PDA

View Full Version : HD Playback on Catalyst



SvenCRen
26-09-2007, 07:01 PM
I ran some HD content on a reletively new Catalyst server with v4 b119, 15,000RPM SCSI drive, X1600 Radeon card on newer MAC Pro and I was very disappointed with its performace. One layer would play back at 25fps somewhat smooth with occasional glitches but add a second and the performance plummetted.

Granded this was stock footage at 1920 x 1080 that I have not tried to recompress but I figured that one layer should be able to play back with no loss at all.

Is this just a matter of how I have to compress the content or is there a larger issue at hand?

Thanks
Scott Riley

ryanww
27-09-2007, 06:25 PM
Out of curiosity, were you only running that content out of the first display? like one output on one layer? Were you doing any scaling or any other effects other then just playing the file?

I have a show coming up where they are planning on doing this.. so I need to make sure that it can play this kind of file..
Thanks, Ryan

Spam Butterfly
27-09-2007, 08:48 PM
Photo-Jpeg @ 50% is usually pretty reliable for this sort of thing.

samsc
28-09-2007, 03:32 PM
I ran some HD content on a reletively new Catalyst server with v4 b119, 15,000RPM SCSI drive, X1600 Radeon card on newer MAC Pro and I was very disappointed with its performace. One layer would play back at 25fps somewhat smooth with occasional glitches but add a second and the performance plummetted.

Granded this was stock footage at 1920 x 1080 that I have not tried to recompress but I figured that one layer should be able to play back with no loss at all.

Is this just a matter of how I have to compress the content or is there a larger issue at hand?

Thanks
Scott Riley

scott what codec did you use?

did you use the stuff that came in the box?

if you did it is unlikely to work well.

typically the stock content people ship stuff which is does not play back well even for a single layer.

and with hi-def you have to be very very careful with data rates as well.

samsc
28-09-2007, 08:18 PM
I have a show coming up where they are planning on doing this.. so I need to make sure that it can play this kind of file..
Thanks, Ryan

which computer?

ryanww
28-09-2007, 10:31 PM
It will be running it on a mac book pro.. I have a 2ghz intel and 2 gigs ram.. Not sure what hard drive I am going to get yet though.

I downloaded one of the ones off of apples site in their gallery, and at first in the standard codec it would force close cat every time I scanned for the file. But I changed it to the photojpeg 50% and it ran fine. It ran at 25fps just off my laptop hd. It would just be a 5 minute HD clip, unknown resolution other then being told "it is in high definition". I am not planning on running any other effects other then positioning it on the screen properly.

My other question is when I play a movie, and have the volume all the way up, where does the audio go? Is there a place I set it to the destination? It is not coming out the speakers/headphone port and I can't find where to select that.

Ryan

samsc
28-09-2007, 10:43 PM
ock footage at 1920 x 1080 that I have not tried to recompress but I figured that one layer should be able to play back with no loss at all.


On my digital juice HD jumpback DVD - the movie format is PNG.

This is a still image format -

not a very useful format for playing back.

not sure why you just expect this stuff to work - it doesnt.

I do the best i possibly can with whats available.

You can even do uncompressed video if you can get 200MB/s second from a raid system - but you cant get 200MB/s from a single scsi disc.

samsc
28-09-2007, 10:49 PM
It will be running it on a mac book pro.. I have a 2ghz intel and 2 gigs ram.. Not sure what hard drive I am going to get yet though.

I downloaded one of the ones off of apples site in their gallery, and at first in the standard codec it would force close cat every time I scanned for the file. But I changed it to the photojpeg 50% and it ran fine. It ran at 25fps just off my laptop hd. It would just be a 5 minute HD clip, unknown resolution other then being told "it is in high definition". I am not planning on running any other effects other then positioning it on the screen properly.

My other question is when I play a movie, and have the volume all the way up, where does the audio go? Is there a place I set it to the destination? It is not coming out the speakers/headphone port and I can't find where to select that.

Ryan

apple internet codecs are designed for internet downloads and are for low bandwidth use. sure they play - but they arent designed for internet use.
Every codec has a specific use.
h264 h263 are for internet movies or conferencing.

After 4 years of continuous performance testing - photojpeg and dv codecs are still the best. 'Photo' does NOT mean its just for photos.
If something worked better i would say so.

