[SOLVED] Clarification needed for bits and bytes

[neverknowu]

Hi,

Looking for clarification on bits and bytes, video files being read on different drives and connections.

I'm working with Sony camera video files. From their website:
The RAW workflows are identical to those of the F65, using the same AXS-R7 recorder. However, RAW recording is limited to Super35, for larger formats we use X-OCN because there's so much data. In Super35 the Venice data rate is about 700 Megabits per second, in 6K it’s more than 2 Gigabits per second.

So if my internal disc speed (using blackmagic speed test) is an M.2, writes 1350 MB/s and reads 2300 MB/s, this is bytes of information, correct? So 2Gigbits 6k should be fine, as it would be 250 bytes, right? (8bits in a byte)

For my server, I'm guessing that for the 6k material I would need a 10G ethernet connection for the 2 Gigabits, and a 1G ethernet connection would not do?

 

[kanewolf]

Hi,

Looking for clarification on bits and bytes, video files being read on different drives and connections.

I'm working with Sony camera video files. From their website:
The RAW workflows are identical to those of the F65, using the same AXS-R7 recorder. However, RAW recording is limited to Super35, for larger formats we use X-OCN because there's so much data. In Super35 the Venice data rate is about 700 Megabits per second, in 6K it’s more than 2 Gigabits per second.

So if my internal disc speed (using blackmagic speed test) is an M.2, writes 1350 MB/s and reads 2300 MB/s, this is bytes of information, correct? So 2Gigbits 6k should be fine, as it would be 250 bytes, right? (8bits in a byte)

For my server, I'm guessing that for the 6k material I would need a 10G ethernet connection for the 2 Gigabits, and a 1G ethernet connection would not do?

You don't have to have a 10GE network as long as you don't have to transfer the data in real-time. If you have a 700GB file that you want to put on your server, then you could transfer it over 1GE and it will just take longer. If you HAVE to have a 2Gb data flow into your computer then you would have to have 10GE network.

 

[neverknowu]

You don't have to have a 10GE network as long as you don't have to transfer the data in real-time. If you have a 700GB file that you want to put on your server, then you could transfer it over 1GE and it will just take longer. If you HAVE to have a 2Gb data flow into your computer then you would have to have 10GE network.

It would be reading 'playback' of media in real-time.

 

[kanewolf]

It would be reading 'playback' of media in real-time.

If this has to be in real-time then you need a full 10GE network from source to destination, including all network hardware. You may also have to play with process priorities on your server to ensure that the real-time reader process is running at real-time priority. You don't want it to be preempted by the OS scheduler when you are trying to do real-time I/O.

 

[TJ Hooker]

FYI 2.5 GbE is a thing, if you want to look into that. But it might make more sense to go straight to 10 GbE.

 

[kanewolf]

FYI 2.5 GbE is a thing, if you want to look into that. But it might make more sense to go straight to 10 GbE.

It is a thing, but it really hasn't caught on. I would not choose it today.

 

[neverknowu]

Gotcha, and:

So if my internal disc speed (using blackmagic speed test) is an M.2, writes 1350 MB/s and reads 2300 MB/s, this is bytes of information, correct? So 2Gigbits 6k should be fine, as it would be 250 bytes, right?

 

[kanewolf]

Gotcha, and:

So if my internal disc speed (using blackmagic speed test) is an M.2, writes 1350 MB/s and reads 2300 MB/s, this is bytes of information, correct? So 2Gigbits 6k should be fine, as it would be 250 bytes, right?

Yeah, 2Gb shouldn't be an issue. The efficiency of the software writing that 2Gb stream might be. Just because the hardware is capable of 1000MB/s in optimized benchmark software doesn't guarantee any level of performance from specific software. Poorly written software can kill that throughput.

 

[neverknowu]

Yeah, 2Gb shouldn't be an issue. The efficiency of the software writing that 2Gb stream might be. Just because the hardware is capable of 1000MB/s in optimized benchmark software doesn't guarantee any level of performance from specific software. Poorly written software can kill that throughput.

Okay, so then a Samsung SSD Pro that's slower that an M.2 should also be technically okay?

 

[kanewolf]

Okay, so then a Samsung SSD Pro that's slower that an M.2 should also be technically okay?

It might be. Again, you need to benchmark the software that is writing. A SATA drive can write more than 2Gb/s but I have no way to know if it will succeed. Something besides the disk can be the weakest link. Too much performance in hardware is never a bad thing. It can compensate for other hardware limitations.