Synology right for me? Video Production

[note235]

I do video production and work with raw footage.
A shoot can easily be 1-2TB.

I plan on having raid 0 with 2 or 4 drives on my desktop. But I need something for archiving purposes. Would getting something like the synology 1515+ be the best option? I don't want to build a new machine for this.


my current build is
i7 3930k
64gb
256gb Samsung 830
128gb Crucial M4 as cache
2x 3TB WD Black (not in raid 0 yet)
1x 2tb WD Green
4x external 4TB (2x seagate and 2 toshibas)

I plan on doing this:
i7 3930k
64gb
1x 512gb Samsung 850 EVO
2x 3TB WD Blacks in Raid 0
2x 3TB whatever brand for mirroring that

2x 4TB as backups of really important stuff. They'd be kept else. I'd periodically update them.

Synology 1515+
5x 5TB WD reds for archiving compressed files

Then I'm left with 1x WD Green and 2x 4TB Drives.

 

[rchunter]

I have no idea what would be best for you but I have a 1513+ that I run in SHR mode (basicly expandable raid 5). I've been happy with it. I mainly use it for storing flac files and my photo collection (large TIFF files). The 1515+ has an upgraded quad core chip in it instead of a dual core. I imagine it would probably work for what you want. It's a pretty high-end nas box.

 

[SeanFL]

We do quite a bit of audio production and dabble in video. Have a Synology unit that we use to share media between a few producers and it works quite well. It's about as fast as a spinning hard drive in your machine in my experience.

That said, we end up archiving to hard drives that we drop into a dock, like this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...kCode=as2&tag=scvo-20&linkId=KIWEAUMTIZNS42JA

For redundancy, we archive to two drives. If all goes well, we have two identical hard drives that are unplugged and sit in a cabinet until we need to archive again. Decided to go that route after talking with someone who had all of their connected media encrypted by cryptowall. There's also the chance of lightning or a power surge taking out what we have spinning, so having something disconnected (cold storage) seemed like a good idea. Then when we fill those 4tb drives, we just order more and continue.

The synology is really useful for stuff you want online all the time. Shared footage, graphics, etc. For huge video files you want to archive, think you would find the drives in docks system less expensive in the short and long run.

Sean
voiceover talent
http://www.seancaldwell.com

 

[dave_the_nerd]

If you're using it for archiving and not workspace, yeah, a Synology with as many terabyte of disk as you can afford is a solid choice. A bit more expensive than some other diskless NAS solutions, but not incredibly so - and they're solid products.

Rather than a mix of disks like you're describing (5 disks in a raid 5, 2 disks in a raid, and a singleton) I'd probably get 8 of the same and use double-parity RAID. Assuming cost isn't the limiting factor here.

 

[Viper GTS]

Do you really need online archive? And you're going to keep all of this forever? If you are doing 1-2TB per project an 8 drive synology is not going to last you very long. Probably fine as nearline storage but for true archive of video tape is probably the more appropriate medium.

Viper GTS

 

[note235]

I have no idea what would be best for you but I have a 1513+ that I run in SHR mode (basicly expandable raid 5). I've been happy with it. I mainly use it for storing flac files and my photo collection (large TIFF files). The 1515+ has an upgraded quad core chip in it instead of a dual core. I imagine it would probably work for what you want. It's a pretty high-end nas box.

Perfect!

We do quite a bit of audio production and dabble in video. Have a Synology unit that we use to share media between a few producers and it works quite well. It's about as fast as a spinning hard drive in your machine in my experience.

That said, we end up archiving to hard drives that we drop into a dock, like this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...kCode=as2&tag=scvo-20&linkId=KIWEAUMTIZNS42JA

For redundancy, we archive to two drives. If all goes well, we have two identical hard drives that are unplugged and sit in a cabinet until we need to archive again. Decided to go that route after talking with someone who had all of their connected media encrypted by cryptowall. There's also the chance of lightning or a power surge taking out what we have spinning, so having something disconnected (cold storage) seemed like a good idea. Then when we fill those 4tb drives, we just order more and continue.

The synology is really useful for stuff you want online all the time. Shared footage, graphics, etc. For huge video files you want to archive, think you would find the drives in docks system less expensive in the short and long run.

Sean
voiceover talent
http://www.seancaldwell.com

Thanks Sean.

If you're using it for archiving and not workspace, yeah, a Synology with as many terabyte of disk as you can afford is a solid choice. A bit more expensive than some other diskless NAS solutions, but not incredibly so - and they're solid products.

Rather than a mix of disks like you're describing (5 disks in a raid 5, 2 disks in a raid, and a singleton) I'd probably get 8 of the same and use double-parity RAID. Assuming cost isn't the limiting factor here.

Cost is a factor but essentially There's the archive raid and then there's the desktop raid. I'd like them to be separate.

 

[note235]

Do you really need online archive? And you're going to keep all of this forever? If you are doing 1-2TB per project an 8 drive synology is not going to last you very long. Probably fine as nearline storage but for true archive of video tape is probably the more appropriate medium.

Viper GTS

It'll be a majority of personal projects and compressed files. I'll be deleting the raw ones right after (unless the client pays me for archiving).

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Cost is a factor but essentially There's the archive raid and then there's the desktop raid. I'd like them to be separate.

The desktop RAID should be installed in the desktop, not the NAS.

(It'll be way faster locally.)

If you can't afford to populate all the slots in the Synology, leave 'em empty for later expansion.

 

[note235]

The desktop RAID should be installed in the desktop, not the NAS.

(It'll be way faster locally.)

If you can't afford to populate all the slots in the Synology, leave 'em empty for later expansion.

No that's what I was saying. The desktop raid would be in the desktop. And another raid for the NAS. 2 different RAID setups
And I might go emptying the synology for later expansion. Thanks!

 

[Data-Medics]

Synology is always a great choice among NAS boxes. If you're only looking for archive storage, then the CPU won't even be a factor you need to consider. The NIC speed will have a much larger bearing on it's performance. In our office we use a DS1813+ loaded up with 2Tb drives to store client data temporarily and it works great. Having 4 Gigabit NIC's is a nice perk so it doesn't slow down when moving around huge amounts of data from multiple workstations. Though in your case you'll likely be capped by the NIC in your computer anyway.