FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bob Zelin
FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 20, 2017 at 3:09:53 pm

Hi -
I have been anxiously awaiting the release of the new QNAP operating system that supports
Apple document HT207128, which discusses FCP X 10.3 shared storage.

I have done tests in 3 facilities, most recently this morning with Oliver Peters at a facility in Orlando.
You DO NOT need to use NFS to connect or save a library. You can directly create and save a new FCP X Library
to the QNAP shared storage system. Oliver was able to play back four 4K streams without issue from the QNAP.

While this morning's test was done with a more expensive 16 Bay 10G QNAP, my other two tests were done on
smaller inexpensive 8 bay QNAP shared storage systems. If you don't care about expandability, you can get a basic
8 bay QNAP for under $1000, fill it with drives, get a small 10G uplink switch, and have a shared storage environment
with more capability than you would from simply buying a normal thunderbolt 8 bay RAID array.

Even a mid size QNAP that is expandable is very inexpensive (under $3000, not including drives).

What Oliver also showed me, which I found exciting was that you really no longer need to use outboard products
from AJA and Blackmagic to display a signal on an external monitor. If you have a large 4K monitor (LG, Samsung, etc.) with an HDMI port, and you get an inexpensive thunderbolt to USB hub that has HDMI output on it (CalDigit, OWC, etc.)
you can directly output a full screen HDMI UHD 4K image to a large monitor, directly from the HDMI port. This relieves the aggravation of the constant battle of FCPX/OSX versions vs. the driver versions from companies like Blackmagic and AJA (audio would come out of the mini 3.5 mm audio port on your Mac to a small mixer or powered speakers).

Of course, adding a thunderbolt to 10G adaptor (Promise, Sonnet, ATTO) to your thunderbolt Mac would give you incredible speeds back to the QNAP - more than capable of doing 4K, 6K and potentially even 8K video workflow at full resolution.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 20, 2017 at 4:04:19 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Mar 20, 2017 at 4:55:30 pm

Just to expand on this. I was running 4 x UHD 24p streams (basic quad split) in a UHD 24p project. The suite's client monitor is a large 1920 x 1080 Panasonic and we were feeding the HDMI signal out via a CalDigit dock connected to a trash can Mac Pro 8-core. Video was set to full quality, so FCPX is taking care of scaling the video down to 1080 for the monitor.

I'm taking the HDMI from the CalDigit rather than the Mac, because this enables me to keep 2 UI monitors. I also have a BMD UltraStudio Express on this computer, but performance with FCPX is unacceptable. However, it works fine with Resolve and Premiere Pro. I use SDI there. Premiere can also be used with only HDMI.

If someone were to go with a similar set-up, but without an AJA or BMD i/o device, you'd still need to get clean audio out of the Mac. Something like a small Presonus box via USB would do the trick.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 22, 2017 at 2:04:44 am

[Oliver Peters] "I'm taking the HDMI from the CalDigit rather than the Mac, because this enables me to keep 2 UI monitors."

Does that mean FCP X knows which is the secondary display? Whenever I've tried a similar set up using the HDMI port on the Mac Pro, it was nothing but aggravation. Sometimes FCP X would consider the HDMI monitor the secondary display, sometimes it wouldn't. This was a few versions ago, but I basically gave up. I can take only so much.

--------------------------
Brett Sherman
One Man Band (If it's video related I'll do it!)
I work for an institution that probably does not want to be associated with my babblings here.


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 22, 2017 at 12:16:31 pm

[Brett Sherman] "Does that mean FCP X knows which is the secondary display"

On the Mac Pro, when you plug a monitor into the HDMI port, it becomes the secondary UI monitor, subject to priorities in sys prefs. In FCPX, under preferences, you see that monitor as the option for a/v. If you have a separate device connected - in our case, an UltraStudio - you'll have a pulldown menu and can choose between the device or the monitor. When you pick the monitor it becomes the full screen a/v output.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 25, 2017 at 1:49:58 pm

My situation was having two Displayport monitors with an HDMI monitor for full-screen playback. But half the time it would interpret the HDMI monitor as the Secondary Monitor and not the AV output monitor. So I'd have to make FCP X show on a single-display, then set up the HDMI monitor as AV. Then turn on the secondary monitor again. It was just too much trouble because you'd have to do it often when relaunching FCP X. Ultimately I gave up on it.

