• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

NAS vs SAN for picture and video

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    NAS vs SAN for picture and video

    I am torn between getting a NAS and a SAN. I started photography about 2 years ago and shoot raw files which are large. I have a server with 4 x 1 TB disks but they are paired thus only have a total of 2 TB which is now full.

    I have been looking into SANs as I think I need the extra throughout due to the picture editing. I have started looking at NAS as well and like some of the Synology 4 disk NAS products but not sure if I will run into issues with editing photos.

    My long term goal is to get into video/video processing - none of this is commercial - just something I enjoy when I have the time.

    Is there anyone using a NAS for storing photos/video and editing? If so what are you using?

    #2
    The good stuff is Drobo

    But frankly I would also look at the costs of buying storage from Microsoft or Amazon and the others first as the cost of doing home storage properly would pay for many months in amazons archives

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by bobspud View Post
      The good stuff is Drobo

      But frankly I would also look at the costs of buying storage from Microsoft or Amazon and the others first as the cost of doing home storage properly would pay for many months in amazons archives
      Agree with Bob here.. With offsite storage at least you know your data is being Backed up/Archived. With a local NAS or SAN you would also need to factor in backing that data up to yet another separate storage device/media with the capacity to hold the original data (compressed or not).

      So for cost effectiveness and resiliency in the long run it may well be prudent to purchase cloud storage for storing your data.

      Comment


        #4
        Thunderbolt storage with local NAS backup synced to a cloud archive.

        https://www.cnet.com/uk/topics/stora...erbolt-drives/

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Einstein Jnr View Post
          I am torn between getting a NAS and a SAN. I started photography about 2 years ago and shoot raw files which are large. I have a server with 4 x 1 TB disks but they are paired thus only have a total of 2 TB which is now full.

          I have been looking into SANs as I think I need the extra throughout due to the picture editing. I have started looking at NAS as well and like some of the Synology 4 disk NAS products but not sure if I will run into issues with editing photos.

          My long term goal is to get into video/video processing - none of this is commercial - just something I enjoy when I have the time.

          Is there anyone using a NAS for storing photos/video and editing? If so what are you using?
          A SAN will need a fibre fabric, you sure you are able to setup and configure that?

          Plus for throughput you'll need 8 or 16gb gbics, and fibre switches to cope, not cheap and not plug and play believe me......

          Comment


            #6
            Been shooting in RAW for the past 8 years and still manage to keep my library under 200gig. Even still have some major TIFF's in that.

            Sounds like you need to process and delete delete delete. It's far to easy to use up space on photos that are not all that.
            "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Mark Twain

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by stek View Post
              A SAN will need a fibre fabric, you sure you are able to setup and configure that?

              Plus for throughput you'll need 8 or 16gb gbics, and fibre switches to cope, not cheap and not plug and play believe me......
              Haha, what - howve you managed to randomly spec up his infra from this post? Firstly, never heard of iSCSI? And secondly FC isnt rocket science.

              OP, you need a high spec NAS - not a SAN.
              Last edited by vwdan; 5 October 2016, 21:48.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by scooterscot View Post
                Been shooting in RAW for the past 8 years and still manage to keep my library under 200gig. Even still have some major TIFF's in that.

                Sounds like you need to process and delete delete delete. It's far to easy to use up space on photos that are not all that.
                I hit 150GB of RAW files in 2 weeks of shooting (roughly 4,500 images/videos). 200GB in 8 years is either small RAW or very little photography.
                …Maybe we ain’t that young anymore

                Comment


                  #9
                  For cost effectiveness the HP Microserver with cashback making each unit just over £100 was hard to beat, and may still be.

                  Comes with 4 quick release 3.5" drive bays and ability to convert the top 5.25" bay into 2 more (1x3.5" and 1x2.5") and use a USB flash stick for host/boot drive. Slap in a load of 4TB drives and marvel at the cost saving over typical branded NAS offerings.

                  SAN is only worth considering if you need the throughput (i.e. gigabit ethernet isn't good enough for some reason) or like burning piles of cash.

                  I've got two of the older generation Microservers (so current ones may offer different capabilities or cashback). Use one for main backup of my 24/7 small NAS that has all the fancy streaming capabilities and only contains stuff I use/need regularly, and the other is located off site and only turned on when syncing with the other microserver via direct ethernet so less risk of data loss or total loss. This approach also lets me use all the NASes without any raid so maximum storage capacity.

                  Other alternative is just a bunch of drives and a USB 3 docking station if you only ever work with one drive and archive them somewhere safe when full.

                  Cloud? I expect the storage requirements and access speed are opposite of what a local NAS can do.
                  Maybe tomorrow, I'll want to settle down. Until tomorrow, I'll just keep moving on.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by WTFH View Post
                    I hit 150GB of RAW files in 2 weeks of shooting (roughly 4,500 images/videos). 200GB in 8 years is either small RAW or very little photography.
                    The argument is that unless the photo is good enough it's not worth keeping
                    merely at clientco for the entertainment

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X