---

Audio is routed via the sound preferences - out the default sound output.

samsc
29-09-2007, 09:02 AM
I ran some HD content on a reletively new Catalyst server with v4 b119, 15,000RPM SCSI drive, X1600 Radeon card on newer MAC Pro and I was very disappointed with its performace. One layer would play back at 25fps somewhat smooth with occasional glitches but add a second and the performance plummetted.
Thanks
Scott Riley

I ran some test with a HD jumpback file at random playing back from a MTRON SSD - Quad intel 2.66GHz

I rendered out photjpeg files at different compression rates.
then tried to playback 2 layers-

The Raw File played at 11fps

photojpeg 40% 55-60fps
photojpeg 50% 55-60fps
photojpeg 60% 55-60
photojpeg 70% 55-60fps
photojpeg 80% 35-40fps

The reason why you need to test different compression rates in photojpeg is that movies vary hugely in their compression value depending on the content.
And the overall data rate of the movie is more important than the compression value.
You want to make hidef work you have to do some tests.

No other codec comes close to photojpeg.

ryanww
29-09-2007, 09:58 AM
I tried going into the sound output, and only the internal speakers are selected as that is all my computer has.. I tried it again, and still no audio. I generated a little PDF report so you can take a look at it and see if anything in it might be able to determine the problem. I know my speakers aren't broken either.. The audio on the clip is AAC mono 16khz. Could it possibly be because I am running the demo version as I haven't purchased it yet?

Thanks,
Ryan

Spam Butterfly
29-09-2007, 02:17 PM
You need to set the layer you are using to Play Audio or Play Audio Loop in the play mode. You also ensure that the volume is up - this can also be controlled with DMX

ryanww
29-09-2007, 04:36 PM
Well.. that would explain it.. I haven't ever played audio through it.. so that would explain it..

Thanks

samsc
11-10-2007, 02:16 PM
I ran some test with a HD jumpback file at random playing back from a MTRON SSD - Quad intel 2.66GHz

I rendered out photjpeg files at different compression rates.
then tried to playback 2 layers-

The Raw File played at 11fps

photojpeg 40% 55-60fps
photojpeg 50% 55-60fps
photojpeg 60% 55-60
photojpeg 70% 55-60fps
photojpeg 80% 35-40fps

The reason why you need to test different compression rates in photojpeg is that movies vary hugely in their compression value depending on the content.
And the overall data rate of the movie is more important than the compression value.
You want to make hidef work you have to do some tests.

No other codec comes close to photojpeg.

since doing this - i discovered that the apple intermediate codec is even better almost 50% better. looks as good as photojpeg 75%
its better at all image sizes, and works very well on multi-processor machines.
please try this.

samsc
11-10-2007, 02:21 PM
apple intermediate codec in this thread-

http://chaldee1.gotadsl.co.uk/~richardb/upload/showthread.php?t=1267

SvenCRen
12-10-2007, 06:43 AM
since doing this - i discovered that the apple intermediate codec is even better almost 50% better. looks as good as photojpeg 75%
its better at all image sizes, and works very well on multi-processor machines.
please try this.

Thanks for all the info Richard. The original test with the 1080p clips were the DJ HD quicktime files without any additional compression and I did realize that I would need to recompress them at some point.

I have done some further testing and by reducing the resolution to 720p along with the PhotoJPG CODEC at 50% I was getting good performance with 2 layers playing back in sync without dropping frames. If I reduce the resolution even further, say to 640 vertical pixels, then I can get four layers playing back in sync simultaneously without any droped frames. I performed this test showing two halves on a blended 3:1 RP screen (15' x 45') and the quality between the 720 version and the 640 version was barely noticeable.

I will try the CODEC that you mention above and see how that works for me. Speaking of different CODECs, what do you know about H.264? It looks like a very promising new HD CODEC and I would like to try this with Catalyst as well. Been hearing a great buzz about this.

