Marketing - Video Editing Storage
-
@Pete-S said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
It's unrealistic to assume you can use your entire bandwith for one download. It's also completely unrealistic to assume you can get 500 Mbps sustained from whatever cloud storage you have.
My cloud storage from a video provider gives me about 65Mb/s in real world bandwidth, if that helps.
-
@IRJ said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
What kind of marketing department is this? A movie firm? It seems insane to have video files average 10-20gb. Even high budget commercials are probably only that size.. Is this a bunch of templates or something?
Check your Olympus EM-1 MK2 for video, it'll produce that amount fast (but breaks up the files, but just imagine that it kept them as a single file like newer cameras do.)
If you are shooting with a Fuji XH2 or similar, you'll produce 20GB files every few minutes.
I'm just on a GoPro 11 and all my files are 10GB because that's its file limit. If the GoPro kept the files together, I'd routinely have 20GB - 40GB files. And that's low bit rate compared to serious cameras. Imagine if you shot on Panasonic GH6 or better, especially if you go to 6K or 8K! And I'm using H.265 which is tiny. If you shot on ProRes, which is what most do, the file sizes will explode quickly. 100GB or more would be nothing.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
Originally, I was looking at proposing a 20 - 30 TB NAS populated with SSDs in the local office, with 10 Gbps NIC. This would provide high speed local access over the LAN to 6 marketing users.
If their PCs accessing a NAS at 1-10Gbps isn't good enough because their primary concern is speed, why would they push for way slower cloud storage, assuming no on-prem cache?
-
@Obsolesce said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
Originally, I was looking at proposing a 20 - 30 TB NAS populated with SSDs in the local office, with 10 Gbps NIC. This would provide high speed local access over the LAN to 6 marketing users.
If their PCs accessing a NAS at 1-10Gbps isn't good enough because their primary concern is speed, why would they push for way slower cloud storage, assuming no on-prem cache?
I archive my video in the cloud, but I would not want to work from it without a local cache.
-
@Obsolesce said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
Originally, I was looking at proposing a 20 - 30 TB NAS populated with SSDs in the local office, with 10 Gbps NIC. This would provide high speed local access over the LAN to 6 marketing users.
If their PCs accessing a NAS at 1-10Gbps isn't good enough because their primary concern is speed, why would they push for way slower cloud storage, assuming no on-prem cache?
1 - 10 Gbps would be more than fine. That is what I proposed. But, the CIO is asking that the storage is Cloud only. Leading to this issue where the editing workstations are in office and the storage is remote.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@IRJ said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
What kind of marketing department is this? A movie firm? It seems insane to have video files average 10-20gb. Even high budget commercials are probably only that size.. Is this a bunch of templates or something?
Check your Olympus EM-1 MK2 for video, it'll produce that amount fast (but breaks up the files, but just imagine that it kept them as a single file like newer cameras do.)
If you are shooting with a Fuji XH2 or similar, you'll produce 20GB files every few minutes.
I'm just on a GoPro 11 and all my files are 10GB because that's its file limit. If the GoPro kept the files together, I'd routinely have 20GB - 40GB files. And that's low bit rate compared to serious cameras. Imagine if you shot on Panasonic GH6 or better, especially if you go to 6K or 8K! And I'm using H.265 which is tiny. If you shot on ProRes, which is what most do, the file sizes will explode quickly. 100GB or more would be nothing.
I've not seen the files first hand, am just told these are the sizes by that team. They are telling me the cameras will do 40 minutes to 1 hour recordings of presentations and stuff like that at 4k and 8k, and they are usually 300 GB - 400 GB.
-
@Dashrender said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
Sounds like all the bases have been covered.
It's unrealistic to work with files of that size (even 10 GB files are unrealistic to work on from cloud).
As Pete said - show the owners the time it takes to move the data, then show them the cost of a potential VDI solution with hosted storage - your solution of a NAS will quickly be back on the table with backups to cloud.
I have been doing some research and am interested in this company, they seem to have both storage in cloud and editing via browser. Any thoughts on this, or better alternatives?
Does anybody know if Adobe has a similar entirely cloud solution for video editing? When I go to their site I find it a mess and confusing.
-
This looks like another option, although, it does just look like a NAS to me, just through a specific 'media' vendor.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Dashrender said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
Sounds like all the bases have been covered.
It's unrealistic to work with files of that size (even 10 GB files are unrealistic to work on from cloud).
As Pete said - show the owners the time it takes to move the data, then show them the cost of a potential VDI solution with hosted storage - your solution of a NAS will quickly be back on the table with backups to cloud.
I have been doing some research and am interested in this company, they seem to have both storage in cloud and editing via browser. Any thoughts on this, or better alternatives?
Does anybody know if Adobe has a similar entirely cloud solution for video editing? When I go to their site I find it a mess and confusing.