Where in the OS do you set monitor priority? I know you can set placement, but I'm not sure how with 3 monitors FCP X determines which is the secondary display.

--------------------------
Brett Sherman
One Man Band (If it's video related I'll do it!)
I work for an institution that probably does not want to be associated with my babblings here.


Return to posts index

Warren Eig
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 20, 2017 at 5:34:31 pm

Sounds promising. Too bad I went the route I did, or is this just another version of 10Gige?

Warren Eig
O 310-470-0905


email: info@babyboompictures.com
website: http://www.BabyBoomPictures.com



For Camera Accessories - Monitors and Batteries
website: http://www.EigRig.com



Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 20, 2017 at 5:47:46 pm

[Warren Eig] "or is this just another version of 10Gige"

I'm not sure what the question is. At the site I'm at, we have 6 computers connected via a switch to the QNAP. The 4 edit stations are connected as 10GigE. There are two other stations connected via 1GigE. 2 of the 4 edit stations are Mac Pro towers connected using a 10GigE PCIe card. The other 2 are a 2013 Mac Pro and an iMac. These are using a Thunderbolt2-10GigE adapter.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 20, 2017 at 7:03:37 pm

Hi Warren -
this technology was not even a pipe dream before April 2015, and the only reason it's working now is that
Apple released FCP X 10.3, and QNAP wrote the correct firmware to make their box work (which has only
been available for a week). So you can't "regret" buying something several years ago - this stuff just came out.
As you well know, new stuff always comes out, and these days, it's faster than ever.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Neil Sadwelkar
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 21, 2017 at 9:15:38 am

[Oliver Peters] "6 computers connected via a switch to the QNAP. The 4 edit stations are connected as 10GigE. "

So the Qnap connects to a switch via a single 10GigE, and the 10GigE switch has 4 Macs connecting to it over 10GigE each. Why kind of bandwidth does each Mac get off the Qnap when all 4 clients are drawing data? Like do you have numbers if all 4 were to fire up BM Speed test or Aja speed test with the Qnap as target drive.

-----------------------------------
Neil Sadwelkar
neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com
twitter: fcpguru
FCP Editor, Edit systems consultant
Mumbai India


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 21, 2017 at 12:26:30 pm

I don't have the numbers off the top of my head. Bob can address that, however, I generally don't consider these benchmarks as real world, because there are too many variables.

We installed the system a few weeks ago. One test I performed when we first hooked it up was to set up a sequence in Premiere of 4xUHD ProResHQ 24p clips playing in a quad split. I had 3 systems looping the same sequence pulling from the same 4 source clips. Simultaneously at full res. No hiccups or dropped frames. That seemed pretty solid to me.

Most of the time, we have no more than two systems editing at any given time and hardly ever with the same source clips. But everything at native source res - no proxies. Project files and renders are on the QNAP, but Adobe cache files are local.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 21, 2017 at 4:15:34 pm

Hi Neil -
please don't think of this as a "cheap system" that can just do 4 systems. I have clients using the Netgear
XS728T 24 port 10G switch, and they are all working off the 16 bay QNAP without issue.

The bottom line answer to your question is - a 16 bay SATA array really can't do more than 1800 MB/sec at best.
Start a couple of huge data transfers with 10G adaptors, so that each transfer is 800 MB/sec, and you are going to suck
out all the bandwidth of the system. I don't care who makes it. But when people are just doing normal work - editing 4K, graphics, audio, renders, transcoding - having 20 people hooked up and working all at once is no issue.