Check this out:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/h264/

Best regards,

Scott Riley

samsc
12-10-2007, 07:25 AM
I will try the CODEC that you mention above and see how that works for me. Speaking of different CODECs, what do you know about H.264? It looks like a very promising new HD CODEC and I would like to try this with Catalyst as well. Been hearing a great buzz about this.
Scott Riley

make sure you test the latest software build - m147 - there are some optimisations for higher definition codecs.

buzz yes - useful no.

h264 is not good.
try apple intermediate codec.
try different image sizes with this - and compare-

ignore the buzz - h264 is an internet codec- data rates are not contrained in a media server - what a media server needs is quick...

these are not the qualities one needs for a media server:

Ratified as part of the MPEG-4 standard (MPEG-4 Part 10), this ultra-efficient technology gives you excellent results across a broad range of bandwidths, from 3G for mobile devices to iChat AV for video conferencing to HD for broadcast and DVD.

all these advanced technologies mean its slow-


H.264 in QuickTime 7 for Tiger implements a set of advanced technologies and patent-pending techniques to create pristine video at low data rates. The H.264 encoder features:
Intelligent multi-pass encoding for the best possible results at the desired bit rate with the optimal number of compression passes.
Time-saving single-pass encoding for creating draft encodes, meeting impending deadlines and live encoding with QuickTime Broadcaster.
Peak-constrained VBR options for limited data-rate scenarios such as streaming and CD/DVD playback.
Advanced frame reordering (B-frame) support to more efficiently represent movie data.
4x4 integer transform for reducing traditional blocking and ringing artifacts, especially in areas of fine detail.
Improved intraframe prediction for more efficient compression of details and gradients in high-motion video.
Increased precision in motion estimation for crisp reconstruction of objects in motion.
Flexible block sizes in motion estimation for more efficient encoding of complicated motion in areas of fine detail.
Adaptively tuned in-loop deblocking filter for eliminating blocking artifacts, resulting in a smooth, clean image.

OlliR
12-10-2007, 02:45 PM
I am quite impressed:

3 layers running 1920x1080p 25 fps with Apple Intermediate Codec!

That´s a really good result. Though Harddrives seem to have hard work - judging by the sound of them.

System setup: MacPro 8xCore 3G 4GB Ram internal 3x500GB SATA Raid Level 0

samsc
12-10-2007, 03:30 PM
I am quite impressed:

3 layers running 1920x1080p 25 fps with Apple Intermediate Codec!

That´s a really good result. Though Harddrives seem to have hard work - judging by the sound of them.

System setup: MacPro 8xCore 3G 4GB Ram internal 3x500GB SATA Raid Level 0

try another 2 layers - you might be able to do it.

looking at your stats - you might get 5 layers.
will get a bit peaky and possibly drop a few frames.

OlliR
12-10-2007, 11:28 PM
I did try a fourth layer - but that ran at 12 fps and layer 3 dropped to 18 fps.

For the next test I wanted to use reproduceable content for the test - so everyone can try them themselves. I encoded the 1920x1080 test movie that came with the latest Catalyst version (4 Frames Black / Colour Bars / Picture 1 / Picture 2) to Apple Intermediate Codec. So I have a new picture every frame and not big areas of the same colour.

It ran poorly (Layer 1 at 25 fps and Layer 2 dropping from 25 fps to 24 alot).
Then I wanted to make a more realistic test and copied the 4 frames up to a movie length of 30 second or 180 MB. I usually don´t have 4 frame movies to play back - in reality it would be 30 sceonds to some minutes.

I managed to run three layers with these longer test movies at 25 fps. Layer 4 would run at 22 fps - with layer 4 running layer 3 drops to 24 fps.
This works best if each layer runs its own file and not all layer accessing the data.

That gave me the conclusion that the effect that I saw with the short files is the access time of the SATA Raid level 0. The slow access time compared to fast SCSI disks reduces performance with short files (jumping from end to start alot) - on the other hand the bandwith of the SATA Raid has advantages when playing back long files.

Would be nice if someone could check the performance of the AI codec on an 8xCore with a Fast SCSI disk.

Apple Intermediate Codec seems to be a good way to go - quality of picture seems to be better than Photo-JPEG 50%.

Here are the results of the same file encoded to Photo-JPEG 75% and 50%:

Photo-JPEG 75% Layer 1 and Layer 2 25 fps - Layer 3 18 fps

Photo-JPEG 50% Layer 1 and Layer 2 25 fps - LAyer 3 20 fps

I would have thought there would be a bigger difference in performance than two frames...

I will go for Apple Intermediate Codec for HD. now its time for bed.

