Last week I explained my situation: >Working with 4K RAW

>>55690224
A single 950 Pro will be almost 4 times faster than 4 hard drives in raid 0.

>>55690224
>I have zero knowledge and experience about NAS
It's pretty much just a compture running specialized software. If you build your own, it's gonna be faster for less money 100% of the time.

Something like FreeNAS is free to use and pretty great. If you use some form of raid, the read speeds will be very high to, so the drives don't really matter much for that aspect. I'd recommend HSGT for reliability though.

>>55690289
HGST*

>>55690257
>950 Pro
>I need about ~7TB FAST storage.

what

>>55690289
>reliability
I will have backup of the files. So HHD failure won't fuck shit up. My data is safe.

> If you build your own
No time. Gotta start this job ASAP. Need an easy solution.

File: 57.gif (25KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 150x150px

>>55690316
That doesn't make his statement incorrect though.

File: 1367039195835.gif (474KB, 127x139px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 127x139px

>>55690346

No need for a specialized NAS. Just get a cheap build with 4 ports and gigabit and software RAID 'em. Heck, you can probably pull a C2D off Craigslist for $50 that'll fit the bill.

>>55690224
If you need actually fast storage you'll probably have to buy something quite expensive and use 10GbE. I'd say a typical 1Gbps network is plenty fast for any sort of home use NAS, but that's only ~110MB/s in practice, so it's not actually all that fast, a single HDD (not to mention SSD) can easily saturate that.

You should first decide how fast "FAST" actually is and at first look into some solution that doesn't involve jumping onto a network, because 10GbE is neither common for home/small office shit nor is it cheap or necessarily straight-forward to set up so you actually get 100MB/s+

>>55690342
>No time
Dude, you can have it ready to use by tomorrow.

>>55690374
Ok got it.

>>55690377
Ok I will look into it now.

Thanks /g/

Just get 7 1tb ssds if your motherboard supports it.

If you don't actually need the data to be network accessible, you would probably be better off with a Thunderbolt/USB3.1 solution

>>55690396
If your current machine has thunderbolt you could look into this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrVBeHFLs4o

>>55690364
Yeah, ignore this. For some reason I was thinking gigabit was faster than that. Pretty stupid considering I use it to transfer Blurays almost daily.
You do need 10GbE like the other anon said. If you don't have that in your work machine, you're either gonna need a card or I hope you have a couple ports free. I know you were looking pretty full.

dont build your own and for the love of god dont use freenas.

just buy something like a drobo and put good drives in it, you dont even need a powerhouse for 4k you will not be editing raw you will be transcoding it anyways, you would be fucking retarded to actually edit online footage anyways you will edit offline footage.

just get a drobo, it isnt worth spending the $5000 to put something together that can handle it just for one gig. if anything you can rent half the shit for it.

go talk to some DITs

>>55690398
How much is that in meme bucks?

>>55690224
Seriously, pay a guy to do it for you instead of posting in this shithole. You obviously aren't competent enough to do it yourself

>>55690452
>>55690398
My Specs now

2x 1TB SSDs will be added tomorrow.

File: speccy.png (1MB, 2884x1900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2884x1900px

>>55690487
Forgot the pic related

>>55690477
I just don't have time.

>>55690224
Tv assistant editor for 10 years.

You dont edit 4k files, you use hd transcodes or proxies.

Then you relink your final cut to highres 4k to send to color corecting.

If not you will be spending on disk space for nothing.

>>55690224
>buying SSD's then running them over gigabit ethernet
>for a largely sequential workload
Top kek you fucking clown.

>>55690541

I will be doing After Effects work on them though. It's a 25min documentary (no words) with a lot of VFX in between the shots.

I think I will need to do my work with the RAW files, don't you think?

>>55690541
I don't think OP is going very far if he didn't even know this. This is fucking basic stuff in regards to editing.

>>55690606
what kind of fucking documentary needs vfx?

>>55690605
No I'm using the SSD's inside the PC. The gigabit ethernet solution was for RAID with HDDs.

>>55690628
A cool trippy documentary

>>55690610
I know it. I'm not even an editor. My work is 95% of the time with After Effects.

>>55690224
You'd be better off getting a sas raid card and 8 2tb drives. Run in raid 10. Should get you to 800mb/s sequential read, 400 write.

>>55690224
Btw, never do Nas for high performance. You're limited to gigabit which is 125mb/s. You can get the same out of one internal hdd.

>>55690669
So as other anon mentioned here:
>>55690652
SAS is what I need? How does it connect to the PC? Is USB 3.0 fast enough? I don't have thunderbolt.

