I do not know about editing video from a server.
For the reduction in price of Intel X99 Chipset motherboards with USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt 2.0, I would speculate:
1) Intel Broadwell LGA (Intel LGA 1150) have recently released: http://wccftech.com/intel-broadwell-cpus-i5-5675c-i7-5775c-oem-listed/.
2) Intel X99 Chipset motherboards have recently started to ship with USB 3.1 (see Comment No. 5 in the thread): http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx?id=20150511222747752&board_id=1&model=X99-A&page=1&SLa nguage=en-us.
3) Another version of Thunderbolt is due to be released next month: http://www.cio.com/article/2923993/intel-to-unwrap-nextgeneration-thunderbolt-in-two-weeks .html.
Everyone wants the latest and greatest of the better and faster features.
I have the Asus X99-E WS with an i7-5960X @ 4.5 GHz have an Areca ARC-1883i with 7 Samsung 840 Pro 256 GB in RAID 3 plus three GPU's working fantastically well with better PPBM8 scores that the current (5-20-2015) leader This not in my final computer configuration but just experimental to see how far I could push this new architecture. My final work computer will be all solid state (no RAID) and a single eSATA port for my archive hard disk drives, and it will probably have one only 1 GPU..
SSDs may be the way to go. I'm waiting on prices to drop, but they don't seem to be budging.
Of course everyone wants the better and faster stuff. Our businesses depend on it.
the 10G Ethernet is a valid question. What if there are two or three editing stations working with the same footage or on the same project?
Sorry, I cannot make a technical comment on 10G as I do not have a pair to even try that.
Regarding 10G Ethernet co-video-editing:
AnandTech has a series of articles and reviews going back from 2015 to 2010: http://www.anandtech.com/tag/10g-ethernet.
Cisco describes their 10 Gigabit Ethernet Technologies at: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/data-center-virtualization/10-gigabit-ethernet-tech nologies/index.html#~overview.
From the looks of current technology, it appears to be a cost issue. I would assume a good tech savy guy could carve out sufficient 10G Ethernet technology to make it work.On Cisco's 10G Ethernet web page referenced above, there is the Featured Content articles and More Resources describing 10G Ethernet being used across various networks.It seems that matching up video-editing teams across 10G-, 40G-, or 100G-Ethernet Networks is doable, at the right studio.
To help me relate better to your design project, what is your understanding or vision of a smaller, non-studio-supported 10G-Ethernet video-editing team?
More upcoming tech is competing for the limited store shelf space, which causes prices to drop for Intel X99 Chipset motherboards. You can sense that the wild buzz for X99 motherboards is diminishing.
For example, WCCFtech reported today that Intel is releasing the 6th generation processor, Skylake, in September, with motherboard manufacturers unveiling their Intel Z170 (LGA 1151) Chipset motherboards in June (for the new Skylake processor). (See: http://wccftech.com/biostar-unveils-skylake-ready-gaming-z170x4-lga-1151-socket-motherboar d/.)
As Bill is building into the future of video-editing. When the tech is available, his next build could be: Skylake-E with 2011v4, all SSDs with the next protocol beyond NVMe, 40G Ethernet team video-editing, etc. With this level of commputing, each core group of video editors will be a miracle studio producing a grand epic on a monthly basis. And, the competition for consumers will really heat up.
I assume that you could be also assessing if the software is compatible with this higher competitive level of future computing. What is your opinion?
It's interesting you don't mention what kind of video you may want to edit from a server, and even more interesting that no one else has asked.
You can "reasonably" edit low bit rate (i.e. H.264, AVCHD etc.) video over 1000Mbps Ethernet from a server. You may have a few hiccups and it can be dependent on how busy the network and server are, but I do it on rare occasions (i.e quick turn-around emergencies).
Now, if you're talking 6K RED raw files - I think 10G would be a struggle. If you want performance, stay with local storage (for now).
There is one problem that you have not addressed. Adobe is not equipped for file locking to prevent two people accessing the same file at the same time.
I'M not sure what kind of operation Linus has, but it looks like a home based studio for a handful of editors. A lot of what he says is over my head, but it seems very possible to set up a simple 10G server thru a 10G switch to a few editing computers equipped with 10G NIC cards. If he's doing it, why is it not being done everywhere? Bi-directional 10G is, or should be fast enough transfer for editing 1080p ProRes type footage. I don't know about totally uncompressed, but the average prosumer editor has no business working on 4k or 6k at this point. And with some X99 boards having 10G onboard, it seems to me that it is for that purpose.
Currently I work alone, and with my setup, I can RAID several SSDs internally and maybe attach a fast RAID external array, but what if my computer system is down, or someone else on another machine needs to access the footage?
Qengineering, people are asking. I'm talking 10G, not 1G. Big difference there.