Cheers, Olli

samsc
16-10-2007, 08:05 PM
Scott Riley


scott

did you do any tests with apple intermediate codec yet? and build m150?

thanks r

samsc
16-10-2007, 08:08 PM
I did try a fourth layer - but that ran at 12 fps and layer 3 dropped to 18 fps.
Cheers, Olli

you have the classic performance characteristic of slow sata discs.

they dont work well- doing 4 layers - is fine of almost anything.

more than that and they dont work so well

Please - suggest as a test - you UNRAID your discs, and just test with a single disc- and see what the difference is?

samsc
16-10-2007, 08:10 PM
I am quite impressed:

3 layers running 1920x1080p 25 fps with Apple Intermediate Codec!

That´s a really good result. Though Harddrives seem to have hard work - judging by the sound of them.

System setup: MacPro 8xCore 3G 4GB Ram internal 3x500GB SATA Raid Level 0

i think - from my testing - you are wasting the power of your computer with your sata RAID.
I can get 7 layers with my MTRON SSD. same computer.
you do have x1900?
You need x1900 at these resolutions 7300 has very poor performance at hi-def sizes

SvenCRen
17-10-2007, 06:23 AM
scott

did you do any tests with apple intermediate codec yet? and build m150?

thanks r

Hey Richard,

I have not had an opportunity to test that codec yet. I should have some time and access to servers next week.

I will let you know how it turns out, I am looking forward to the prospect of a better performing codec for HD.

Best regards,
-scott

samsc
17-10-2007, 08:05 AM
Hey Richard,

I have not had an opportunity to test that codec yet. I should have some time and access to servers next week.

I will let you know how it turns out, I am looking forward to the prospect of a better performing codec for HD.

Best regards,
-scott

the order of importance is

1. codec. if you get the wrong one it will never work.
2. hardware, cpu graphics card, disc.

apple intermediate codec works better on computers with at least 4 cores.

OlliR
18-10-2007, 09:54 AM
i think - from my testing - you are wasting the power of your computer with your sata RAID.
I can get 7 layers with my MTRON SSD. same computer.
you do have x1900?
You need x1900 at these resolutions 7300 has very poor performance at hi-def sizes

I have the X1900.

I did the test you suggested. Though not unraiding the disks but copying the test files folder to the system disk.

Same result 3 layers with 1920x1080 playback at 25fps.
Layer 4 plays back just below 25 fps.

So the RAID seems to be no advantage at all. I did not expect this. I believed the RAID should have a greater bandwidth and perform better with larger files.

For sure I will look into the MTRON SSDs. But 1500 Euros for 64 GB is quite a statement...

samsc
18-10-2007, 10:06 AM
So the RAID seems to be no advantage at all. I did not expect this. I believed the RAID should have a greater bandwidth and perform better with larger files.

For sure I will look into the MTRON SSDs. But 1500 Euros for 64 GB is quite a statement...

raids do not work - and are pointless unless you are trying to achieve high data rates - with only 2 or 3 layers for uncompressed playback -
other than that they are pointless. I keep trying to say this-

the problem is that SATA discs have very poor random access data rates - sure they can do 150MB/s or more in a RAID config- but that is for 1 file - read sequentially.
catalyst does not read 1 file sequentially. It reads 1 file for each and every layer. In a random and unpredictable manner.
And SATA raids can actually perform worse with catalyst than a single disc.
A hard disc is a rotating device that typically rotates at 7200rpm - one revolution in 8.3ms - only a single read head - if you miss the data you need on one rotation - you have to wait up to another 8.33ms before it comes round again. 8.33ms is forever in computers.

The MTRON discs are worth every single cent - you get up to 14 layers of playback - with no dropped frames - on any layers - because there is no rotational latency - access times are 0.1ms -
Being able to almost guarantee this performance across all files - at all times - in the type of shows we do - is a life saver.
Performance is critical in almost all the shows i do.
As it is in most video applications.

---

Did you find a source for the MTRON discs in the EU?
for 6 1080p layers rather than 3 1080p layers - double the performance - i dont think the cost is much.

samsc
18-10-2007, 10:07 AM
Same result 3 layers with 1920x1080 playback at 25fps.
Layer 4 plays back just below 25 fps.


and you cant get more than 3 layers off these discs- whatever you do- ( and its worse with ntsc which needs 30fps )
- unless you have a huge buffer- or complex caching strategy.
And amazingly enough - this hasnt changed much in the 5 years since v3 started.

You might like to try a single Raptor 150GB drive- and see what you get?
though they arent that much better.

you should also - in most applications - never use the system disc - because the system disc is used for the virtual memory cache.
and the os when it accesses this - will interfere with playback.

