Video editing directly from FreeNAS - hardware options

[mattpitts74]

Hi There, I've been running freeNAS for several months now without any problems.

So I'm now wondering how I can improve the performance of the NAS in terms of accessing data?

I am currently using mirrored drives and 1GB network. I would ideally like to have the fastest possible access to data from my NAS connected to my workstation PC.

I was wondering about running a couple of SSD's in Raid0 or wondering what are the cheapest options for 10GB ethernet?

Do I need a 10GB switch if I'm only connecting to a single other PC? or can I directly connect the workstation and NAS via 10G cards?

I have read through the 10GB network primer and there doesn't seem to be any mention of directly connecting and all the other 10GB options seem very expensive.

I'm hoping to directly edit HD video from the freeNAS box, but suspect this may not be viable without 10GB connection. Any advice would be very much appreciated.

 

[DataKeeper]

You can direct link a card in each system without a switch yes. Costs.. yes 10GbE is still expensive. There are options from Chelsio and Intel who most use with transceiver modules and fiber running about 200.00 per card. I plan on using the Intel X540T1 or T2 cards with Cat6a copper and eventually adding a 10-port 10GBase-T switch. While the T1 version is an extra 100 bucks I'm looking at future use with the switch and longer distances between the servers in the basement and my office upstairs on the other side of the house.

Also, what type of share are you using to access the data? IIRC an ISCSI share will provide you better performance over an NFS or CIFS. I'm sure someone will correct me here if I'm wrong.

 

[mattpitts74]

@DataKeeper thanks for your reply, so I need is two 10GB cards and some cat6a cable? I'm currently using a CIFS share. so I guess I can speed things up there. Is there any advantage of adding SSD's into the freeNAS box, I'm sure I read somewhere they can bet setup as a scatch disk and help speed up data access??

 

[SweetAndLow]

Please post your current system specs

 

[mattpitts74]

Hi current system is at the bottom of my signature, do you need more spec than that??

 

[jgreco]

Hi current system is at the bottom of my signature, do you need more spec than that??

There is no guarantee that other users will see that. Particularly users on mobile devices, where the signatures are omitted.

I've updated the 10G networking primer to more explicitly say that point to point topologies are possible. It certainly implied it, but kind of in one of those circular manners.

 

[mattpitts74]

thank @jgreco my current spec is as follows FreeNAS-9.3-STABLE, Supermicro X10SLL-F with Intel Pentium Dual Core G3220 and 2*8GB Crucial ECC 1.35V DDR3 1600MHz, Seasonic G-450, Fractial Design R4, 2 x WD RED 4TB

 

[DataKeeper]

What size/type of video files also? Share and networking performance will differ between 50Mb, 500Mb and 5Gb+ files.

 

[mattpitts74]

Files are mov, average between 500MB - 2GB

 

[SweetAndLow]

I think 10Gb networking and more memory would be the best way to go. Improving random io will probably net the largest gain. I wouldn't go with iscsi because it adds complexity and I just don't like it.

 

[jgreco]

Improving random io will probably net the largest gain.

For large files? Why?

 

[SweetAndLow]

I'm not actually sure how to test this and get more information one way or the other. But 500MB-2GB fine sizes might not be big enough to be called a streaming workflow. For an active read write workflow I think low latency and higher iops would improve overall experience. Thoughts?

 

[jgreco]

Naw. A single guy editing 500MB-2GB files, that's like the textbook definition of a sequential I/O workload.

So, first: yes, absolutely, mirrored vdevs are faster than RAIDZ. And in the OP's case, with only two drives, also the only real choice.

But! Let's picture a larger environment with six drives. Could be arranged as three vdevs of two mirrored drives each, very fast. That speed won't make as much of a difference in a sequential I/O environment. Further, other things come into play, like free space. Six 4TB drives would yield 12TB as mirrors. In RAIDZ2, 16TB.

The additional free space might well be the better choice (as long as it wasn't filled) because ZFS is much better at allocating space when it has more free space to work with, which translates to increased speed. Over time you get fragmentation, so a year down the road after a lot of traffic has moved through the pool and it has been at ~~10TB capacity, I would expect the 16TB RAIDZ2 pool would be performing better than the 12TB mirror pool.

But that's all workload dependent of course. The win there isn't that RAIDZ2 is faster - it isn't - but that the pool is bigger and the bigger pool is faster.