Frankly, that site has no real useful information after a very quick look. It's all marketing fluff and no pricing listed anywhere, which tells me the price is crazy high. It might make sense, but most likely not.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
This looks like another option, although, it does just look like a NAS to me, just through a specific 'media' vendor.
That's a scam. I use those guys about once a week as an example of "market vertical scams." I've had customers get seriously screwed over by them.
Never buy "industry" IT equipment, it's always a scam. IT is IT, anything industry specific is another way of saying "not good enough to pass IT muster, so we try to bypass IT by claiming it's specifically made for an industry."
They literally make the worst storage you could possibly imagine.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@scottalanmiller said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@IRJ said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
What kind of marketing department is this? A movie firm? It seems insane to have video files average 10-20gb. Even high budget commercials are probably only that size.. Is this a bunch of templates or something?
Check your Olympus EM-1 MK2 for video, it'll produce that amount fast (but breaks up the files, but just imagine that it kept them as a single file like newer cameras do.)
If you are shooting with a Fuji XH2 or similar, you'll produce 20GB files every few minutes.
I'm just on a GoPro 11 and all my files are 10GB because that's its file limit. If the GoPro kept the files together, I'd routinely have 20GB - 40GB files. And that's low bit rate compared to serious cameras. Imagine if you shot on Panasonic GH6 or better, especially if you go to 6K or 8K! And I'm using H.265 which is tiny. If you shot on ProRes, which is what most do, the file sizes will explode quickly. 100GB or more would be nothing.
I've not seen the files first hand, am just told these are the sizes by that team. They are telling me the cameras will do 40 minutes to 1 hour recordings of presentations and stuff like that at 4k and 8k, and they are usually 300 GB - 400 GB.
Yup, that's what I would expect from something like a top end Fuji, Sony, Panasonic or Canon doing an hour of video.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Obsolesce said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
Originally, I was looking at proposing a 20 - 30 TB NAS populated with SSDs in the local office, with 10 Gbps NIC. This would provide high speed local access over the LAN to 6 marketing users.
If their PCs accessing a NAS at 1-10Gbps isn't good enough because their primary concern is speed, why would they push for way slower cloud storage, assuming no on-prem cache?
1 - 10 Gbps would be more than fine. That is what I proposed. But, the CIO is asking that the storage is Cloud only. Leading to this issue where the editing workstations are in office and the storage is remote.
I would connect the CIO with the users and ask if waiting hours or days to work on a file is good enough. Let the CIO take that up with users.
-
@Obsolesce said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Obsolesce said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
Originally, I was looking at proposing a 20 - 30 TB NAS populated with SSDs in the local office, with 10 Gbps NIC. This would provide high speed local access over the LAN to 6 marketing users.
If their PCs accessing a NAS at 1-10Gbps isn't good enough because their primary concern is speed, why would they push for way slower cloud storage, assuming no on-prem cache?
I archive my video in the cloud, but I would not want to work from it without a local cache.
Right, I can't imagine how that could work. No matter how fast the pipe is, the latency would be too high. I don't even want to work via a SAN in the same office. I don't even want to work on a normal SSD. I use 4x NVMe for editing when possible, you really feel the difference and I'm only on 5.3K files in H.265, not 8K HDR on ProRes!!
-
@scottalanmiller said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Obsolesce said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
Originally, I was looking at proposing a 20 - 30 TB NAS populated with SSDs in the local office, with 10 Gbps NIC. This would provide high speed local access over the LAN to 6 marketing users.
If their PCs accessing a NAS at 1-10Gbps isn't good enough because their primary concern is speed, why would they push for way slower cloud storage, assuming no on-prem cache?
1 - 10 Gbps would be more than fine. That is what I proposed. But, the CIO is asking that the storage is Cloud only. Leading to this issue where the editing workstations are in office and the storage is remote.
I would connect the CIO with the users and ask if waiting hours or days to work on a file is good enough. Let the CIO take that up with users.
The CIO is pretty much of the opinion that the user should plan better and download files they need for editing whilst working on something else.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
This looks like another option, although, it does just look like a NAS to me, just through a specific 'media' vendor.
That's a scam. I use those guys about once a week as an example of "market vertical scams." I've had customers get seriously screwed over by them.
Never buy "industry" IT equipment, it's always a scam. IT is IT, anything industry specific is another way of saying "not good enough to pass IT muster, so we try to bypass IT by claiming it's specifically made for an industry."
They literally make the worst storage you could possibly imagine.
Could you tell me more about this? I am not sure I fully understand but would like to. Is the thought that because its a "NAS for Editors" and not just a "NAS" that its not good, otherwise it would be a NAS for everybody regardless of need?
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@scottalanmiller said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
This looks like another option, although, it does just look like a NAS to me, just through a specific 'media' vendor.
That's a scam. I use those guys about once a week as an example of "market vertical scams." I've had customers get seriously screwed over by them.
Never buy "industry" IT equipment, it's always a scam. IT is IT, anything industry specific is another way of saying "not good enough to pass IT muster, so we try to bypass IT by claiming it's specifically made for an industry."
