4 Replies Latest reply on Apr 15, 2015 7:49 AM by john beardsworth

    Catalog file on a network drive - case/scenario proof?

    chattphotos Level 1

      I know this has been been in debate for years, but the local photog group I'm with is getting into a good discussion on why putting the catalog on a network drive should be a good thing.

      So being the resident IT pro, I went on twitter and both Adobe and Pete Green both say there are some scenarios that influenced the decision not to allow such awesomeness but haven't backed up their claims at all.


      Can anyone prove and/or provide the full list of the scenarios claimed by the LR team?


      I have built a bulletproof server rig:

      Full rack battery backup, dual & redundant links to the iSCSI array in Raid10 + high speed ECC caching + hot spares on a stacked set of switches (6 links - split 3 per switch) Dual bonded NIC's from the server (two links per switch)

      The workstations have dual bonded nics (1 link per switch) SSD drives inside for improved caching and performance.

      Case for failure? Small, very very very small. The reliability and availability level of the servers are spot-on for a robust system that runs at about 800MB/sec. If that's not enough, Lightroom needs some serious redesign.


      I have run filemaker, directory replica, and MySQL database servers on just Mac Minis! Even after an accident with not plugging it into the correct side of the desk UPS, it is still running fine to this day. So, in my experience, the claims for corrupting the catalog due to server/network failure is no longer viable unless some newb photographer tries to use a LR catalog from a wifi shared hdd in the middle of a storm.


      So, am I on the right track or what?