OlliR
18-10-2007, 10:58 AM
I just used the system disk for a worst case test.

I found these contacts for Mtron SSDs in Europe:

Belgium:
http://www.ssdisk.eu/

Germany:
http://www.winkom.eu/

On www.ssdisk.eu you can find prices of 950 Euros for 32 GB and 1510 Euros for 64 GB.

My decision is made. I will get one of those.

Gian
18-10-2007, 11:00 PM
I have a client what wants (because wants) to playback a HD movie uncompressed. You can make a test for me please, on a 2.66 MacPro Dual ( I belive you have one of those) and a MTRON disk, you can test a Uncompressed 1920 x 1080p. We use 30 fps, but if you tested on a 25 fps is fine too.

samsc
19-10-2007, 05:55 AM
I have a client what wants (because wants) to playback a HD movie uncompressed. You can make a test for me please, on a 2.66 MacPro Dual ( I belive you have one of those) and a MTRON disk, you can test a Uncompressed 1920 x 1080p. We use 30 fps, but if you tested on a 25 fps is fine too.

you have to take a different approach to uncompressed- MTRON not so important-

the data rates are very large-

you can also investigate whether apple's pro -res codec or DVCProHD is "Uncompressed" enough... for your client.
( I could get almost 50frames per second total - from Pro-res 1080p ( seems to be around 30MB/s ) and DVCProHD 1080p ( around 15MB/s ) using MTRON and quad 2.66Ghz Intel )

----

one second is 1920x1080x ( 2 or 3 - yuv or rgb - depends on codec ) x30 bytes = 186MB/s or 124MB/s
one second of standard definition 720x576 uncompressed is only 17MB/s - you can normally do 2-3 layers of this from a single 15k scsi disc if the wind blows in the right direction -

you need more than one disc- you might need up to 4 or 5 discs to do 186MB/s consistently-
This is the only time when a RAID solution is required.

First of all - you need to begin by making a little test using a RAM disk.
Check CPU and bus limits with RAM Disc-
i could only get esperance dv to create a 2GB ram disk-
So create one for yourself- create a Hidef- movie - a few seconds long - and see if it will play in catalyst from Ram disk.

Does it playback? from ram disk?
How many minutes does client need?

Then you need to start to do a lot of research on the RAID cards on the market-
SATA or fibre channel - internal SATA RAID on Mac - how many discs needed for length of content required?

SourceChild
15-11-2007, 10:33 AM
Have there been any results or comparisons between Mtron SSDs vs xServeRAID?

jjrecort
07-01-2008, 01:25 PM
Hi,

I have tested also with HDV, DCPROHD, H264 and ProRes codecs... and we only had good performance with one layer.

We tryed to sync two plays from the same clip (and two different clips) and both are on sync.. but on the Catalyst Display, Video one is at 25fps and video 2 is at 11 fps..

I know that Richard always recomends DV, but I prefer Photo-JPEG because you can control the compression and the quality is much better since it's a true progressive codec.. so everything but video looks crisper and with better color range.

Anyway in HD, you cannot use DV (unless you force settings out of standards), so I guess I will continue with Photo-JPEG.

"OPPSSS... I skyped by accident the posts about Apple Intermediate Codec, I will check it out!"

But a good option to optimize the performance will be to define two different Content Drives/Volumes as Catalyst Libraries.

In my case I have a SCSI volume and a Raid Volume of 3 Raptors.

It will be nice to be able to have some videos on the SCSI and the other layers on the RAID..

It's possible to define Catalyst Libraries at different volumes?

Thanks!

jjrecort
07-01-2008, 01:32 PM
the problem is that SATA discs have very poor random access data rates - sure they can do 150MB/s or more in a RAID config- but that is for 1 file - read sequentially.
catalyst does not read 1 file sequentially. It reads 1 file for each and every layer. In a random and unpredictable manner.
And SATA raids can actually perform worse with catalyst than a single


But What about WD RAPTORS..are SATA but with the same specs of the SCSI.. 10.000 rpm and

- Read Seek Time 4.6 ms
- Write Seek Time 5.2 ms (average)
- Track-To-Track Seek Time 0.4 ms (average)

The problem is when we have to move HD files.. we need both.. high output and high access speed!

jjrecort
07-01-2008, 01:38 PM
you can also investigate whether apple's pro -res codec or DVCProHD is "Uncompressed" enough... for your client.
( I could get almost 50frames per second total - from Pro-res 1080p ( seems to be around 30MB/s ) and DVCProHD 1080p ( around 15MB/s ) using MTRON and quad 2.66Ghz Intel )



If the Costumer is picky... he will notice the DVCPRO HD Compression... ProRes visually is like Uncompressed so it's a good choice.

but..