>>55690645
Then why are you asking on shitpostcentral? You won't find many, if any, professionals in your field here. There's plenty of other forums where there's industry professionals would could give you constructive advice.

>>55690712
*professionals who could

>>55690705
USB 3 would be sufficient but SAS will be lower latency. Not to mention an actual SAS raid card will always be better than a USB 3 raid box. They put cheap components in those.

>>55690712
>>55690724
Other forums don't respond in real-time. I'm really running out of time. Need a solution today.

>>55690224
>4K RAW
>Netflix
Hnnn Good luck man, that sounds cool af.

>That performance
You don't need it, 90% of the time the processing\rendering\encoding is going to be the bottleneck, not Transfer rate.

>>55690606
Is the VFX reliant on your footage? and can you get away with the lower quality footage. are the VFX you're doing going to "Require" the high resolution shit, (After Effects is scalable) Like you could set your effects up, and if they're vectorized and set up right, they can scale easily to 4k.

>I will need to do work with the raw files

When you're ready for Color Correcting and the final render. Yes. Otherwise nah senpai. Keep them on hand, but you don't need them till it's go time. 90% of the time you can leave them in the system

>>55690735
Ok thanks.
Found this: https://www.amazon.ca/Startech-Com-SATSASBAY3BK-Backplane-Drive-Mobile/dp/B002UANGS6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1469143983&sr=8-2&keywords=sas+raid

>>55690502
Ditch the crucial and Intel RAID disks. That should leave you 2 ports free after you add the 2TB more SSDs. Just add two 4TB drives and RAID 0 em. If you can ditch the Caviar Black get 3.
* actually it seems 5TB will be cheaper for you in Canadaland.

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16822149628

If you're going to be doing large projects you might as well not waste time with a bunch of little drives.

>>55690757
You'll want something like an IBM M5015 (don't get the 1015). It connects via PCIe. You can find breakout cables on amazon as well to connect the drives.

>>55690745
This is my main confusion. The VFX are basically for the transition between the shots. And there might be some sequences that will be completely computer generated (made by me). It's experimental. 3 months of work, and I can do any shit I want and show them. They will pick and choose what they like. Lots of creativity freedom.

This is why I think it would be nice to work with the RAW files. More detail/color info to work with.

Also I'm afraid of fucking up if I use proxy. Never done it before

>>55690780
This seems like a great idea. I think I will go with this.
Although this also looks tempting:
>>55690757
>>55690790

>>55690780
>If you're going to be doing large projects you might as well not waste time with a bunch of little drives.
The reason you raid several smaller drives is speed.
Raid 5: 6 drives means 6x read and 1x write
Raid 6: 6 drives means 6x read and 1x write
Raid 10: 6 drives means 6x read and 3x write

Raid 10 halves your capacity but you get significantly higher failure tolerance and speed.

IMO just get four 2TB samsung 850 EVOs, put them in your PC, and stop fucking around. Make sure you have enough slow spinning disks to do a backup, and have a plan to do so at least once a day.

>>55690867
With 3 drives RAID 0 he'll be at 600MB/s and he doesn't have to worry about a card.

>>55690982
Yes, but if one drive fails everything is lost.

Basically, you have 3 realistic options

1. A custom NAS solution, and buy enough drives to have double or triple parity plus the storage you need, all 7200 RPM drives in there. Cheapest to set up, but will require lots of research and you to learn how to set up a nas properly. You do NOT want to cache the NAS, you want less points of failure and data to be back up.

Killer feature to look for is comparability with mobos that have 2 gigabit NIC ports, specifically in simplex mode so you can have 2Gbps up and 2Gbps down.

Plus you want to shell out for a higher end modular power supply, and then shell out again for more sata connectors plugs. Molex to sata, lose all your data.

PROS: redundancy
CONS: cost and time

2. Consumer grade NAS, expensive, "it just werks" until you get data loss and their closed off hardware and software fuck you over.

PROS: easy to setup, redundancy in high end models
CONS: locked into specific hardware, huge cost

3. Buy a GOOD hardware raid card, create raid array.

PROS: cheap as fuck
CONS: data redundancy, but all you data is physically in the same box. If anything happens to box (ie. power supply explodes), you lose EVERYTHING

>>55691003
No he just rebuilds the RAID with 2 and reloads them.

>>55690879

Damn this seems like a good idea as well. Hmmm.

Ok thanks guys. I've always tried to help others here and really appreciate it when other anons help me in cases that I'm ignorant as fuck.

