Source
r/networking•
Insignificant

Why are Quantum (Editshare, SNS, et al...) NAS products so expensive?

Okeydoke,

I work for the small video production arm of a larger organisation.

We are a mix of Macs and PCs, we're growing, we're messy, and we're about to upgrade our network infrastructure (only my team, not the wider organisation).

I've been discussing some typical workload scenarios with our IT contractors, and based on this we've created a solution based around a Synology RS3617xs. The proposed solution looks as though it will perform all the tasks required of it, and give us the performance we need (including two workstations editing 4K directly from the NAS over 10GbE). Great.

However, I'm aware of video specific networking products from companies like Quantum, companies with "entry level" solutions that start at about 5x the cost of our current Synology-based proposal (we're at around $15k, Quantum's Xcellis Foundation would be around $70k). Such products are pitched at teams of around our size and workload, but they come at a significant premium. Why?

I've been trying to read up on the benefits of this premium kit, but while I (hopefully) understand the USPs being advertised, I'm struggling to see the 5-6x value that arises from the 5-6x cost.

Ultimately, I think we'll pursue the Synology solution, benefit hugely, and that will be that (partly because we don't have the budget for more expensive infrastructure). Perhaps my inability to better appreciate the value of video specific networking products suggests that I am not in the market for them. That said, I do have purchasing decisions to make and I am keen for them to be educated.

I hope this qualifies as a relevant question. I've deliberately avoided talk of team sizes and typical video bitrate in an attempt to minimize reading tedium.

Ta in advance,

Edit: Spelling

Posted Apr 16, 2018, 1:00 PM UTC · edited

2225
pmormrK12 Infrastructure Focused•

I'd describe the Synology build quality as "good enough", the support as "mediocre at best", and the software & performance as "ok". I use them as low cost storage when the situation warrants it (e.g. longer term backup storage or for labs) but I have enough problems with them that I wouldn't want to deploy them in a mission critical performance sensitive area. They're simply not comparable to enterprise storage solutions in any way.

14
Hollyweird78•

I can’t speak to Quantum, but as someone who manages both SNS and Synology for several editing companies, it’s not so much the 2 editors at 4K scenario, which if you setup your Synology with two arrays and basically use them like DAS units with a network connection instead of local will probably work fine. It’s more about 10 editors hitting 3 multicam streams each of ProRes LT from a single device reliably. A Synology won’t do that. Also SNS support is great. When you’re on a deadline on a production with 10 editors and the array is crashing and you’re losing Thousands an hour, the savings aren’t worth it.

11
SipperVixx•

This is the correct answer, AND is why (generally) most of the professional solutions cost more. The QA and testing done, and the advanced nature of the underlying core software support the more advanced use cases. Additionally, while you may need only 2 4K workstations today, what happens in a year or two and you triple your workforce, that $15k is no longer sufficient and you need more. Nothing wrong with that, but as Hollyweird mentions, that is the reason for the cost premium 99% of the time.

And yes, sometimes it's JUST the name, but names that stick around in the industry they play in typically prove their mettle.

4
InsignificantOP•

Thank you very much for the response, it's very useful.

I note any discussion that highlights typical production scenarios, such references greatly help to correct my perspective.

Really, our projects are a mixed bag with a typically short turnaround. While in a busier period we might have two edits running with multiple 4K streams that we've shot ourselves, supported by the output from four or five graphics boxes... in the next period we'll be piecing together a film based on scraps pulled from Youtube, or from a client's mobile phone, in combination with 'whatever' stock footage people think fits the brief.

We're growing, absolutely, but I don't think we'll ever hit the rigor of anything approaching film production, in fact long term we're probably heading toward more motion graphics and post work than editing (company wide we're more aligned with an ad agency than we are an edit facility), so maybe the way to go is more on the side of DAS with a simple means to share work versus high-bandwidth networking across many workstations.

I guess the main concern for me is, having just reached a consensus that it's time for us to better organise ourselves, opting for a solution that sometimes feels rooted in our small time ankle-biter attitude isn't hugely reassuring. We've got some good opportunities ahead of us, and I want to meet them confidently with everything from organisational process to IT infrastructure.

Again, it seems to me that this time around we're probably best served by a modest solution and saving the surplus $50k for a couple of years down the line when we're ready to reassess ourselves once again.

Thanks again for the reply. Good food food thought.

3
Angry_Brotato•

What kind of disks are you loading up the Synology with? I hope SSD.

5
InsignificantOP•

Not SSD, 4TB WD Red PRO.

I do understand the performance advantage of SSD, of course I do, but I've not read anything to suggest that our performance requirement won't be met by cheaper mechanical drives (storage capacity is also a thing for us).

Also, the more expensive entry level Quantum/ ES solutions are still built around mechanical drives, and my main aim here is to establish the difference between these and more generic storage products.

4
Angry_Brotato•

You're not going to be uilizing that 10Gb ethernet with disks that slow. Those are disks I use in cheap NASes for static data like backup replication not pulling 4K media files. In the most ideal situation those disks will run at 1/5 the capability of your 10Gb Ethernet.

6
Dance_Luke_Dance•

Dude, it's 2018. If you're not putting flash in there then rethink this plan.

4
InsignificantOP•

Dude, it's 2018. If you're not putting flash in there then rethink this plan.

I get it, I do, I'm just working with the solutions that are being proposed. Even the Quantum Foundation box is fitted with spinning disks.

