my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » 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: 268 From: Helsinki, Finland Registered: Oct 2008 posted 11-24-2012 12:08 PM                     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: 1057 From: Floral Park, NY USA Registered: Aug 2004 posted 11-24-2012 12:50 PM                     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: 1565 From: Dunfermline, Scotland Registered: Feb 2001 posted 11-24-2012 04:25 PM                     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: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-24-2012 05:39 PM                     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: 268 From: Helsinki, Finland Registered: Oct 2008 posted 11-24-2012 07:52 PM                     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: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-25-2012 12:20 AM                     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: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-25-2012 01:40 AM                     I've only said it a thousand times: Software raid = 3 drives instead of 4 = more 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                     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                        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: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-26-2012 10:25 AM                     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                        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: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-26-2012 12:31 PM                     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: 90 From: Göteborg, Sweden Registered: May 2007 posted 11-26-2012 06:52 PM                     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: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-26-2012 09:40 PM                     I believe you but I have not seen it.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-27-2012 12:58 AM                     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

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.