|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: GDC SX2001 RAID HDD - Compatible drives?
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 03-02-2018 02:12 AM
quote: Carsten Kurz
You mean a Christie IMB-S2/S3, as that is more or less the only IMS that currently supports/requires regular playout from NAS. Don't think that makes sense, as a suitable dedicated NAS for an S2/S3 is not an expensive device. Maybe it saves some administration time, but, given the risk...
Yes, those are currently the only ones that support something like "storage over IP". Right now, it doesn't make sense, since you're not really saving anything in terms of administration overhead, because you can't really mount a central pool as every IMS will be keeping their own library of ingested content.
The idea obviously is to create a playout system where everything is as centralized as possible, reducing the amount of "unnecessary" overhead. Content will be ingested centrally or simply be uploaded to the central NAS and the screens themselves operate essentially without storage.
For a big business, it then becomes a "simple" risk analysis. How big is the chance the whole stuff comes tumbling down and the potential damages of this v.s. the potential reductions in CAPEX and OPEX.
quote: Leslie Hartmier
However, I use WD Gold (Datacenter) drives, as the HGSTs are hard to source in Canada except via online (and honestly, the price for datacenter drives for me are about the same as the NAS/RAID drives anyway, with a better MTBF, MTTF and URE rate).
If you read the independent hardware reports you will see that those better MTRBF/MTTF/URE rates for "gold", "enterprise" drives are just marketing.
quote: Leslie Hartmier
1) totally different brands from each other are used to create it so that the lifespan will more likely vary instead of all drives failing at about the same time,
2) each drive will be put in the RAID at significantly different times so that if one drive fails, there is a lower chance of more than one failing at the same time, or
3) all drives are simply replaced simultaneously at regular intervals approximating the lifespan of the drives based on expected number of writes.
Having had the experience of planning SSDs for high workload "datacenter operations", I can tell you that option 1 and 2 are mostly no option at all.
Most enterprises buy their storage from some integrated storage vendor. Dell, HPE, NetApp, EMC, you name it. They only provide support on their solution with their "own" restickered, tested and approved drives. Mostly, you end up with drives from the same vendors.
I don't know how option 2 would even work, both practically and technically. Usually, there is a need for a certain amount of storage and you need to fill that amount including some reasonable overhead for growth almost immediately. So, you design a storage system that fits the purpose of the customer. Meaning, you buy a bunch of disks, right at that moment. Those disks will all have the same age.
Now, most advanced storage systems allow you to expand an existing RAID array. So, you could buy new disks later on and add them to the array. But since this new disk(s) represent a topology change, this mostly comes at a high cost: The entire RAID needs to be rebuilt and rewritten. While this usually can happen on-line, it incurs a lot of performance penalties for the pool and also eats a lot of write cycles.
So, the only sensible thing to do is option 3. When you're running on SSDs, you need to actively monitor the amount of writes to your SSDs and start replacing them very early on, so you don't run into the trap of running out of write-cycles.
The good thing is that many modern storage solutions are now able to actively monitor this and with some good planning, you can avoid disaster from striking on such an array.
quote: Leslie Hartmier
Avoiding RAID rebuilding is best as rebuilding is a lot of writes, which reduces lifespan of SSDs.
So, how do you avoid RAID rebuilding? This is not something you can plan for... Drives will fail and even if you replace them before they fail, you will still need to rebuild the RAID.
Also, rebuilding am SSD RAID from a single failed disk doesn't incur a high cost to the remaining drives, since they don't need to do a lot of writing, they only need to read the data.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic