Avoiding Professional Obsolescence

aaron's picture

With the [url=http://www.xsanity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10953]end of the Xserve/url some of us are considering [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Few_Small_Repairs]a few small repairs/url to the way we operate. Please use this thread to brainstorm new ideas. Perhaps the best (or easiest!) will turn into permanent features on Xsanity.

Here are some ideas to kick this off.

In its infancy, Xsanity helped define the standard Xsan install that we know so well: two Xserves, QLogic, Xserve RAID, Open Directory, DNS, Clients. What will the Mac SAN of the future look like? Would a wiki help us define this?

Is the standard MDC of the future a Linux box? I remember an O'Reilly book called "Mac for Unix Geeks." Is it time for a "Unix for Mac Geeks?" Where do you get training for this?

Please comment and add your own ideas.

clearframe's picture

I suspect Apple will suggest that workstations be MDCs in any future versions of Xsan. Doing that lowers the cost of entry for Xsan which is part of what Apple is all about with their professional products.
Future versions of Xsan may automatically take steps to 'harden' a workstation for MDC use but until that day comes I think it would be helpful to identify what needs to be done in that direction. Applying MCX to prevent network interface changes for instance.
As far as the network services go, I think recommending two mini servers to be configured in tandem should be standard. LDAP and DNS can be replicated across them.

abstractrude's picture

the more i thought about this last night i realized that this actually increases your professional pull in this environment. final cut pro will be updated and you will need xsan. you will need stornext controllers and yada yada.

then again maybe not. avid unity supports final cut now. edit share will always be second rate ethernet crap.

-Trevor Carlson
THUMBWAR

jlungaro's picture

Who knows!! Active Storage might save the day with maybe a new server line-up as they have done with XRAID and innerpool.

reading the following quote from Alex gross man newsletter gives me faith

"Active Storage has some exciting things in the works that will shape the broadcast, post-production and creative professional market for years to come"

ogminlo's picture

Unfortunately, the video codec world is a proprietary one, otherwise I'd turn to Linux like I can for StorNext MDCs. I may just need to focus entirely on storage in general and StorNext in particular. Even if that means frequently serving the media industry with storage, it isn't the shift to asset management I've found so satisfying with FCSvr the past two years.

TuberMagPico's picture

During IBC there was a hummingbird, at the time I thought Why?

Does anyone see a place for this new [url=http://www.promise.com/storage/raid_series.aspx?region=en-US&m=155&rsn1=... VT S3000/url product?

lowbudgetfun's picture

aaron wrote:

In its infancy, Xsanity helped define the standard Xsan install that we know so well: two Xserves, QLogic, Xserve RAID, Open Directory, DNS, Clients. What will the Mac SAN of the future look like? Would a wiki help us define this?
/quote

For film & television postproduction, I believe the future looks like Avid's "edit anywhere" technology preview. For general storage it looks a lot like Amazon's S3 service.

Apple is a company that will kill declining technology before the rest of the world is ready. If the future is "the cloud" then why develop and support the stopgap?

I've expanded on these ideas at my blog: dustyngobler.com/category/blog/

proton's picture

If even FCP would had to go, I'm thinking about Edius solution. Recent versions have very interesting features, like native mxf editing, direct video server connection, etc.

ACSA's picture

aaron wrote:

Is the standard MDC of the future a Linux box? I remember an O'Reilly book called "Mac for Unix Geeks." Is it time for a "Unix for Mac Geeks?" Where do you get training for this?

Please comment and add your own ideas./quote

I agree, I think we need to seriously start thinking about Linux for the MDC's And perhaps have a couple of MacMini's for the OD master and replica. So the easy part of the configuring users and such stays available to even non-tech users.... But I will get harder to configure the Linux box to "get" OD, and setting the ACL's gonna be a challenge....