OF course local storage is the way to go for now, but you know Moore's Law.
File locking seems like Adobe should already have solved.
File locking must be on the OS level, not the application. You would need to run Windows Server 2012, but even then a single 10 Gb connection is not ideal.
Now there we have a very knowledgeable answer, thank you cc_merchant
OK, I'll ask.
You reference "1080p ProRes", "prosumer" and (high-end) "X99" hardware.
In my world 1080 Pro Res is Broadcast, Prosumer means H.264/AVCHD, and X99 is professional level hardware.
So, what video format do you want to edit from a server?
I shoot, edit, and live stream with any footage 1080p and below, including DNxHD 220. Prosumer is evolving, or maybe I'm not a prosumer. Lol!
In my world, I buy whatever I can afford and shoot/edit in the highest res possible and practical. And I try to think a year or two into the future. X99 was high end last year - this year not so much, since I see kids at Fry's buying them off the shelf for less than $200. The term 'Broadcast quality' means nothing to me. 720i is broadcast quality to some people.
720i (?) That's cute.
So, based on that information I'd say a 10G speed could easily handle any Prosumer codecs (lower bit rate).
It should handle a couple streams of DNxHD 220 @ 1080 resolution.
Now, getting multiple workstations to be able to access the same files - well, I'll leave that to the real experts.
BTW, to be clear, 10G refers only to the maximum data speed over ethernet, it has nothing to do with the speed of the server or storage devices connected to the server.
For your information, effective transfer rates with a 1 Gb connection to the server come out below 2 MB/s, depending on network load.
Effective transfer rates with a 10 Gb connection to the server come out below 20 MB/s, depending on network load. It varies between 28 MB/s and 5 MB/s.
Whichever way you turn it, that is significantly slower than a conventional external 5400 rpm disk connected over USB2. Unusable for editing purposes.
Teamed 10 Gb connections are still too slow for editing, you would need a much sturdier backbone.
As illustration, I copied a .vob file (1 GB) from the server disk (a 6 disk raid5 volume) to a 4 disk raid0 SSD volume locally over a 1 Gb ethernet connection with a low network load and this is the result:
As always, there is a huge difference between theoretical and practical bandwidth.
Admitted, a 10 Gb connection is slightly faster than 10x a 1 Gb connection, because the network overhead is the same, but still it is unusably slow for editing.
For comparison, a copy of a similar file from a single local conventional disk on a SATA 3G connection shows this:
Notice average transfer rate is around 134 MB/s and that the remaining time is estimated at 5 seconds for 406 MB remaining ...
Repeating that same copy operation from a single old SSD on a Marvell SATA 6G port shows this:
Copy from one raid to the next raid is all done in cache, so you do not even see the progress, it is instantaneous.
hey, I was only asking the question, not trying to prove a point. I'm glad somebody is able to test this. I'd sure like to know what is being referred to as 10G or 1G. If it is that far off target, then it is a misnomer. So, when someone like me trying to make sense of these things, and the term 10G is totally meaningless. How then are we supposed to design our systems? Unless your numbers are wrong? I'm just asking
For the future discussions here, there may be arriving "shortly" hardware with bandwidth sufficient for editing over the Ethernet, or some other similar upgraded version of an Ethernet connection.
For example, in the following hyperlink, there are two web sites that are reporting that Intel is readying 28-core 'Skylake' Xeon Microprocessors with support for Omni-Path 100Gb interconnections. See http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx?id=20150526091717293&board_id=1&model=Intel&page=1&SLa nguage=en-us.
For your information, effective transfer rates with a 1 Gb connection to the server come out below 2 MB/s, depending on network load. Effective transfer rates with a 10 Gb connection to the server come out below 20 MB/s, depending on network load. It varies between 28 MB/s and 5 MB/s.
Your experiences simply imply a poorly designed network, and aren't in any way, shape, or form "average". 2MB/s means 16Mbits/second. Anyone that thinks 16Mbits/second on a Gigabit Ethernet connection is acceptable is... mistaken. It means your system isn't designed properly, or your network is so poorly designed that you probably shouldn't be using it.
I can routinely flatline my Windows' GigE connection to at or near 900Mbits/second when I'm transferring large files between machines. And that's effective speeds, not peak.
I have no experience editing footage over the network, so I can't comment on whether 10GIgE would be fast enough for it. You will get significant performance advantages with 10GigE as compared to GigE though. Any thoughts to the contrary are just plain ignorance. The question that only you (the buyer) can answer is: are the performance gains worth the increases in cost? Managed 10GigE switches are coming down in price, but they're still quite high when compared to their GigE cousins. We're slowly getting to the point with 10GigE that GigE was at 10 years ago: breaking into the consumer market. We in the computing industry have been using 10GigE for years, but it's still quite costly.