Of course, switch to the smaller 8 bay, and your bandwidth goes down to probably 1000 - 1100 MB/sec total bandwidth.

While these are 12G systems, I have NOT tested any of these with 12G SAS drives, or with SSD's. When you see the QNAP Spec of 3800+ MB/sec, this is referring to SSD's, and I can't imagine anyone loading 16 1TB SSD's into any system - it's too expensive, and too small. This is also the reason why 40G Ethernet is ridiculous today. If you use Mellanox cards for 40G and a 40G switch (QNAP is 40G Mellanox compatible with the drivers already installed) - you can get
2200 MB/sec. That means that one client doing a 1TB data transfer will eat up the entire bandwidth of a 16 bay
with SATA drives. And this applies to anyones system - not just QNAP.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Neil Sadwelkar
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 21, 2017 at 6:01:05 pm

[Bob Zelin] "please don't think of this as a "cheap system" that can just do 4 systems."

No I'm not thinking of cost. Cost is no object, if the speed and reliability are good. I was attracted by the 8-bay shareable over 10GigE for a more portable setup when one is offloading Alexa or Red video cards from multiple cameras using multiple workstations.

If I could connect even two MacBook Pros using 10GigE (with TBolt2-10GigE or Tbolt3-10GigE for the Touchbar MBP) to a 8-bay NAS RAIDs and get close to 250-300 MB/sec per client, I would be happy.

For 4 clients I guess I'll need a switch unless there's a NAS with 4 10GigE ports. But then, 4 10GigE clients on an 8-bay NAS would probably not be bale to deliver over 250-300 MB/sec per client.

My issue with the 16-bay is weight not cost. I'm guessing the 16 bay would be close to 30-40 kgs. An 8-bay is about 12-15 kgs which is manageable for one human.

The 8-bay one seems small enough to carry on set, but I got intrigued by Oliver mentioning a sub $1000 NAS unit which also does 10GigE. I could only find the QNAP TS-831X on B&H which is sub $1000 and even that has 2 SFP+ 10GigE ports.

-----------------------------------
Neil Sadwelkar
neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com
twitter: fcpguru
FCP Editor, Edit systems consultant
Mumbai India


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 21, 2017 at 6:08:24 pm

[Neil Sadwelkar] " but I got intrigued by Oliver mentioning a sub $1000 NAS unit which also does 10GigE."

Just to be clear, I was only talking about the 16-drive unit. I wasn't talking about a sub $1000 unit. I think Bob mentioned that in his original post.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 21, 2017 at 8:59:08 pm

Hi -
the TVS-871T-16G has four 1G ports and 2 Cat 6 10GbaseT ports. The cheaper TS-831X has 2 1G ports and 2 SFP+ ports, so yes, you need the Netgear XS708T switch for this.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 24, 2017 at 7:25:29 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Mar 24, 2017 at 8:23:44 pm

I should add to this thread some real world experience from today. Most of our jobs on the 16-drive unit have been a mix of resolutions, usually ProRes HD and 4K. Typically shorter clips. Performance has been good. I mentioned earlier that I've been able to loop 4K stringouts and they plan fine. However, this is not real world editing.

Today I have a job that's all 4K 24p slomo (shot at 40fps). It plays fine, but when you get to skimming, scrubbing, fast play, etc. the system chokes. This is a just a 1 1/2 hour stringout of clips that I'm whittling down. Nothing exotic. FCPX deals with it better than Premiere, but it's still not perfect. And today I'm the only person connected to the SAN.

When I compare the performance, with this type of 4K job, to a direct attached Thunderbolt 2 Pegasus 8-drive RAID, the Pegasus is clearly the winner. Now, that's not to slam either system or software. It simply points to the fact that SANs in general max out with HD, for real time "online" editorial work.

Unless of course, you want to go the Fincher route and invest in Open Drives all-SSD SANs.

So, since I'm doing this in Premiere, I've resorted to using 'render & replace', which generates HD media from all of the source clips in the timeline. Much easier to work with and I can still go back to a 4K clip if I need to punch in.

I would also add this this may well have a lot to do with the individual apps and how Macs handle networking as it does with the storage system itself.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Ronny Courtens
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 25, 2017 at 11:27:49 am

Happy to hear some real-world experience as well. I don't think that the issues you experience with the QNAP have anything to do with the apps. They certainly don't have anything to do with "the way Macs handle networking". We have dozens of all-Mac installations with anything from 6 to 26 connected users users that run perfectly in online 4K environments, either on Premiere or Final Cut Pro. But I think you hit the nail right on the head when you say "SANs in general max out with HD, for real time online editorial work." With one important little correction, if I may: replace the word "SANs" with "cheap NASes".

And to illustrate this I would like to share another real-world experience.

In November last year, during the FCPX Tour Barcelona, Spanish post-production manager David Lopez explained the workflows they use on the award-winning tv show "Salvados". If you haven't had the chance to read about this yet, here's the link to an article about this show including a video from the presentation:

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1909-spanish-post-production-manag...

They used to shoot in HD, then they started shooting in 4K (3 to 4 C300 cams) and they moved their post production to a big post house in Barcelona. 6 weeks ago my friend Jesus Perez-Miranda in Barcelona called me to say they were having lots of issues working with FCP X in 4K multicam on the 24-bay Qnap shared storage system at the facility. They couldn't work natively, everything needed to be transcoded to proxy mode if they wanted to avoid spinning beach balls, and the FCP X thumbnails and waveforms took a very long time to generate on long clips (which are typical with multicam). The facility blamed FCP X (of course).

So I jumped on a plane to Barcelona to see what was wrong and we took a little 8-bay JellyFish Mobile from LumaForge with us to test their workflow performance bypassing their current shared storage solution. We connected 6 users direct to the Mobile in their server room (without needing a switch) in less than 20 minutes, then we spent 2 hours waiting for their media to be transferred over to the JellyFish. Then they started editing their show with 4 editors over 10GbE and the difference was mind-blowing. Thumbnails and waveforms generated fast and they even could edit their 4K multicam show in native MXF instead of having to convert to optimized or proxy media.



The 3 engineers of the post house who attended the test were baffled to see a little 8-bay portable server handle this show faster than the 24 bay rack system they had set up. When I asked them why they had chosen their current server solution, they replied: "because it was cheap and because it worked well with the HD projects we have tested". We are currently looking into replacing their solution with another one.

My conclusion: Qnap indeed offers decent and cheap shared storage. Especially when you work with only a few editors in HD and you can hire someone like the great Bob Zelin (whom I absolutely recommend because I have worked with him on another project) to assist you. But when the going gets tougher, I'm not sure if the cheapest solution is always the best one. If it were, I think everyone who sells solutions that cost over 15 grand would be out of business by now. But they aren't, quite the opposite. I will leave any further discussion as to why and how to people who have the time for this. As an editor I only care about real-world performance.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 25, 2017 at 1:57:35 pm

Hi Ronny -
I don't know how often you are in London, but I did a large QNAP install for Gramafilm (using Premiere, not FCP-X) and they have no issues. What I would REALLY like is for you to get your hands on a QNAP - something like the Jellyfish (but much cheaper) like the QNAP TVS-871T, or 1282T, which has 8 drives, four 1G ports and 2 10G ports, just like the Jellyfish, and TRY IT. The London dealer is http://www.span.com, and if they won't give you one for eval, let me know, and I will arrange it with QNAP so you can get one without having to pay for it. If going to The Netherlands is more convenient for you, I also did a couple of systems there, that you could check out. Email me, and I will get you contact info directly to them.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Robert Broussard
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 26, 2017 at 1:55:29 am

Bob, does Synology have any particular models that perform well like the QNAP 871T? I can see using the NAS as a media server via Plex, editing media with FCPX, and general file serving for a small group.... sometimes it's just one user but he often has 3-5 computers going at once that are processing something. I'm just wondering about compelling options--I know you're hot on QNAP right now and with good reason.