Pricewise, it will be more, but this is to be expected..... But better a slightly more expansive MDC, than to kick the complete SAN out.... And replace it by HP SAN or such items....

akalup's picture

With Mac OS X Lion coming next year, this makes me wonder about future upgrades to the Xsan software. I wonder if Apple is going to officially turn it over to a third party like it did with the Xserve RAID. I agree that StorNext may be the future.
We are still on XSAN 1.4 with Xserve RAIDS and were finally planning a costly full upgrade for next year. Now, this makes everything very uncertain.

handygeek's picture

ogminlo wrote:
Unfortunately, the video codec world is a proprietary one, otherwise I'd turn to Linux like I can for StorNext MDCs. I may just need to focus entirely on storage in general and StorNext in particular. Even if that means frequently serving the media industry with storage, it isn't the shift to asset management I've found so satisfying with FCSvr the past two years./quote

To what codec are you referring? If it's ProRes, why does that make any difference where the SAN is concerned? Final Cut Server, no matter what codec your editors use, operates only on OSX or OSX Server - regardless of whether your storage is a SAN or Local-attached. This won't change if and when you change your MDCs to StorNext.

-oo-
HandyGeek
-oo-

handygeek's picture

lowbudgetfun wrote:

Apple is a company that will kill declining technology before the rest of the world is ready. If the future is "the cloud" then why develop and support the stopgap?/quote

I don't see how the cloud has any place in media management other than for deliverables, which is where most folks host media already - whether they know it or not.

-oo-
HandyGeek
-oo-

handygeek's picture

Has anyone tried SANmp? They have a free trial for an unlimited number of stations. Might give it a try in our sandbox here.

-oo-
HandyGeek
-oo-

proton's picture

handygeek wrote:
Has anyone tried SANmp? They have a free trial for an unlimited number of stations. Might give it a try in our sandbox here./quote

"•No server or metadata controller needed"

That's interesting.

handygeek's picture

BTW, thanks for starting this thread, Aaron. I'm still reeling a bit from last week and it caused a few interesting discussions here at work that I'm sure will turn into meetings soon.

-oo-
HandyGeek
-oo-

addihetja's picture

proton wrote:

"•No server or metadata controller needed"

That's interesting./quote

The benefits of "not needing" a dedicated MDC are obvious but I can't help asking what the drawbacks are to MetaSAN and SANmp's approach to doing things.

From what I can gather in the MetaSAN FAQ you will need a windows box to host a MetaSAN with NTFS but I'm not sure about the scalability in heterogenous environments.

Can anyone shed a light on this?

proton's picture

The question is where all FS meta information is stored then? Also which node control everything?

akalup's picture

I just looked over the SANmp Admin manual and it recommends a complete re-initialization of the SAN volume every 6 to 12 months as maintenance.
That is the equivalent of completely destroying the Xsan volume and restoring from backup!

proton's picture

That's not good enough at least for us.

addihetja's picture

6 to 12 months is like no time at all...

what about MetaSAN?

handygeek's picture

Depends on what that means. If by initializing, they mean formatting, it's a dealbreaker. If they use that term to mean something like rebuilding metadata or indexing, it might not be as bad as it sounds. Not all tech docs are written by tech folks. I'll have a look for myself shortly.

-oo-
HandyGeek
-oo-

akalup's picture

This is what they mean:

Quote:
SANmp Periodic Drive Maintenance Procedure for HFS+ (Mac OS X) formatted SAN volumes.
1. Shut down all other workstations.
2. Launch SANmp Client and mount one drive.
3. Back up and verify all data on the drive as the following steps will completely erase it.
4. Unmount the drive and quit SANmp Client.
5. Launch SANmp Admin.
6. Select the volume then choose Unconvert Disk from the Administrator menu. This will restore the disk to a standard OS volume and it will mount on the desktop.
7. Launch Apple Disk Utility.
8. In Disk Utility choose the volume from the list, then choose the Erase tab. Set Volume Format to Mac OS Extended (Non Journaled) and un-select Install OS 9 drivers if the checkbox appears. If you are using an Intel Mac you should also check the Options button to confirm that Apple Partition Map is selected. Click on the Erase button, then Confirm.
9. After successfully erasing the volume, launch SANmp Admin. Choose the volume, click on the Sharing tab, then click on the button to Convert the disk into a SANmp volume.
10. After successfully converting the volume select all members of the volume list, then select all members of the user list. You can then click the Copy User to Disk button.
11. Select the volume again and assign access permission for each user.
12. Test access to the volume using SANmp Client. Return to step 2 if you have additional SANmp volumes to maintain./quote

