Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jellyfish that's not sushi?

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

  • Jellyfish that's not sushi?

    I love the idea of an easy to use shared network drive.

    https://lumaforge.com/jellyfish

    It just makes so much sense. Seems like it would be better than everyone having their own RAID and individually transferring their data and then individually archiving it. This just makes so much sense to me.

    The handle on the top really makes it for me. Take it with you where ever you go? Maybe we'll see it in bright orange rubber soon. A drop proof NAS?

    I'm curious if it's one of those great ideas that has some hidden flaw.

    Has anyone here worked on one?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Marshall Harrington View Post
    I love the idea of an easy to use shared network drive.

    https://lumaforge.com/jellyfish

    It just makes so much sense. Seems like it would be better than everyone having their own RAID and individually transferring their data and then individually archiving it. This just makes so much sense to me.

    The handle on the top really makes it for me. Take it with you where ever you go? Maybe we'll see it in bright orange rubber soon. A drop proof NAS?

    I'm curious if it's one of those great ideas that has some hidden flaw.

    Has anyone here worked on one?
    I haven't used one, but from working in a small-ish company with 9 workstations between editing and compositing, I can tell you that the main factor for still staying on multiple external raids rather than a centralized system, is mostly price.
    If we had to move all our files and projects (around 260 terabytes) in a Jellyfish system, we would need to spend atleast 80.000$ to configure one of those Jellyfish systems (not counting for a backup system). And that's money you can't easily "pass" on the client, you can't charge more for your editing because you're using a better storage solution.

    Comment


    • #3
      Good alternative. https://youtu.be/8eX9wpWpBRM

      Comment


      • #4
        This are all nice but my experience was not a good one. Although things are much better now a days, I was an early adopter of these kind of NAS drives. Ours was from a known manufacturer too. But when they sold that division to a small company, support suffered and then they just disappeared entirely. Right around when they went out of business, our NAS started to flake out. Long story short, the OS is a modified Linux with proprietary drivers that to date, I am unable to start the NAS and have visibility to the drives. All our images on it has been hostage by this failure and we're not able to recover it. It's now seating in a cabinet waiting for a way that we can just get the data out. One hard lesson learn is also to back up any NAS.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Marshall Harrington View Post
          It just makes so much sense.
          8K RED camera make sense too, before you see it's price.

          Originally posted by MasterOfWombats View Post
          I haven't used one, but from working in a small-ish company with 9 workstations between editing and compositing, I can tell you that the main factor for still staying on multiple external raids rather than a centralized system, is mostly price.
          If we had to move all our files and projects (around 260 terabytes) in a Jellyfish system, we would need to spend atleast 80.000$ to configure one of those Jellyfish systems (not counting for a backup system). And that's money you can't easily "pass" on the client, you can't charge more for your editing because you're using a better storage solution.
          Totally agreed.

          Comment


          • #6
            Lots of companies that make products like this roll over and play dead and the users are stuck not being able to get their data.
            It even happens when biggies like Microsoft decide to shut down a company they own.
            You're way better off with products that are more standard and can be moved from platform to platform.
            Not as convenient but way more reliable.
            It gets even sketchier if they're a start up.

            Comment


            • #7
              Ugh, $ 21,995 for a 96 TB unit with 70 TB avail? And that's the price without any warranty option. A 3 years warranty adds $ 2,495

              So:
              Latest helium filled enterprise HDDs Seagate Exos X X16 with 16TB and 2.5 mio hours MTBF cost ~$ 425 ... 8x 425 = $ 3,400 for 112 TB with 91,5 TB avail.
              Plus the QNAP TVS-872XT-i5-16G with a single 10GBit NIC for ~ $ 1.800

              That makes $ 5.200 + extended QNAP warranty to 5 years for $ 399,-

              Plenty of money left to pay an external IT guy for support when needed.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Robert Niessner View Post
                Ugh, $ 21,995 for a 96 TB unit with 70 TB avail? And that's the price without any warranty option. A 3 years warranty adds $ 2,495

                So:
                Latest helium filled enterprise HDDs Seagate Exos X X16 with 16TB and 2.5 mio hours MTBF cost ~$ 425 ... 8x 425 = $ 3,400 for 112 TB with 91,5 TB avail.
                Plus the QNAP TVS-872XT-i5-16G with a single 10GBit NIC for ~ $ 1.800

                That makes $ 5.200 + extended QNAP warranty to 5 years for $ 399,-

                Plenty of money left to pay an external IT guy for support when needed.
                So true. You could even put it in a 10GB copper wire 5e or 6 network raid enclosure for a lot less. And how dumb are your collaborators? This stuff is pretty simple.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I DO HEAR all the comments regarding the high price and long term practicality of any of the recent NAS. Some good thinking here. When I'm working on my own my individual raid is just fine. But once you're with teams keeping each players contribution to the project on their system, then organizing it into the primary edit, as well as keeping all the different work stations archived… well that's can be a full-time job that is often lacking IMHO. I totally agree paying $20K+ is not a great solution. Which is why I'm reaching out.

                  The example I got to experience was on a project that it was budgeted for and I think like many of you have stated, it cost a lot. But even with it's large cost they claimed it more then paid for itself with the ease which the data was handled as well as the ease of archiving. Mind you it wasn't a huge size. Just the primary project.

                  As we all move to faster systems I'd sure love to find one a smaller one device that would help solve this problem in a long term sort of way.

                  Could this be Blackmagic's toolbox?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Marshall, I think besides building a dedicated Linux server the QNAP solution looks to be the most promising and cost effective.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Good call Robert, I appreciate your advice. I've been looking at this and will look harder now . I like your thinking about having some money left over for an IT guy to help as needed. I always tend to try to do it all myself.

                      Wondering what to use for Archiving? Over 90GB's is a fair amount. Currently we archive by project rather then by device. We happily use Chronosync. Don't think it works on Linux but it might be fine from the workstation.
                      Last edited by Marshall Harrington; 07-23-2019, 10:38 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You might have a look on Sony's Optical Disc Archive:
                        https://pro.sony/en_FI/products/optical-disc
                        The latest discs can store 3.3 TB

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Would love to see SpeedTest run on one of these.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Marshall Harrington View Post
                            I But even with it's large cost they claimed it more then paid for itself with the ease which the data was handled as well as the ease of archiving.
                            I always hear this: "that camera paid for itself", or that computer, or any kind a gear.

                            I think it's a misconception unless you rent your gear out.

                            Lets say you buy a Pocket4k and you make the money back on your first gig with her.
                            Did it pay for itself? No of course not. You got paid for your work, and you could have done it with a rental cam.
                            Sure that gig somehow compensates the money for the camera, but than you worked for free (not to mention the taxes you have to pay and your other expenses),
                            actually you worked for your camera :-)
                            Blog: http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Good point Frank let me restate. I was told that they looked at buying 8 RAIDs each with a corresponding archiving dock. In addition to that they would have the cost of managing coordinating all the data into the master edit drive. In their case it was cheaper for them to use the Jellyfish then have everyone working with individual setups. They still had to manage the data a bit and someone was responsible to archive it, but it was much simpler though kinda large. So they definitely paid just the cost was less going that route. I've got to say that everyone using it seemed to really like it. And it was pretty easy even for freelancers dropping stuff off.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X