Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Dolby DSS220: ingestion speed through eSATA (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Dolby DSS220: ingestion speed through eSATA
Antti Nayha
Master Film Handler

Posts: 259
From: Helsinki, Finland
Registered: Oct 2008


 - posted 11-24-2012 12:08 PM      Profile for Antti Nayha   Email Antti Nayha   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I was told that when you plug in an external CRU dock to Dolby DSS220’s eSATA port, the ingestion speed from a CRU drive is very slow – comparable to ingesting through USB (which, of course, defeats the purpose of getting a CRU dock in the first place).

Can anyone confirm that this is indeed the case? And if so, is there a fix available? It seem like a deal-breaker to me in a single-screen setup without a TMS.

 |  IP: Logged

Richard May
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1040
From: Floral Park, NY USA
Registered: Aug 2004


 - posted 11-24-2012 12:50 PM      Profile for Richard May   Email Richard May   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I doubt it. We have Doremi servers. We just added an ESATA port. We injest from CRU drives and it's MUCH faster than going USB. I don't know why Dolby would be different.

 |  IP: Logged

Pete Naples
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1548
From: Dunfermline, Scotland
Registered: Feb 2001


 - posted 11-24-2012 04:25 PM      Profile for Pete Naples   Email Pete Naples   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
On DSS220s it's painfully slow going eSATA.

I've observed USB is actually faster!

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12294
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 11-24-2012 05:39 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I have observed DSS220s faster through eSATA than USB...notably faster actually. Then again, there is no doubt, the DSS220 is SLOW on ingest, no matter which method...though FTP seems to be more reasonable via a TMS. Note, with eSATA you can still play directly off of the drive (done it).

 |  IP: Logged

Antti Nayha
Master Film Handler

Posts: 259
From: Helsinki, Finland
Registered: Oct 2008


 - posted 11-24-2012 07:52 PM      Profile for Antti Nayha   Email Antti Nayha   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
OK, thanks for the info. That’s a bit weird though – surely the three-drive RAID alone shouldn’t cause such a bottleneck…

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12294
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 11-25-2012 12:20 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
A 3-drive RAID combined with the software RAID really took a hit on the speed department. It also means that like other software RAIDS...matching drives (read/write) is more critical to performance. I haven't done a speed test on FTP transfers on the DSS220 but the DSS200 could "smoke" the others in a transfer contest...my guess is that the DSS220 will be as slow or slower than the others now.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17695
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 11-25-2012 01:40 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
I've only said it a thousand times:

Software raid = [puke]

3 drives instead of 4 = more [puke]

I will be conducting some speed tests soon and will report the findings, although I do expect all of the software raids to be somewhat equal in their slowness.

 |  IP: Logged

Nerijus Marmokas
Film Handler

Posts: 41
From: Panevezys / Lithuania
Registered: Jan 2012


 - posted 11-26-2012 03:13 AM      Profile for Nerijus Marmokas   Email Nerijus Marmokas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I have heard fro sites in my cinema circuit that some contents are ingesting faster and the others slower (on DSS220) using eSata (not because different size of the content). Haven't done a proper "research" yet, but i probably depends on HDD or even content characteristics, somehow...

 |  IP: Logged

Wolfgang Woehl
Film Handler

Posts: 31
From: Munich, Germany
Registered: Apr 2012


 - posted 11-26-2012 06:17 AM      Profile for Wolfgang Woehl   Author's Homepage   Email Wolfgang Woehl   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, Brad, you go do that. You might be in for a surprise or two re. software RAIDs.

On the other hand: I wouldn't be surprised at all if Dolby had messed up their implementation/interfacing to the perfectly able software RAID their kernel provides. They seem to be rushing product to market these days. For example their Cat. 745 is beta at best -- Of course without them telling their clients who put up good money for it. Without looking too hard we found 2 showstopper-class/dark screen bugs on it (Dolby confirmed, fixes in the pipeline but only at Q1 2013 earliest).

Wouldn't know about the DSS220. But does the above make me feel good? Like in I'd reccommend Dolby products to my clients? You can bet it doesn't.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12294
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 11-26-2012 10:25 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I wouldn't consider Dolby rushed at all...if anything...they took their time on delivery (missed many deadlines). The ones we have put in have been near flawless (CAT 745/DSS220). My biggest issues have been interfacing things like the TMS (Cinedigm) which required 4.5.3 software due to some naming conventions. If you want to talk about Beta testing in the field...Dolby has been the best for me for NOT doing that. I have definitely been hit by "others" that have had less than reliable product.

 |  IP: Logged

Wolfgang Woehl
Film Handler

Posts: 31
From: Munich, Germany
Registered: Apr 2012


 - posted 11-26-2012 12:26 PM      Profile for Wolfgang Woehl   Author's Homepage   Email Wolfgang Woehl   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Steve, The Cat. 745 is clearly not even approaching "flawless". If your impression is "near flawless" you've been lucky so far and that is all. Let's talk again once you get a call from a client with perfectly valid content (DCP or KDM) and a dark screen.

I mean, instead of jumping in here for Dolby you could simply ask what the 2 bugs are, right?

Apart from that: The original poster's question about the Dolby DSS220's ingest speeds and related comments kind of prove my point anyway.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12294
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 11-26-2012 12:31 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If you wanted to state what the bugs were...you would have already. I can say that we have had them in Barco and Christie projectors, thus far and they have NOT posed an issue despite months of use (we had one go in the week they were released). For them to be as buggy as you claim, you'd think we would have hit upon it. The issues I've had seem to be more projector related (one brand of projector has had issues, the other, not so much...I have since updated the software in the projector in question and, thus far, have not had issues. Note, this projector is also a 4K projector, the others have been 2K.

 |  IP: Logged

Mattias Mattsson
Film Handler

Posts: 87
From: Göteborg, Sweden
Registered: May 2007


 - posted 11-26-2012 06:52 PM      Profile for Mattias Mattsson   Email Mattias Mattsson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Cat. No. 745 with v4.5.3(5) chokes on DCP:s containing a mix of reels that are both encrypted and non-encrypted. I.e. the CPL as whole is requiring a KDM, but one or more reels are unencrypted.

This is perfectly legal according to spec and actually quite common over here as local distributors add tagged logos etc.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12294
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 11-26-2012 09:40 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I believe you but I have not seen it.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17695
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 11-27-2012 12:58 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Wolfgang Woehl
Yes, Brad, you go do that. You might be in for a surprise or two re. software RAIDs.
Wolfgang, all "mission critical" servers have hardware raids. I've never heard of any that use software raids. I also tend to consider the playback server a mission critical item, as if there is a problem, you are refunding the house. The difference in price is minimal, such that once you refund the first show, you could've paid for the hardware raid.

Have you ever heard the term save a dime to spend a dollar? That's exactly what software raids have done for me. Granted Doremi's software raid is pretty stable, but GDC's has proven to me to be an absolute joke with stability.

Also I have seen Dolby (200 and 220), Doremi and GDC on their ingestion speed differences and it will surprise you how much faster the hardware raid is. The reason I don't post just yet is because I want to give some specific examples with and without other network traffic at the time to keep it fair. I also plan on comparing speeds when idle vs. during playback.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2018 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.