Sounds to me like a complete erase and restore! I would not like to go through this every six months with a big volume.

handygeek's picture

Yikes! That is not maintenance in our shop. That would be a dealbreaker.

-oo-
HandyGeek
-oo-

marook's picture

TuberMagPico wrote:
During IBC there was a hummingbird, at the time I thought Why?

Does anyone see a place for this new [url=http://www.promise.com/storage/raid_series.aspx?region=en-US&m=155&rsn1=... VT S3000/url product?/quote

I would like to see a product like that from Active Storage (Much better RAID).

Then we just need OD, DNS, Mobile User hosting and... clusternodes for rendering?

handygeek's picture

I'd rather look at the higher-level needs. For us, that's shared editing and post-production workflow automation.

-oo-
HandyGeek
-oo-

handygeek's picture

I decided to register for the SNS board to pose a question about SANmp regarding "regular maintenance". It just seemed like such an engineering, over-the-top thing to do.

http://www.snsforums.com/index.php?showtopic=408

-oo-
HandyGeek
-oo-

akalup's picture

I have invested a lot of time learning the Xsan and the command line administration. Our Xsan 1.4 runs very smoothly. I know that Quantum StorNext is essentially the same File System as the Xsan and has the same command-line tools plus more.

I am wondering if now I need to start thinking about learning Redhat Linux or SUSE Linux which seem to offer the most features with StorNext. We need to upgrade our Xsan so clients can run CS5 along with Final Cut and we can't do that on our old G5 machines.

I think the worst part of this announcement is to be left hanging, with no way to make a clear purchase recommendation for next year. I can only imagine what the Xsan-based Professional Video Solution providers are going through.

Of course, I can run everything on Mac Pros, but how do I mount those things on the racks? What if Apple does not update the Xsan to work with Mac OS X Lion? - it has been such a long time with no updates. Is there going to be a Mac OS X Lion server? - If not, I would rather change to StorNext now. This announcement sends a ripple wave of uncertainty that affects all Apple Pro Products. It seems the focus is moving more and more away from them.

nrausch's picture

As far as I know sanMP is volume level locking. Meaning only one client can have write access to a volume at a time. This is why you don't need a metadata controller. (Unless they've changed it in the last year or so...)

And my motto is....
It ain't shared storage if everybody can't share it.

File level locking and everyone having concurrent read/ write is the ONLY way to go. AVID Unity will do this. Editshare has a permissions based system which allows everyone RW access to a volume, but organizing media for a long term project can get ugly. Short term projects are never a problem.

ogminlo's picture

handygeek wrote:
Has anyone tried SANmp? They have a free trial for an unlimited number of stations. Might give it a try in our sandbox here./quote

We had mixed results. SANmp is volume-level locking, so it isn't nearly as flexible in an editing workflow as Xsan.

ogminlo's picture

handygeek wrote:
To what codec are you referring? If it's ProRes, why does that make any difference where the SAN is concerned? Final Cut Server, no matter what codec your editors use, operates only on OSX or OSX Server - regardless of whether your storage is a SAN or Local-attached. This won't change if and when you change your MDCs to StorNext./quote

I'm already steeped in StorNext and prefer it to Xsan MDCs for its broader capabilities like HSM. As far as I'm concerned, storage is incomplete without something like FCSvr on top of it, and there is no Linux alternative when the codecs aren't distributed beyond OS X and Windows. So if we're exploring where to go after Apple abandons their pro market, StorNext is the obvious replacement for Xsan. There is nothing else out there like FCSvr (off-the-shelf MAMS that can read NLE project files) on any platform.

