With the Hungarian Grand Prix recently completed, we’re now three-quarters of the way through the 2019 F1 season. For those that have been watching, myself included, the current season has been a real treat. Germany brought us one of the most chaotic races I’ve ever seen; not least of which was a full 360-degree spin […]
Video editing has always placed higher demands on storage than any other file-based applications, and with today’s higher resolution formats, streaming video content demands even more performance from storage systems, with 4K raw requiring 1210 MB/sec per stream—7.3 times more throughput than raw HD. In the early days of non-linear editing, this level of performance could only be achieved with direct attached storage (DAS). As technology progressed, we were able to add shared collaboration even with many HD streams. Unfortunately, with the extreme demands of 4K and beyond, many workflows are resorting to DAS again, despite its drawbacks. With DAS, sharing large media files between editors and moving the content through the workflow means copying the files across the network or on reusable media such as individual USB and Thunderbolt-attached hard drives. That’s not only expensive because it duplicates the storage capacity required; it also diminishes user productivity and can break version control protocols. In this blog, we'll look the key differences between major storage technologies and well as general usage recommendations.
As my colleague Terry Grulke pointed out earlier, there is lot of funny math used by deduplication vendors to try to convince you that their system can go fast. With our DXi systems we don’t have to hire Cirque de Soleil to generate our performance numbers. We can keep it simple because DXi systems are just really, really fast – natively. That’s what I’m going to talk here about here – “Native” performance. That is, the capability of the DXi system itself vs. some manufactured “logical” number like the ones Terry wrote about. Apparently, our high performance is confusing to some of our competitors.