Thanks,

Robert



Return to posts index


Marco Feil
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 23, 2017 at 9:39:27 am

We're about to invest in the new QNAP 12+4 NAS TS-1685, finally moving away from this sneakernet chaos.

Still researching how to backup this monster.. Is there anything special to keep in mind regarding NFS, SMB and backups regarding FCPX using hard links when consolidating footage?


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 23, 2017 at 3:19:03 pm

Hi Marco -
the TS-1685 is a brand new unit. As you browse the web, you will see that you cannot even find a price for this system (it starts at just under $3000 - no drives of course). All the QNAP products are amazing - even the cheap ones.
'Plug that 10G port into a Netgear 10G switch, and you will have an amazing system.
As for backing it up - first, (this is not backup) - make sure to create a RAID 6, so you can have 2 drives fail. But the bottom line answer here, is that if you have 12 xxx size drives (lets say 12 6TB drives) - then your "backup system also must have 12 6 TB drives. I must tell you, that to purchase two of these units not an expensive investment.
The SAS expander for the TS-1685 (which requires the optional 12G SAS card, that you must install yourself) is the
QNAP REXP-1000 Pro, which is $1200 empty. now, this is only 10 drives, not 12 drives, so it's too small. You could certainly buy the much cheaper TS-1635 (12 bay) as the backup chassis, but you are still buying another 12 drives, which is the bulk of the expense.

You can use a generic program like Carbon Copy Cloner or Chronosync to do the backups, or you can use the built in QSync or RTRR to clone and sync the two QNAP RAID chassis.

If you need help, let me know. I do this every day now.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Marco Feil
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 24, 2017 at 12:32:23 pm

Hi Bob,

yes, our current plan was actually to buy two NAS boxes, one main NAS and another 12-bay, most likely the same model, for backup and ideally offsite storage. The price difference between expansion unit and a full NAS is negligible considering the main cost is 24x 8TB or 10TB drives.
With two boxes we'd have nearly no downtime if the main NAS itself fails or any kind of disaster strikes at one location, just switch to backup NAS. That'd be neat.

Of course RAID 6, and I like the idea of using local snapshots and then RTRR to the backup NAS. Main problem is our slow Internet connection (30Mbit up/down), so RTRR over the net won't really do. And driving a full 12bay NAS back and forth every week or so isn't really feasible either.

Ideal would be a way to make a kind of diff backup via sneakernet and copy only the delta since the last backup to external usb disk and then to the offsite NAS.

Or a completely different backup strategy, I don't know yet. Quite complex with so much data...


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 24, 2017 at 11:45:08 pm

where are you located Marco - can't find you on the web.
Bob

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 25, 2017 at 2:01:21 pm

If you can limit your shared storage space partitioning to hard drive size - 6 or 8 tb - then you can mirror to a set of 2 individual drives per shared volume. I just don't like the idea of a RAID being a backup. There is too much that can go wrong. With 2 single drives you have good redundancy. And you have a permanent backup. When your RAID fills up, you just delete the oldest partition and keep the backup drives as an archive.

I run a nightly synchronization on one of the backup drives. The other one stays in my house. Then I swap them every couple days. Simple and cheap. But downtime and restoration is the weak part with this scheme. You can always use the backup drives as local drives in a pinch. Also it works best if you only make changes to the newest partitions, essentially icing the old ones and using them for media file access only.

--------------------------
Brett Sherman
One Man Band (If it's video related I'll do it!)
I work for an institution that probably does not want to be associated with my babblings here.


Return to posts index

Marco Feil
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 25, 2017 at 6:57:01 pm

@Bob I'm in germany.

@Matt It wouldn't be RAID as a replacement for backup, but a second RAID as storage for backups 😉

The idea to partition the RAID is something I'll think about, thanks. That would help managing and transferring backups between location A and B.