BenB's picture

proton wrote:
If even FCP would had to go.../quote

FCP isn't going anywhere.

andy's picture

BenB wrote:
FCP isn't going anywhere./quote

Judging by the last major release, I'd agree.. ;)

handygeek's picture

Again, not sure which codecs you are referring to, but I know ProRes files are all compatible with Windows. Telestream makes a platform that might fit the bill for that kind of use. But again, you don't need OSX Server to run Final Cut Server - any workstation can run it. For that matter, any Xserve you already have should work too.

Moving forward, we might just buy one spare unit soon besides our secondary MDC.

Good to hear that StorNext is working so well - we will certainly prefer that if we can sell the added cost a year or so from now.

-oo-
HandyGeek
-oo-

handygeek's picture

At least a move to StorNext would have the added benefit of being cross-platform compatible, which is certainly a big plus. If we made a move to another NLE, it would likely be the Adobe route, which could go either platform. Avid just isn't in the cards, I'm afraid.

-oo-
HandyGeek
-oo-

BenB's picture

Here's a document Apple has posted about the switch from Xserve to Mac Pros and Mac Minis.

http://images.apple.com/xserve/pdf/L422277A_Xserve_Guide.pdf

mikeg23's picture

Hi

Apple is simply doing what any big hardware manufacturer would do, they aren't selling many xserves, they never have, Ive heard the numbers are around 10,000 a year. All they have done is kill a loss making product and replace it with something coming from a high volume production line. Not good for us but cost saving for Apple, they are a business after all.

Also its worth looking at the bigger picture, mac minis are now powerful enough for small to medium business, high end is all going to VM and cloud, one U servers don't really have much of a future.

Recently I have replaced a couple of web severs with Mac Mini's (with retrofitted SSD drives) and they have been great. It will be a pain fitting a couple of Mac Pros into our coms room, we will have to replace the copper with fibre patch and put them on the storage shelves but its not a disaster. Funnily enough recently I had to replace a dying PPC xserve system with a single Mac Pro MDC sat next to the rack with one of the clients as backup MDC, not pretty but it worked until we could sort out a better solution.

In terms of software Apple has always supported the server releases of OSX alongside client since the start and I don't see that changing, equally with Xsan we haven't had any big updates since version 2 but what else is left except the high end tools available to stornext MDC's but remember Xsan is a licensed version of stornext so the chances of that are slim at best. As to its future every time I install OSX Server it is ever more tightly integrated with xsan and even if xsan has 'peaked' there is no reason to kill it, Look what adobe have done with Director and Freehand, not dead just on life support. Software is easier to keep alive than hardware, it doesn't need any factories....

I may be wrong of course and Im a bit concerned about the dropping of JRE in 10.7 but then FCSvr has been so problematic we are on the verge of dropping it for good. Final Cut, we still love but the premiere render engine is so shockingly good and if Apple don't deliver the goods pretty soon, we will start the move away real quick. Im going to stick with xsan for now though because it is so fantastically robust, my day job is running a 78Tb san for 900+ logins with 2000 users linking 48 edit stations and 2 HD TV studios, its solid as a rock, no problems, ever.

Hey,, that was a long post, but keep positive, there is lots of life in xsan yet.

dickot's picture

marook wrote:
TuberMagPico wrote:
During IBC there was a hummingbird, at the time I thought Why?

Does anyone see a place for this new [url=http://www.promise.com/storage/raid_series.aspx?region=en-US&m=155&rsn1=... VT S3000/url product?/quote

I would like to see a product like that from Active Storage (Much better RAID).

Then we just need OD, DNS, Mobile User hosting and... clusternodes for rendering?/quote

Sorry, ActiveRAID is NOT "much better RAID".
Their offering is very similar to the Promise gear in almost every area, from cost, drive support, and performance - except that the current AS products can be compared to the last generation of Promise RAID developed almost 5 years ago.
Check out the new Promise E630 on their site - 6.4 GBps bandwidth. Serious grunt.

