DSM 7.1 Avid Media Composer and Synology

[Reelback96]

Hi there!

I run the NAS for my production company. I'm currently experimenting with different mounting protocols and am unsure what the best option is.

Tech Info:

• 99% Mac OS (two Windows machines - one for AI work and one to run our MediaShuttle server)
• RS3621RPxs and two extensions (RX1217rp)
• ~600TBs of space
• 30 simultaneous users
• 10Gb to all edit stations
• 85% Avid MediaComposer, 15% Premiere
• Primarily offline work with proxies (>5MB per stream)
• Bin locking through Mimiq

We currently use AFP to access our shares, however, we get mixed results. I would say 85% of the time everything works fine, however, we periodically get users who experiences bizarre issues with playback and stalling. Sometimes a restart helps, sometimes it doesn't. When I initially set up the NAS I used SMBv3, but this resulted in random disconnects for users about 50% of the time, with shares periodically un-mounting themselves with no real rhyme or reason. It also had generally slower loading times on projects. Mimiq documentation indicates that NFS is recommended for Avid, however, I have neither the time nor the knowledge to implement Kerberos for security.

This leads me to my most suspected culprit of all our issues (perhaps with SMB as well) - we use the built-in Synology permissions to divide users into groups and limit access to our file shares. I was told by a networking friend who helped me design the system that this can create issues where there's a mismatch between Mac permissions and Synology. My only evidence that this is the case is that sometimes re-applying my permissions or folder ownership settings helps clear up playback issues with Media Composer. Occasionally users will be unable to read to or write from a particular share as well, and this seems to fix that issue. It's not a huge deal, but it is annoying and I worry that the issue might compound unexpectedly and come to a head one day.

All this to say - does anyone know what the best practices are for Media Composer and Synology?

Thanks!

 

[Telos]

https://www.reddit.com/r/synology/comments/1bje2eb/avid_media_composer_and_synology/
posted to present all conversational points

 

[Jan Janowski]

Been years since I supported that platform, but most 3rd party drive systems we tried (That were also $$) simply could not stack up against the $$$ Avid Storage (Near Term/Far Term) storage solution. Avids storage solution was only one that tracked successfully across 6 rooms & 1 capture station, when all were working. YES - Was $$$ — but it worked, and had room for expansion.
Fortunately one system that didn’t work successfully in Avid was adopted by Graphics dept, where consistant high bandwidth demands on the storage system was far less, so it found a life there, where bandwidth needs were less.

I did discover an inexpensive Primere solution for Premiere rooms: A raid0 drive for local-fast-temporairy storage. Relatively inexpensive, for each room. But jobs could not switch rooms easily. Camera Media saved until project finished, then edit archived and both Raid & cam media erased for re-use.

I must say I chuckled on your post of 30 simultaneous users. If you have 26 Avid Media Seats, and 4 Premiere, you don’t want —No! You can’t afford! an almost functioning 3rd party solution, and it won’t be off the shelf, or inexpensive! Your bandwidth needs for 30 users won’t be met easily. You will be chasing dropped frame reports on an inexpensive system. (Which is EXACTLY what you have posted!!!)
Edit: 30 simultaneous users? I assume you have 4-6 capture/injest stations? Still more bandwidth needs!

Downshift to maximum of 6-8 users and see if that helps... I bet it does! Limit the bandwidth until you know with certainty what you can use your existing storage system for! Then determine what to do next... It might be a painful decision!

 

[Jan Janowski]

I have encountered this sort of thing often in my Video Editing on computer attempts.... I started doing this sort of thing way back in W95R2.... I have encountered Disk, Controller, Display as well as CPU/Ram/Motherboard or capture card interface data transfer Issues between the devices..... Where, the result was: Replace the Weakest device..... Even though it is perfectly operational! Replacing a slower Disk with Faster one then points out the next weakest item, and that, then becomes the weakest link..... DO NOT TRUST Bandwidth testers.... Or, Pro-Rate them with a multiplier... Say, Your drive tests at 80Mb/sec.... That is an INTERMITTENT DUTY test.... Video Is CONTINUOUS DUTY.... If your codec target bandwidth is 80Mb/sec, to cover all bases with multiple layer's of edit, you need 2.4 Times that amount using a intermittent duty bandwidth test on a Disk to be used for Video Editing.... In other words: For 80Mb/sec you need a disk with 192Mb/sec of intermittent duty bandwidth test..... Even if your target rate is 80Mb/sec.. Running this in reverse.... If your drive tests at 80Mb/sec ---- Using this disk at anything above 33.33Mb/sec will cause random dropped frames, because the drive (at times) simply cannot keep up with continuous duty when it's transferring data at intermittent duty rates!
Network connections just add another layer of Intermittent duty data transfer.... for a Continuous duty use. Why I went with Local Raid0 drive, as they were faster, and less $$ (Though potentially more problematical: raid0) .... As Video formats increase in Resolution, data rates increase, no matter which codec you use....

This is also why I suggested testing your existing system at 1/3 the 'user load'.... (1/2.4=.41 is close to 1/3=.33 -- to cover the 2.4 Multiplier)