Something like:
- Ingest media to multiple 6- 8TB volumes and keep project libraries and things like fusion/AE comps and on a separate (SSD?) volume.
- While volume Media01 is filled with footage I do daily backups to an external 8TB disk Backup01 which will be copied weekly to the offsite NAS.
- Since the project files aren't that big, they can easily be copied over the internet to location B or any kind of cloud backup in addition to a USB disk backup.
- Once Media01 is full, start with Media02 and Backup02. The disk Backup01 could be reused or goes to a third location.

I kinda like this idea, I'll definitely consider this.


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 28, 2017 at 12:16:25 pm

Brett - Mr. one man band -

the QNAP is DIRT CHEAP. You can get a TS-531 for about 500 bucks and an 8 drive TS-831 for 800 bucks. This is a fraction of the price of any generic Thunderbolt 2 RAID array. Because this is SO cheap, you keep your single drive system at RAID 5 or RAID 6, and then buy a SECOND SYSTEM (both cost less than a single generic Thunderbolt 2
RAID array), and backup with QNAP's RTRR program, or one of the programs that you are familiar with - like Carbon Copy Cloner, ChronoSync, etc. This way, you have RAID and true BACKUP.

And remember, I am discussing shared storage, not storage for a "one man band" unless you occationally hire a drummer to come in and help you with his laptop running FCP X.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 30, 2017 at 5:44:06 pm

[Bob Zelin] "And remember, I am discussing shared storage, not storage for a "one man band" unless you occationally hire a drummer to come in and help you with his laptop running FCP X. "

But...

What if it's Stewart Copeland?

Is that OK?

; )

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Robert Broussard
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 28, 2017 at 3:32:54 am

Bob, when populating a modern QNAP NAS (like the TVS-871T) which drive mechanism would you recommend? I'm assuming there are a couple of specific Hitachi drives that would be recommended.

Thanks,

Robert



Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 28, 2017 at 12:19:09 pm

HGST NAS and WD RED work wonderfully.
Of course, HGST GOLD and Enterprise work perfectly as well.
I keep hearing about Seagate Ironwolf, and how great they are, but I will let someone else
be the guinea pig on these drives.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Robert Broussard
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 28, 2017 at 3:17:12 pm

Bob, I noticed that the IronWolf drives are rated at only half the MTBF of an HGST enterprise drive and the reliability specs indicate there is some limit to the usage level. That is, it's apparently not intended for high volume, 24/7 use.

If I recall correctly, the WD Red is a variable speed drive that could often be running less than a 7200 rpm, can you really still get the 900/MBs I/O via 10G and use FCPX effectively, with less than dedicated 7200 rpm drives?

Thanks,

Robert



Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 28, 2017 at 10:12:40 pm

boy, you are analyzing this way too much. JUST SPEND SOME MONEY ALREADY, and stop reading all the specs.
HGST NAS drives are cheap. WD RED come in 5200 RPM and 7200 RPM - so get the 5200 RPM.
And the QNAP comes in a 12 bay and 16 bay (and 24 bay and 8 bay) rack mount version.
I am just trying to show you something that costs VERY VERY LITTLE MONEY so that you stop researching and just BUY SOMETHING. If I find out in 2018 that you still don't own something, I am flying to Germany and I am going out drinking with you - and you will be in big trouble the next morning.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Erik Wallin
Re: FCP X 10.3.2 and QNAP shared storage
on Mar 30, 2017 at 7:09:36 pm

This is great news indeed. What is the version of QNAP OS (firmware) that you are testing?

We've got the latest stable release (4.2.4), and that doesn't seem to support FCPX.

There are two beta firmwares released after that
4.3.3.0095 build 20170216 Beta
4.3.3.0136 build 20170328 beta2

Are you using any of those two? Are there any settings that have to be changed to make this work? I assume SMB protocol version 3, but we have already set that.

/Erik

SizeIT
http://www.sizeit.se


Return to posts index

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