And the VTS3000 is a storage server appliance, allowing you to create thin-provisioned LUNs from a SAN and present them to hosts via 8Gb Fibre and iSCSI, and provides snapshots, and local and remote replication. A real Enterprise toy...

ogminlo's picture

handygeek wrote:
Again, not sure which codecs you are referring to, but I know ProRes files are all compatible with Windows. Telestream makes a platform that might fit the bill for that kind of use. But again, you don't need OSX Server to run Final Cut Server - any workstation can run it. For that matter, any Xserve you already have should work too./quote

Yeah, I know all that. My fear is that if the Xserve gets killed for low sales, FCSvr may also be on the short list for the glue factory. So if I'm trying to find a new path for my professional life that doesn't include the Apple Pro Video ecosystem, I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do next. I could just do mass storage with StorNext, but I find that somewhat disappointing since there is so much potential left in FCSvr and FCP to improve the production workflow. If Apple just abandons those products because they only sold tens of thousands of units and not tens of millions, my decade of experience supporting them essentially becomes worthless and I'm starting over. With what, Avid? Adobe? Who knows? This thread is supposed to explore that question.

abstractrude's picture

all that volume level stuff, san mp metasan and all those products dont scale well for 99% of workflows. just my 2 cents.
i think the stornext/active storage solution is great. that said its all in the numbers most places. I personally like a file system. i dont like tons of software wrapping around something that should be open and let you build around. that was always my problem with unity.

-Trevor Carlson
THUMBWAR

ogminlo's picture

I think the hand-wringing over Xsan is overblown. Sure, it was packaged nicely, but StorNext is right there on RedHat ready to fill the void. If Apple one day gives up on Xsan, Quantum can step in and sell a StorNext client for Mac. It will cost more, but not prohibitively more. Plus StorNext offers several features that Xsan never did, so I'd welcome that.

All your friends that there, cvfsck, cvadmin, fsnameservers, etc. If you ever dove into the command line on Xsan you already know StorNext.

There is no such cousin for Final Cut Server (which ironically used to live on Linux as artbox).

bforcier's picture

abstractrude wrote:
then again maybe not. avid unity supports final cut now. edit share will always be second rate ethernet crap./quote

Have you at least tried that product before saying so?

EditShare has long supported both FCS and Avid using the same storage. Try doing that with XSAN v2 (oh that's right, I forgot that you can do it now with Avid AMA but who cares if you MC v5 project built around AMA craps every other day or so? it works on XSAN!)

EditShare does true project sharing not take in-take out like Final Cut Server. If I want take in-take out, I'll order my sushi that way at my favorite restaurant.

Did you forget that besides the ISIS 5000, none of the Avid Shared Storage gives you RAID5 but instead RAID1 and only if you so desire?

Did you forget that assigning a media space on a ISIS 5000 for FCS use gives you at least a 40% penalty?

I can grow (double even tripple the size) an EditShare cluster in 2 hours max using ESA. Try doing that with Xsan or an Unity.

Maybe you should think before calling other manufacturers's products 'crap'.

ogminlo's picture

I've heard some very good things about EditShare. One of my former employees admins one and is very impressed. I have my reservations about any Ethernet-based system's ability to support lots of clients pulling high-bandwidth streams, but for small to medium sized shops the Ethernet-based solutions are quite viable (as long as your Mac supports jumbo frames, many of the new ones do not).

But let's not take it personally.

By the way, users only need to check out FCP projects from FCSvr if they want to "own" them for the sake of saving. Anyone can open a locked FCP project asset read-only on an edit-in-place device by dragging it onto FCP. Open someone else's' locked project and grab the elements from the bins to put into your project. It isn't like EditShare lets multiple editors simultaneously open and save back to the same project in FCP. Nothing does, FCP simply doesn't work that way.

