Now you have to go external and buy from a third party company with a much higher cost involved. Some people don't like doing that. It is worth mentioning.


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: Shared storage and FCPX
on Feb 10, 2017 at 8:43:26 am

I visit quite a lot of production and post houses every year, and actually it's the first time I have seen new MacPros inside the server room of a post house. I found it very funny because there is no reason why anyone should do this anymore. With the old and noisy cheese graters I would agree, but this is an ultra-silent power-horse that does not take any space and that has actually been built to sit on your desktop. Furthermore, by putting the MPs in the server room, they are making things unnecessarily complex. Instead of just running one little fiber or RJ45 cable between every workstation and the server room, they now have to run several cables for the monitors and any other peripherals between every computer in the server room and every workstation in the building. A gigantic waste of time and money, but I posted the pics because I found they have been very creative in trying to solve a problem that does not actually exist.

Three our four years later when you upgrade why not be able to use the older system to create a system like the Jellyfish (for the 5%)?

I have no time to keep responding to this, but you really should not confuse a bunch of drives in a chassis with a high-performance shared storage solution.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Shared storage and FCPX
on Feb 10, 2017 at 10:50:33 am

[Ronny Courtens] "Three our four years later when you upgrade why not be able to use the older system to create a system like the Jellyfish (for the 5%)?

I have no time to keep responding to this, but you really should not confuse a bunch of drives in a chassis with a high-performance shared storage solution."


I know it is shared storage on a network but the ATX hardware could be reused. That Jellyfish has a mATX form factor with 8 SATA drives. In the end it uses common PC hardware. That is not to say it does not have very unique features or that the software involved is not state of the art. I have never said otherwise. I am not knocking the Jellyfish system. I am saying with the old Mac Pro you could configure your own hard drive system. Now you must use 3rd party solutions. I am not saying the old Mac Pro running a RAID would be like the Jellyfish. I am saying there is a reason some people are still using their old Mac Pro. It does seem like some Mac users like using rackmount systems. Perhaps they don't need to as you stated below.

[Ronny Courtens] "A gigantic waste of time and money, but I posted the pics because I found they have been very creative in trying to solve a problem that does not actually exist."

There will always be new technology making things obsolete. Thanks for post the images.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]