Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-f170.google.com ([209.85.220.170] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5177855 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:45:38 +0200 Received: by mail-vc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id kw10so1194441vcb.15 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 23:57:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=7WPuas3K3OP1TIIcSnCa56ShMMAl5cOEWkZ4nTm7xQ8=; b=PJG+YfUKek/J5zDCNmTL6IxAQUi/BR+9C0+kgCP2+vSgsG467mKFcOSMaqUO2gGdWE jPdO4c8WUKI/InodEilbqYVT5TVnFq/cwPcRNG31JNPhvf04PO4K3XRLuaPolCL8tfSZ glaHyP4Sse6WkgNFvBOFg+ugeK2HMAhpIjphV3+uEzpc8O+KTL72B2mB5wFi42eelEzw eDZL1uOZBJCK3RssBbUi/RCdzlHJfEV06IclZ0GoJzq1HvTm8epCyxUGJP6hyhz1ASKF 871F8Z9NGGeQhjvma41fbihFu6a8/11vOGhJ+ttMqPvsatOIO2lQ1hoY6p9zC50Neumf kqRg== X-Received: by 10.52.163.242 with SMTP id yl18mr826vdb.90.1376636257682; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 23:57:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mrbills@gmail.com Received: by 10.220.168.4 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 23:57:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: J Bills Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 23:57:17 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: hY4uwnhZTu1BCm_dr735PFhDK6I Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] OT: NAS shopping To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c251181fcb9d04e40b1b1f --001a11c251181fcb9d04e40b1b1f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Teddy - yes, megabytes not bits. my bad on that, typo On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Teddy Gage wrote: > 150 Mbps or MBps? 150 Megabits per second would only be about 19 Megabyte= s > / second, far too slow for an FX server. gigabit ethernet has theoretical > limit of 120 Megabytes / second which is pretty good, you'd be lucky to h= it > over 100 MB/s considering network overhead and disk speed with file > transfers from RAID to RAID > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:55 PM, J Bills wrote: > >> ended up going with a straight ahead file server, that won't need much >> processing overhead and will just dish files. This is kind of a "starte= r" >> system until I can get a bigger box going with a little more grunt and >> maybe a ZFS system with an SSD cache. I need to play around with that i= n >> the background a bit, but want a little bulletproof NAS for now. >> >> I found out the HP n54L microserver runs the Sinology open source >> software build (xpenology) great out of the box, with a firmware upgrade >> and a better NIC card dropped in. You get performance at about ~150Mbps= , >> which is about the same as the sinology 412+. should set me up well for= a >> bit until things get revved up, at which point I'll transition over to t= he >> other server and use this one for backups. >> >> all good, in theory anyway! >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Terry Barnum wrote: >> >>> We've been running FreeNAS on a 48TB box and are in the process of >>> putting together a second one. There is a web GUI which greatly simplif= ies >>> setup. It does have a few quirks (every once in a while AFP seems to cr= ap >>> out) but for the cost of an enclosure and drives it's hard to beat. I'm >>> trying to learn about ZFS for the second box. No 10Gb ethernet yet but = it's >>> on the radar. >>> >>> -Terry >>> >>> On Aug 12, 2013, at 4:03 PM, J Bills wrote: >>> >>> > Thanks everyone! >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 12:20 PM, S=F8ren Christensen < >>> soren@desilence.net> wrote: >>> > I have been pretty happy with our synology 1010+ it makes great use i= f >>> bw available on our gigE net when reading/writing >>> > >>> > >>> > On 10/08/2013, at 06:09, J Bills wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hey all - looking for recommendations on a NAS that would be a good >>> fit for a small studio, but it would see regular use of 4-8 artists I'd >>> say. Doing VFX CG rendering and compositing, HD & 2k. Gigabit etherne= t. >>> > > >>> > > I was looking at the Synology 1513+ or 1813+ -seem to be nice littl= e >>> units and I think that's my frontrunner so far. >>> > > >>> > > Also looking at the ReadyNAS line or building up a FreeNAS box or >>> something like that. >>> > > >>> > > Just curious if anyone has any tips for or against anything along >>> that line of thinking? This will be my first NAS and I just want somet= hing >>> that's headache free. >>> > > >>> > > TIA >>> >>> Terry Barnum >>> digital OutPost >>> San Diego, CA >>> >>> http://www.dop.com >>> 800/464-6434 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> +---End of message---+ >>> To unsubscribe send any message to >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Animator & Editor > www.teddygage.com > Brooklyn > --001a11c251181fcb9d04e40b1b1f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Teddy - yes, megabytes not bits.=A0 my bad on that, typ= o


On Thu, = Aug 15, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com> = wrote:
150 Mbps or MBps? 150 Megab= its per second would only be about 19 Megabytes / second, far too slow for = an FX server. gigabit ethernet has theoretical limit of 120 Megabytes / sec= ond which is pretty good, you'd be lucky to hit over 100 MB/s consideri= ng network overhead and disk speed with file transfers from RAID to RAID


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:55 PM, J Bills <jbillsnews@flickfx.com= > wrote:
ended up going with a = straight ahead file server, that won't need much processing overhead an= d will just dish files.=A0 This is kind of a "starter" system unt= il I can get a bigger box going with a little more grunt and maybe a ZFS sy= stem with an SSD cache.=A0 I need to play around with that in the backgroun= d a bit, but want a little bulletproof NAS for now.

I found out the HP n54L microserver runs the Sinology open source softw= are build (xpenology) great out of the box, with a firmware upgrade and a b= etter NIC card dropped in.=A0 You get performance at about ~150Mbps, which = is about the same as the sinology 412+.=A0 should set me up well for a bit = until things get revved up, at which point I'll transition over to the = other server and use this one for backups.

all good, in theory anyway!




On Mon, Aug = 12, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Terry Barnum <terry@dop.com> wrote:
We've been running FreeNAS on a 48TB box= and are in the process of putting together a second one. There is a web GU= I which greatly simplifies setup. It does have a few quirks (every once in = a while AFP seems to crap out) but for the cost of an enclosure and drives = it's hard to beat. I'm trying to learn about ZFS for the second box= . No 10Gb ethernet yet but it's on the radar.

-Terry

On Aug 12, 2013, at 4:03 PM, J Bills wrote:

> Thanks everyone!
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 12:20 PM, S=F8ren Christensen <soren@desilence.net> wr= ote:
> I have been pretty happy with our synology 1010+ it makes great use if= bw available on our gigE net when reading/writing
>
>
> On 10/08/2013, at 06:09, J Bills <jbillsnews@flickfx.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey all - looking for recommendations on a NAS that would be a go= od fit for a small studio, but it would see regular use of 4-8 artists I= 9;d say. =A0Doing VFX CG rendering and compositing, HD & 2k. =A0Gigabit= ethernet.
> >
> > I was looking at the Synology 1513+ or 1813+ -seem to be nice lit= tle units and I think that's my frontrunner so far.
> >
> > Also looking at the ReadyNAS line or building up a FreeNAS box or= something like that.
> >
> > Just curious if anyone has any tips for or against anything along= that line of thinking? =A0This will be my first NAS and I just want someth= ing that's headache free.
> >
> > TIA

Terry Barnum
digital OutPost
San Diego, CA

http://www.dop.com
800= /464-6434





+---End of message---+
To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>





= --
Animator & Editor
= www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn
--001a11c251181fcb9d04e40b1b1f--