Enjoy your sushi.

handygeek's picture

handygeek wrote:
I decided to register for the SNS board to pose a question about SANmp regarding "regular maintenance". It just seemed like such an engineering, over-the-top thing to do.

http://www.snsforums.com/index.php?showtopic=408/quote

FWIW, I received a response from a SANmp forum moderator there referring to the general rule of HFS+ volumes getting fragmented. Since we regularly upgrade storage, I'm not sure I can refute that stance. Will fragmentation ever be eradicated? I suppose when we all have solid state systems...

[url]http://www.snsforums.com/index.php?showtopic=408&pid=1349&st=0&#entry1349/url

-oo-
HandyGeek
-oo-

abstractrude's picture

Quote:
Have you at least tried that product before saying so?

EditShare has long supported both FCS and Avid using the same storage. Try doing that with XSAN v2 (oh that's right, I forgot that you can do it now with Avid AMA but who cares if you MC v5 project built around AMA craps every other day or so? it works on XSAN!)

EditShare does true project sharing not take in-take out like Final Cut Server. If I want take in-take out, I'll order my sushi that way at my favorite restaurant.

Did you forget that besides the ISIS 5000, none of the Avid Shared Storage gives you RAID5 but instead RAID1 and only if you so desire?

Did you forget that assigning a media space on a ISIS 5000 for FCS use gives you at least a 40% penalty?

I can grow (double even tripple the size) an EditShare cluster in 2 hours max using ESA. Try doing that with Xsan or an Unity.

Maybe you should think before calling other manufacturers's products 'crap'./quote

I have installed 2 edit share systems. Helped with a third. Great product other than ethernet and not a file system. I called ethernet crap not edit share. Seen too many workflow issues from ethernet like when an uncompressed or 2k project needs to be done. The project sharing stuff is cool but I haven't had that issue in most workflows. As for the unity, unity is reliable but expensive, too expensive in my opinion. The reason I always liked xsan because after all said and done it always the best bang for the buck. in my opinion. I run a few older unitys and they are def raid 1. In my opinion if your going to do a ethernet setup i would do isilon.

-Trevor Carlson
THUMBWAR

abstractrude's picture

Quote:
Have you at least tried that product before saying so?

EditShare has long supported both FCS and Avid using the same storage. Try doing that with XSAN v2 (oh that's right, I forgot that you can do it now with Avid AMA but who cares if you MC v5 project built around AMA craps every other day or so? it works on XSAN!)

EditShare does true project sharing not take in-take out like Final Cut Server. If I want take in-take out, I'll order my sushi that way at my favorite restaurant.

Did you forget that besides the ISIS 5000, none of the Avid Shared Storage gives you RAID5 but instead RAID1 and only if you so desire?

Did you forget that assigning a media space on a ISIS 5000 for FCS use gives you at least a 40% penalty?

I can grow (double even tripple the size) an EditShare cluster in 2 hours max using ESA. Try doing that with Xsan or an Unity.

Maybe you should think before calling other manufacturers's products 'crap'./quote

I have installed 2 edit share systems. Helped with a third. Great product other than ethernet and not a file system. I called ethernet crap not edit share. Seen too many workflow issues from ethernet like when an uncompressed or 2k project needs to be done. The project sharing stuff is cool but I haven't had that issue in most workflows. As for the unity, unity is reliable but expensive, too expensive in my opinion. The reason I always liked xsan because after all said and done it always the best bang for the buck. in my opinion. I run a few older unitys and they are def raid 1. In my opinion if your going to do a ethernet setup i would do isilon.

Quote:
All your friends that there, cvfsck, cvadmin, fsnameservers, etc. If you ever dove into the command line on Xsan you already know StorNext. /quote

How do we do ACL's with stornext?

-Trevor Carlson
THUMBWAR

nrausch's picture

On behalf of Editshare,
I have installed and integrated about 25 in FCP, AVID, and Mixed & dual boot environments. With and without ProTools audio workstations attached. Schools, Reality TV shows, Offline Film & Documentaries environments with lots of attached clients.
For low-res offline editing, or ProRes editing over Gigabit ethernet... they are awesome and can get way more streams than you would think. (If the best practices are followed.) System/ storage expansion is 50 times easier than XSAN or Unity.

