Video Editing NAS- Am I doing this right?

[TypicalYoshi]

Hello everyone I was tasked with getting a NAS for our video editors. Currently we are using a Synology RS3617RPxs as our main editing as well as long-term archiving storage for Photography and Videography. This unit has 24 8TB and 12 12TB Iron Wolf's in it. We have 2-3 video editors who will access the NAS on average with a peak of 4. The footage we will be working with is 4K ProRes 4:2:2. All the computers are 10GBE capable and the network infrastructure for 10GBE has been established. This NAS is mostly just for editing purposes. The footage will be dropped onto the NAS, the editors will create the videos, then the footage will get offloaded onto the Synology My thoughts on a NAS was a QNAP TVS-872XT, with 8 2TB Samsung EVO SSD's and 2 Sabrent 1TB NVME SSD for cache all in RAID 5 or 6. Is this sufficient for what I am looking for, and will there be any issues with the config?

[Windows7ge]

My first question would be if you started with a rack mountable solution why would you go backwards to a proprietary form factor?

 

As for RAW performance that really depends on what you're using to RAID the drives. RAID5/6 is going to hurt the performance more than RAID10. By how much I can't immediately say the performance varies between what is handling the RAID.

 

Is this to be a sort of ingest station for the editors to quickly pull projects off of before dumping the finished video onto the Synology?

 

As for if you're doing it right I'm not in the best position to say but if you're already upgrading to SSDs from spinning platters I'm not certain how useful a M.2 cache would be for a max of 4 clients.

[TypicalYoshi]

11 hours ago, Windows7ge said:

My first question would be if you started with a rack mountable solution why would you go backwards to a proprietary form factor?

 

As for RAW performance that really depends on what you're using to RAID the drives. RAID5/6 is going to hurt the performance more than RAID10. By how much I can't immediately say the performance varies between what is handling the RAID.

 

Is this to be a sort of ingest station for the editors to quickly pull projects off of before dumping the finished video onto the Synology?

 

As for if you're doing it right I'm not in the best position to say but if you're already upgrading to SSDs from spinning platters I'm not certain how useful a M.2 cache would be for a max of 4 clients.

We used the rack with 3 video editors and 2 separate photography teams using it as an ingest and main edit server. Everyone complained about speeds during the entire process from ingest to post. Yes this will be more of an ingest for the editors to work off of quickly. As for the M.2, I just want to know if I will get any detrimental effects from using them. I heard from a friend when they used ssd caching in a different nas that they had negative performance. I was planning on putting the M.2s in a read only config, because reads are a bigger concern to me than writes. I know the writes will be fast enough because writing will only happen 2-3 times in a day.

[Windows7ge]

13 minutes ago, TypicalYoshi said:

We used the rack with 3 video editors and 2 separate photography teams using it as an ingest and main edit server. Everyone complained about speeds during the entire process from ingest to post. Yes this will be more of an ingest for the editors to work off of quickly. As for the M.2, I just want to know if I will get any detrimental effects from using them. I heard from a friend when they used ssd caching in a different nas that they had negative performance. I was planning on putting the M.2s in a read only config, because reads are a bigger concern to me than writes. I know the writes will be fast enough because writing will only happen 2-3 times in a day.

If reads are a concern running Linux and ZFS would give you all the throughput you could need. It uses RAM as a read cache. You can easily saturate multiple 10Gbe interfaces provided you have enough RAM to cache all the files.