5
darguskelen•

Those spinning disks are also likely high speed and configured properly to provide the best performance they can. Synology...would not so much.

2
zachpulsNetwork Engineer•

You're not going to saturate even 1GbE with those 5.4k RPM disks.

-5
sryan2k1•

A single WD 4TB disk can sustain about 150MB/s in sequential reads, and the larger disks only get faster (higher density platters).

5
zachpulsNetwork Engineer•

Is a video editing workload going to be heavily sequential, though? I would imagine scrubbing through footage wouldn't be.

2
zdude1858•

I can tell you right now that with large sequential file transfers you can saturate 1Gbe with 5400rpm WD reds. You only need three.

My home NAS has three of the 4tb drives in raid 5 and any decent file transfer will immediately peg at 125MB/s or 1Gb/s. And that’s with no caching.

4
zachpulsNetwork Engineer•

I stand corrected. SSDs are cheap enough now though, that if you're going to invest in 10GbE, you should probably go with flash storage. Take my advice with a grain of salt though, I haven't worked with storage in a long time. I know on my home lab server, I run 7.2K RPM 4TB HGST drives, 4 of them in RAID 0, and hit about ~200-300MB/s on VM workload.

2
Angry_Brotato•

Technially he can do it 2x with those disks but only in the most ideal situation, large files, block access not file level.

2
InsignificantOP•

I do find the whole end-to-end performance journey very interesting, and I'm aware that disk is likely a bottleneck over network throughput.

I'm just going with the solutions that have been proposed, is all. Even the more expensive solutions pitched at our level are typically fitted with spinning disks (The Quantum QXS-412 is fitted with 7.2k RPM disks, out of interest).

One thing that is reassuring is that we currently operate a SAN over 8Gb fibre channel (mechanical disks, only three clients), which provides us with the bandwidth but not the easily attached to single namespace that is a big part of what we're looking for. Our editors (I'm not one of them, truth be known I'm primarily a 3D op working from DAS) have never had a problem with the performance of our current setup, which leads me to believe that our requirement is pretty minimal and that we'd be well served by even a modest NAS alternative. All the talk I receive from people about 'peak periods' isn't necessarily sustained by the fact that nobody has ever felt negatively impacted by our current solution.

As a slight tangent, another point on performance bottlenecks that I find interesting is monitoring. The attempts I've made to quantify our requirement quickly fall apart, the demand placed upon our network is obviously a complected mix from multiple clients, to the point at which numbers become very broad and not very useful. It strikes me that there's a need to have a clearer grasp of performance moving forward.

Thanks for the response, and indeed to anyone else who reads this comment. This has been an extremely useful conversation to have.

2
zachpulsNetwork Engineer•

No problem, it's always good to open this sort of dialog before pulling the trigger on a larger project like this.

What I was pulling my (albeit overly brief) comment from was our latest VMware deployment. We got two hosts with 12xSSDs each, running RAID 10 with a decent RAID controller. I can hit about 1.8Gbps, writing to the local array.

On a side note, PRTG is great for monitoring these sorts of performance metrics. You can get as detailed or general as you'd like with the sensors. For example, I set up performance monitoring for both of our "new" ESXi hosts, and it monitors not only per-host performance (disk IOPS, write time, utilization %, alarm/S.M.A.R.T. status, CPU load, memory usage), but per-VM performance stats, as well.

1
marek1712CCNA RS/CCNA Sec/CCNP in progress•

with those 5.4k RPM disks

Correction: WD Red PRO are 7200RPM. I wish I paid attention when I purchased mine...

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
sryan2k1•

As others have said, Synology's are decent but very SMB. They are slow, support isn't good, and the OS is limiting if you need advanced features.

5
DarrenRoskow•

I'd have a hard time not going with a couple (rsync pair) of off lease DL380s loaded with RAM, a couple SSDs front end caching on FreeNAS and a 4x10 GbE LACP. But I'm mildly masochistic like that.

3
Mcthunda820•

Synology, they make a great product. I would not put anything on them that is mission critical though. I've installed bunches of these and all have had performance issues if pushed to the max for extended periods. You might want to look at just getting a quality server and run a server OS of your choice . I'd go mostly SSDs for current work if you've got 10Gb networking and some 8-10TB disks for archive.

Most of what you get from expensive enterprise gear is better support, longer warranties, and gear made to run 24/7. We had an EMC array with 100% uptime for 4 years. That's with dozens of failed drives. All replaced same day of failure. That's not to say I'm a fanboy of EMC. 3PAR (HP), netapp, cisco, equallogic and all the other enterprise storage vendors are like this. Qnap/synology and like companies do great in small environments where having a NAS/VPN/Web server all in one is great. Expect to replace these devices every 2-4 years.

For small sites like yours, you could look at leasing gear. You'd have a flat monthly fee that you can keep in your ongoing budget. This as also let's you use gear outside your normal budget and you get to upgrade equipment every 2-4 years.

2
meshu0•

Look at infortrend...better than Synology, they have a video editing nitch...and they have dual controllers. More limited feature set, but better stability.

1
efxhoy•

Just curious here. Why would one go for a NAS branded machine instead of a general purpose server with Linux or FreeBSD, plenty of ram and ZFS? Especially if the support for "lower tier" brands like Synology isn't all that great?

What more is there to a NAS than a samba/NFS config, some file system tuning and general purpose hardware?

1