For uncompressed workflows and higher res workflows... they do offer 10Gb cards and connection options. (Granted these are a bit pricey, but the option exists, and ideally one station is connected this way for conform/ outputs.)

It's a fantastic product that can support almost any workgroup or combination of NLEs, and does offer FinalCutProject sharing that does not exist ANYWHERE else.

Also, their MAM system (Flow, and Flow Browse) is pretty cool.

I prefer the open file system, robustness, and elegance of Fiber channel and XSAN most days. But for the dollar, and for most people's workflows. Editshare is what the kids call "The Bomb".

I understand that no one was insulting Editshare, just the Ethernet workflow. It does have it's limitations like anything else.

But for everyone who isn't familiar with Editshare, it's VERY worth looking at.

-This is not a commercial, I just really dig the product and the company.

handygeek's picture

What do you think is so cool about their MAM? Is it Final Cut Server replacement level?

-oo-
HandyGeek
-oo-

BenB's picture

mikeg23 wrote:
I may be wrong of course and Im a bit concerned about the dropping of JRE in 10.7 but then FCSvr has been so problematic we are on the verge of dropping it for good./quote

Really? I have several clients running FCSvr, and as a trainer I've put them all through the proper 2-day course. None are having problems. I'm curious what problems you're seeing, just out of curiosity. I hear of others having issues, and since I don't see them personally, I'm very interested in what they are, and being aware for the day I run into something.

nrausch's picture

It's a MAM and an ingest server device. I'm not sure how much "like" Final Cut Server it is... you'll have to check out the specs on their site to see if it does the things you like. It may have all the features some folks need though. I don't think it's really a replacement for FCSVR, but it has some great features.

http://www.editshare.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&It...

First of all, it does chunking.

So as it ingests, editors can start working with the media as it's being ingested.
(after the first minute or so.)

It can ingest to several flavors of codec at the same time, with metadata tagged by capture.( I.e. Ingest one tape as MXF and ProRes at the same time for AVID and FCP stations.) (As well as having a Proxy generated as one of the codecs.)

You can subclip, with out an NLE! Can't do that in FCSVR!

FYI they also have their own NLE (Lightworks) and Broadcast playout servers (Geevs), and lower cost Archive disk storage.

Start to finish workflow. Great products, great company, and they don't waste their time manufacturing iPads or selling mp3s.

handygeek's picture

It's starting to sound like it might do well here: In-house studio, talking head videos, using ProRes and DV50 material - mostly. How does their pricing work? Is it sold in module? And how, if at all, can we leverage our 4Gb Fibre-connected 60TB of space we currently use with XSAN?

-oo-
HandyGeek
-oo-

nrausch's picture

You should get in touch with Editshare or a local re-seller/ integrator.
If you're in NYC, I can consult.

ProRes and DV-50 are cake, and it sounds like this may be a good solution for you.

Their pricing is based on a dongle that licenses the amount of storage your chassis is authorized to use, then you can add another chassis later with another dongle when you need more storage. Expansion is WAY easier and safer than with Unity or Xsan. There are no per client lic fees (awesome), then there are dongle lic for the ingest server option, etc...

As far as leveraging your existing Xsan, your clients would need a dedicated Ethernet card for editshare. Then they could mount Editshare volumes and XSAN concurrently.

I have several deployments where the clients use XSAN and Editshare OR Editshare and Unity concurrently. XSAN is a bit tougher as it requires the two Ethernet ports, so you would have to add a gigabit ethernet card.

But, now you can use mac mini's and iMacs with FinalCut as edit stations!
And save the MacPros for ingest/ output.

Many facilities are setup with Just 3 or 4 MacPro's with ingest/ output capabilities, and an army of Mini's and iMacs for cutting. Great workflow!

You should really have an integrator come look at your setup and discuss your best options for the future.

Pages