ProRes it takes a lot of computer resources to uncompress, specially over the Graphics board.. on the Decklinks are sigthly better.

So what you will gain on bandwith probably will affect the overall performance of the system.

ProRes is a resoure eater codec!

samsc
10-01-2008, 01:09 PM
Apple intermediate codec works best - far better than anything else.

You need to look at MTRON SSD for HD playback - works so much better than anything else

samsc
10-01-2008, 01:11 PM
If the Costumer is picky... he will notice the DVCPRO HD Compression... ProRes visually is like Uncompressed so it's a good choice.

but..

ProRes it takes a lot of computer resources to uncompress, specially over the Graphics board.. on the Decklinks are sigthly better.

So what you will gain on bandwith probably will affect the overall performance of the system.

ProRes is a resoure eater codec!

DVC PRO HD codec only installed with final cut pro-
And only gives 1 layer playback - its performance is very poor.

For ProRes also need final cut installed.

AIC works better than both. and looks just as good

samsc
10-01-2008, 01:11 PM
But What about WD RAPTORS..are SATA but with the same specs of the SCSI.. 10.000 rpm and

- Read Seek Time 4.6 ms
- Write Seek Time 5.2 ms (average)
- Track-To-Track Seek Time 0.4 ms (average)

The problem is when we have to move HD files.. we need both.. high output and high access speed!

raptors do not work as well as scsi.

Use MTRON SSD. works much better

samsc
10-01-2008, 01:14 PM
Hi,

I have tested also with HDV, DCPROHD, H264 and ProRes codecs... and we only had good performance with one layer.

We tryed to sync two plays from the same clip (and two different clips) and both are on sync.. but on the Catalyst Display, Video one is at 25fps and video 2 is at 11 fps..

I know that Richard always recomends DV, but I prefer Photo-JPEG because you can control the compression and the quality is much better since it's a true progressive codec.. so everything but video looks crisper and with better color range.

Anyway in HD, you cannot use DV (unless you force settings out of standards), so I guess I will continue with Photo-JPEG.

"OPPSSS... I skyped by accident the posts about Apple Intermediate Codec, I will check it out!"

But a good option to optimize the performance will be to define two different Content Drives/Volumes as Catalyst Libraries.

In my case I have a SCSI volume and a Raid Volume of 3 Raptors.

It will be nice to be able to have some videos on the SCSI and the other layers on the RAID..

It's possible to define Catalyst Libraries at different volumes?

Thanks!

No Richard recommends AIC ( apple intermediate codec )

HDV, DCPROHD, H264 and ProRes All have poor performance - related to CPU - NOT disc.

Also recommend MTRON SSD - as they work much better than discs.

samsc
10-01-2008, 01:15 PM
Have there been any results or comparisons between Mtron SSDs vs xServeRAID?

MTRON works much better than xServeRAID.
and doesnt weigh 45kg.

SourceChild
10-01-2008, 04:02 PM
MTRON works much better than xServeRAID.
and doesnt weigh 45kg.

I agree with you. I have yet to buy an xServeRAID. I do however have several machines with 32Gb and 64Gb Mtrons in them and they work fine. I do have a few seek issues with the Mtron and Catalyst. I end up crashing Catalyst. When I can duplicate the issue I will report it.

Now that I have SSDs, many of the multi-projector edge blending projects I am doing are getting HD content. I have started taking all of my stock HD content (Motion Loops, Artbeats, Digital Juice) and converting it to Apple Intermediate Codec @ 1920x1080 and 1280x720.

The problem is, a dozen or so stock content libraries eats through a 64Gb disk fast. At least with an xServe Raid I would have more storage space for some of these permanent installs I'm working on.

samsc
10-01-2008, 10:32 PM
The problem is, a dozen or so stock content libraries eats through a 64Gb disk fast. At least with an xServe Raid I would have more storage space for some of these permanent installs I'm working on.

put a bigger sata drive internally to store the libraries - copy to mtron for playback when required?