Faster network solution

[davegraham]

Hi,

In my studio we run a RAID5 NAS all hooked up with 1Gb ethernet. Now while there arent that many of us, bandwidth isnt a problem until it comes to comping. Then it kills AE's performace cos it has to pull through up to 20 files per frame and render them. scrubbing is non existant.

The RAID5 can deal out the info, the workstation can deal with it (just) but the network connection just doesnt allow enough bandwidth through, can anyone suggest a solution? dual 1Gb ethernet with load balancing? When the files come in from the network, does the local drive get involved in anyway (besides application caching)?

Cheers,

TBK


There's a reason why NAS doesn't do well for applications beyond file serving and storage. It simply DOESN'T have the bandwidth to push back and forth.

unless your NAS box supports it, load balancing is a moot point. You need some intelligence on the NAS box to make those determinations.

couple of questions:
a.) who makes your NAS unit?
b.) is this an iSCSI NAS device or does it use FCIP, etc.?
c.) what kind of drives and how many are in your NAS box? is there any room for expansion?
d.) what applications are writing to/from the box and what filesystem is being used? CIFS? NFS?
e.) how many users are hitting the box at the same time?
f.) why did you choose NAS for shareable storage?


your local drive is doing nothing other than queuing and sending. that's it.

cheers,

Dave

[BOXXlabs]

Hi TBK,

The way I see it, you have two options.


1. Pull the files you need for each comp. over the network to a small/inexpensive locally-attached RAID volume so that you can work with your project interactively.

Pros - relatively cheap, few implemenation hassles.
Cons - inefficient & time consuming (constantly move media over the network between workstations and NAS)


2. Invest in a swithed fibrechannel or infiniband SAN solution so that you can work with your project interactively.

Pros - realtime access to remote, shared media. Automated file access/version control
Cons - a bit pricey, can be a little complex to set up

Either way, the Ethernet connetion between you and your files is what's killing your productivity. The NAS is a good backup and "nearline" storage soloution, but definitely not advised for "online" work.


**EDIT**

Oh, I forgot about iSCSI - As Dave mentioned iSCSI might be an alternative if your NAS supports it. iSCSI is a network protocol can has a guaranteed QOS (quality of service).

This means that, unlike Ethernet, iSCSI connections can maintain a certain minimum throughput over the network from one device to another...

You might look into this, but a low-end Fibrechannel solution would be faster and prob. not much more expensive...


Adam
BOXXlabs

[davegraham]

god bless iSCSI. it definitely has its fitment within networks but i'd HIGHLY recommend that you use a hardware TOE (TCP/IP Offload Engine) if you're going to do it. That will provide several things:
a.) accelerated packet sends/receives due to dedicated decode engine
b.) limit the impact of software iSCSI initiation on CPU cycles (important for rendering).

however, TOE cards are more $$$ and increase the overall cost of a GOOD iSCSI NAS to the level of entry level 2GB fibre.

cheers,

dave

[theboykidney]

couple of questions:
a.) who makes your NAS unit?
b.) is this an iSCSI NAS device or does it use FCIP, etc.?
c.) what kind of drives and how many are in your NAS box? is there any room for expansion?
d.) what applications are writing to/from the box and what filesystem is being used? CIFS? NFS?
e.) how many users are hitting the box at the same time?
f.) why did you choose NAS for shareable storage?


a) Its a Dell Powervault running Windows Server 2003
b) unsure what this is
c) x4 SCSI 750GB drives
d) Mainly XSI files and After Effects, renders to it and pulled form it for comping. NTFS file system
e) usually only 1 at a time, there are sporadic bursts that would barely register, but only 1 as a heavy user at a time
f) just the way it happened, initially we started off with 1 networked drive, as we grew, got our hands on a cheap NAS and went from there. its only recently as the jobs get more demanding that we begin to notice the shortfalls.

Cheers for the input guys - adam, it was a Boxx white paper that got me thinking about all this!

[BOXXlabs]

Well, it can't be 750GB SCSI drives...nobody makes those.

If it's 750GB drives then it HAS to be SATA - in which case, iSCSI is probably out of the question.

[theboykidney]

sorry - yup, SATA

[davegraham]

a) Its a Dell Powervault running Windows Server 2003
b) unsure what this is
c) x4 SCSI 750GB drives
d) Mainly XSI files and After Effects, renders to it and pulled form it for comping. NTFS file system
e) usually only 1 at a time, there are sporadic bursts that would barely register, but only 1 as a heavy user at a time
f) just the way it happened, initially we started off with 1 networked drive, as we grew, got our hands on a cheap NAS and went from there. its only recently as the jobs get more demanding that we begin to notice the shortfalls.

Cheers for the input guys - adam, it was a Boxx white paper that got me thinking about all this!

SATA basically is useless for heavy file serving activities. It's great for nearline storage and longer-term backup to disk type stuff, but if you're going to be serving files (as you are in this case), you really should look at something SAS or Fibre based. (SAS, fwiw, is actually not all that cheaper than fibre....)

if possible, I can work with you offline to collect some performance data, do an analysis and provide some recommendations for you. PM me if you wish.

cheers,

Dave

[PanzerMKZ]

what a bout a file server that has room for many 3.5 inch scsi drives? and then a dual port intel 1000 mt server card? load balance to a good switch. sas is costly and you can still get bigger drives in the old style drives



Panzer

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.