>>55691003
Client is sending me all the files on their own drives (which will be mine after they send) so I will have a copy of everything anyway. As soon as a drive fails, I can replace it and copy the files again.

Also remember, I will be reading only. No need to write. Just reading the 4K RAW files for my project, but saving shit somewhere else.

>>55691027
This is why normies shouldn't build raid arrays.
Raid 0 does not have any redundancy. All data on the array will be lost if one drive fails. Sure, you can build a new one but that's literally pointless as all your data is gone.

>>55690606
>netflix documentary
it's about niggers, isn't it?

>>55691056
These are for loading the project, moron, not storing it. Just leave.

>>55691043
In that case just raid0 4 2tb drives. Easiest is to do it in the OS.

File: pic 11.jpg (3MB, 5711x3603px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5711x3603px

>>55691056
>>55691027

Guys, again, I don't need any redundancy. I will have backup. And I'm just reading the files. Won't write anything.

>>55691067
No. Nature.

>>55691074
Missed that point. Raid0 works fine if you don't care about the data on the array.

>>55691085
4 drives internal raid 0. No NAS bullshit.

File: 1391253524366.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>55691124

>MSI X99S SLI Plus

Will it do a good job? Or should I just buy a decent RAID card (PCI-e)?

>>55691085
>Guys, again, I don't need any redundancy

easy then.

1. 8TB external drive to back up those client files and daily work just in case

2. raid 0 with every single remaining sata port you have left

>>55691085
what kind of nature documentary has vfx?

>>55691124
He has 8 ports
- 1 OS SSD
- 2 1TB Intel SSDs
- 2 new 1TB SSDs
leaves 3.

>>55691158
You'll be fine with software RAID, which you'll have to use since only ports 1-6 can do hardware. It's all going to be sustained transfer, not small random access.

>>55691158
RAID cards are a fucking can of worms. You can get great performance, but it's not straightforward and you will spend a lot.

Software RAID first, you have nothing to lose. If it's not as fast as you hoped, you can always add a RAID card.

File: 1369120_304483476357249_522453954_n.jpg (212KB, 960x719px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 960x719px

>>55691185
It's different. No narration. Just some trippy effects and transition stuff between abstract shots.

Will be amazing to watch especially if you 420.

>>55691173
>>55691200
Thanks.

>>55691158
Software raid will work

>>55691200
If not 8 ports available get a pcie raid card.
I'd recommend an old PERC6, they're solid cards and cheap as shit. Still need breakout cable though.

>>55691210
I am currently using software RAID for:

2x 110GB SSD's
and 2x 1TB HDD's

And they have been working just fine for over a year now. Speed tests show almost 2x performance, as they should.

>>55691234
Do you really think an old PERC6 will keep up with 4 SSDs in RAID 0? 2GB/s?

I'd be surprised.

>>55691254
>4 SSDs in RAID 0
Did you miss the 7TB requirement?

Also the old PERC6s have been tested up to 1.5GB/s I haven't seen anyone push past that.

>>55691268
Did you miss the 2TB SSDs? Also, 1.5GB/s in JBOD is different than using the hardware RAID function.

>>55691221
>Will be amazing to watch especially if you 420.
i see now. it's not a documentary about niggers, it's for niggers.

>>55691298
The 1.5GB/s was raid.
You don't plug the SSDs into the perc, they stay on the mainboard and the drives connect to the perc.

File: Tn3m7yP.jpg (167KB, 922x796px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 922x796px

>>55691299
Oh you.

>>55691320
>1.5GB/s was RAID
ok
>don't plug into...
lol what? You're talking about a server motherboard that is designed specifically for use with a PERC6 then. That's not giong to work with a MSI X99 board.

>>55691351
>You're talking about a server motherboard that is designed specifically for use with a PERC6 then.
Dafuq are you smoking?

Percs are compatible with any motherboard.

>>55690346

Where can you buy this 7TB 950 Pro?

>>55691378
I re-read your post 55691320 and what you said doesn't even make sense, so eh whatever. Not worth trying to argue if your statement wasn't coherent to begin with.

>>55690502
Why did you wait till now to get started on this, mr. fancy contract man?

>>55691580
Just got the job a few days ago. Also this is not a huge deal. I can still work with regular HDD's. Just want to maximize performance now to work as fast as possible.

>>55691528
Let me spell it out for you

Perc connects to motherboard via pcie
SSDs connect to motherboard
HDDs connect to perc

This really isn't that hard.

ITT: OP lies about his indi college film project and /g/ helps him

>>55691612
HDDs? Who said anything about HDDs in RAID?

>>55691649
>7TB
This whole thread.

