Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ingest Time: Ext2 vs NTFS on Doremi

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Ingest Time: Ext2 vs NTFS on Doremi

Author

Topic: Ingest Time: Ext2 vs NTFS on Doremi

Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006

posted 06-04-2017 10:14 PM

Earlier this week I had to ingest a lengthy movie (over 2hrs) into a Doremi DCP2000.
The content arrived on a USB mini-hard drive, so I had to ingest via usb. This
particular ingest seemed to be taking much longer than usual, even for a Doremi.

I know I've ingested similar file-sized features in less time, so after the ingest
I decided to figure out what was different with this content.

What I discovered was that on a Doremi:
Ingesting from a drive formatted NTFS takes longer than drives formatted EXT 2 or 3.
I confirmed this using two copies of the same DCP on two identical usb mini-drives.
The only difference was that one drive was formatted EXT2 & the other was NTFS.
The NTFS drive took longer to ingest. For a two hour feature, there is a difference
of almost 10min.

My test consisted of 2hrs of content, but it was all one reel. In "the real world" the
difference would be even greater, because on my Doremi, I get the following text
for EVERY asset file of every reel on the Ingest Manager:

copy_file::Failed to open file
src: /media/usb0/(asset file UUID)
reason: invalid argument (22)
retry with cache memory enabled

The system then re-trys with cache enabled and then successfully ingests the file,
whereas with a properly formatted drive, the ingest of all assets happens without
any 'arguments' from the server. Each re-try only takes a few seconds, but over the
course of a long feature, the cumulative delays add up to additional ingest time.

I'm not sure if this is unique to Doremi, or if it happens on other brands of servers
too. I'm going to try it Dolby & GDC servers later this week.

I'm also not sure there's any point I'm trying to make here. I just wanted to share
a possibly interesting and informational ingestational anecdote.

- - now go back to whatever you were doing........

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 06-04-2017 10:28 PM

Interesting - thanks. I often noticed the "Trying again with cache memory enabled" error, but never twigged that it was only happening with non-ext formatted drives. We had a DCP2000 in our smallest screen at my now former workplace, which was retired around a year ago for a DSS200. It didn't have a built-in SATA CRU bay, and so all ingestion had to be via USB, and was excruciatingly slow. That was just one on a very long list of reasons why I was glad to see the back of it.

I haven't noticed a time difference between NTFS and ext2/3 ingestion on a DSS200. A couple of weeks ago I ingested a 250GB I made at home and took to the theater on drive in a CRU cartridge (I made the DCP in Adobe Premiere/Cute DCP and couldn't be bothered to reboot into Ubuntu to put it on an ISDCF "street legal" drive, and, knowing that the DSS200 is OK with MBR/NTFS drives and that the DCP was for that one venue only, just put it on one of those). It ingested in around 45 minutes, which is around the time a Deluxe/Technicolor DCP of a similar size took on that server.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.