They literally make the worst storage you could possibly imagine.
Could you tell me more about this? I am not sure I fully understand but would like to. Is the thought that because its a "NAS for Editors" and not just a "NAS" that its not good, otherwise it would be a NAS for everybody regardless of need?
That's how you know it isn't good... it's being marketed that way because if IT looked at it, they'd know it was bad. But if they say "for editors", that's a trick to get the editors to say "IT doesn't know, because this is special for editors." But nothing, anywhere, in the world is special like that, IT factors are always the same. Anything trying to scam someone to get past IT oversight is because it couldn't compete if IT evaluated it.
The issues we found with them in the past:
- Insanely high pricetag, about 500% the cost of assembling their devices yourself.
- Just cheap, consumer crap mounted in a colorful chassis.
- Misconfigured to be both slow and very risky.
- No IT level support, it's people who don't know storage or editing conning people, so when something goes wrong, what do you do?
Or reverse it... there is nothing, whatsoever, good about their products. Other than giving it a marketing name to trick people into thinking it is designed for editing, what does it have going for it? It doesn't have the engineering, support, market knowledge, standardization, honesty, intent, or price of appropriate equipment. What would make someone consider it in the first place? From what we found before... nothing. We were never able to identify a single factor that would make it viable, let alone put it on a list for consideration.
That's the entire trick. Just take any generic PC with several hard drives, slap "designed for editing" on the box and voila, people will short list it and never evaluate it against industry standards. A better option would be, for example, Synology, QNAP, ReadyNAS and other generic SAN units. And that's not saying that they are good options, only that they are similar, but vastly better options. Or just build a SAM-SD. Essentially it's a SAM-SD built by people without knowledge of computing basics.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@scottalanmiller said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Obsolesce said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
Originally, I was looking at proposing a 20 - 30 TB NAS populated with SSDs in the local office, with 10 Gbps NIC. This would provide high speed local access over the LAN to 6 marketing users.
If their PCs accessing a NAS at 1-10Gbps isn't good enough because their primary concern is speed, why would they push for way slower cloud storage, assuming no on-prem cache?
1 - 10 Gbps would be more than fine. That is what I proposed. But, the CIO is asking that the storage is Cloud only. Leading to this issue where the editing workstations are in office and the storage is remote.
I would connect the CIO with the users and ask if waiting hours or days to work on a file is good enough. Let the CIO take that up with users.
The CIO is pretty much of the opinion that the user should plan better and download files they need for editing whilst working on something else.
That's fine, make them have that discussion together.
Basically you have users saying "We need X." And the CIO is saying "No, you don't." Both are reasonable, so they need to hash it out.
BUT, let's say that they do what the CIO says... now... where do they store those files and share them? Oh wait, now they need the solution that they asked for in the first place again, right? So the CIO is actually proposing an additional solution, and ignoring the request. Cloud storage of the archives seems like it was always the obvious answer. And it in no way addresses the local cache.
That he is saying that they should "plan ahead and have a local cache" doesn't disagree with what they have requested. That's exactly what they are asking him to provide.
-
Here is an example...
https://www.studionetworksolutions.com/evo/#8bay
Eight bays, generic SATA/SAS attached storage. Not NVMe. This is a ton slower, and way more expensive, than my laptop. When you have lots of people needing to work on big files, this isn't going to cut it. This is going to be a fraction of local file speeds which kind of defeats the purpose.
They never tell you the most basic things, like is it NAS or SAN? They leave out all critical details because they don't want anyone evaluating it technically. But I know that it is a SAN, both because I am aware of their products (they even make their own iSCSI initiator software instead of using standard ones or high performance ones like Starwind) and because it is the only way to do this.
Editing does life file sharing with raw file manipulation. SO to work in a multiple user environment NAS isn't an option, only SAN is. This is one of SAN's biggest use cases.
-
If you want to do this cheaply (and that probably makes sense), then Synology is what I would do, or a SAM-SD if you are so inclined.
If you want to spend money, then you are likely going to want to use Fibre Channel to lower latency, or the insanely high performance Starwind initiators.
-
My guess is that you need cloud storage and local shared storage. I'd approach the CIO (and the users) with... okay, we need low cost cloud storage to keep files we aren't working on.
Then say "okay, now we need a shared local cache of files that we can work on live"... that means SAN and only SAN, nothing else can do that. So, how do we want to accomplish this?
Because if they don't have a SAN, they have to not only keep a copy of the files, but they have to coordinate working on the files between them. And they have to send copies around to each other. How will they do that? And how much additional storage will be needed if everyone has to keep copies of the different files, and how will versioning be handled if the copies exist only on their local machines?
Does he expect the people to edit a file, upload it back to the cloud, and have the next person in the pipeline download that file again, from the cloud, to work on it? A single file of 400GB could have 4TB of transfers if you only work from the cloud!