Find out how many SATA ports you have on your motherboard.

Divide 7TB by that number.

Get as many drives as SATA ports with that capacity or higher.

RAID 0 them together in Windows or whatever the fuck.

It's unreliable for long term storage but should last you through this 1 project and then you can do a real setup

>>55691655
6 SATAs support RAID 0.

I will be using 2 of them to RAID 2x SSD's for After Effects cache.

So I'm thinking of doing RAID with 4 HDDs's in addiction. 2TB each.

>>55691649
Four 2TB disks will be 4x faster than one 7TB disk.

>>55691626
>spending that much money for a college film project

>>55691691
Do you really need to RAID 0 with SSDs?

>>55691716
For capacity rather than speed. The speed gains would only be recognized through a good software raid implementation (i.e. mdadm) or a high-end controller.

>>55691691
You have 2 1TB Intel SSDs already, right? Or are those 4 512GB drives?

>>55691716
After Effects uses Cache like RAM. So the faster my cache drive is, the better.

I think this really is the solution:

2x 1TB SSD's in RAID 0 for cache
4x 2TB HHD's in RAID 0 for my media files

250GB 840 EVO SSD for OS

A couple other HHD's for regular storage.

>>55691742
>2x 1TB SSD
Holy fuck are you made of money?
Do you really need that much cache?

I think 2x250GB or 500GB will be plenty

File: Untitled.png (187KB, 1209x573px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1209x573px

>>55691691
The fuck? Just add four 2TB SSDs into your system for your project, and put an 8TB USB 3.0 external on your desk for backup.

>>55691716
Raid 0 with SSD's is utterly pointless, the write and read increases will be minimal; so minimal that you won't ever notice it.

>>55691740
Those aren't SSD's.

What I have now is:
>3x ~1TB HDDs
>SSD 840 Evo 250GB
>3x ~120GB SSDs (different brands)

2x 1TB SSD's are coming tomorrow.

Needless to say, I'm formatting and re-configuring my computer for this big project.

>>55691758
They are paying me $35,000 for 3 months of work.

>>55691742
>uses cache like ram
Do you even know what cache is?

One SSD is already blisteringly fast, RAIDing it is pointless

>>55691760
>2TB SSDs

Those are really expensive.

>>55691798
Wait, I'm gonna run a test now. Give me 5 mins.

>>55691811
Okay? You said you needed ~7TB of FAST storage... I'm out.

>>55691742
Why dont you just try it with one SSD for cache and see if it's hampering you?

I think one 250GB will be way more than enough

>>55691822
4x HDD's in RAID 0 would be fast too, no?

File: raid.png (262KB, 3266x1809px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 3266x1809px

>>55691811
Here we go.

After Effects is using the RAID 0 SSD cache drive in 100% usage. That means the process is still being limited by the speed limit.

>>55691822
The thread probably should have started with this:


Where are you?

x---------------------y-----------------------z
Slow Balanced Extremely fast
Cheap Balanced Thousands of $

>>55690224
who cares how fast the drives are when your network will always be the bottleneck

>>55690224
>>Don't wanna fuck it up

you already fucked up, your not using a mac.

>>55691874
I think it's designed to run uninhibited. You could have 10 SSDs in raid0 and it'd still use every bit of the bandwidth.

That said you could have gone with a couple of Samsung 950s. I think rocketraid sells a controller that will put 2 in raid0.

File: 1465625909281.jpg (69KB, 453x553px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 453x553px

>>55691949
>Mac

>>55691973
I got 2x SanDisk SDSSDHII-960G-G25 Ultra II 960GB for $550.

Not that bad eh?

>>55691994
Not bad by any means but dual 950s in raid0 run 3GB/s read.

File: 1464271047538.gif (110KB, 222x227px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 222x227px

>>55691978
>yfw a shitty 2015 Macbook is better at 4k than your PC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnapaZYD2cU

>>55692016
That has more to do with FCP vs Premiere but it doesn't matter because Apple doesn't have an After Effects equivalent. No one bothers with Motion.

>>55692016

This must be bullshit.

>>55692011
He'd need 4 at $420 each and it would be a wee bit more complicated than two SATA SSDs. His two will give him 1.1GB/s.

>>55692106
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/7553/samsung-950-pro-pcie-gen-3x4-nvme-ssd-raid-report/index.html

>>55692139
And? That's not 2TB, now is it? Nor is it $550.

>>55692214
Read through the posts.

>>55692268
read my post

>>55692309
Read "I think it's designed to run uninhibited."
The comment regarding the 950s was about speed.

>>55692318
read my post