Now, if you configure the NAS storage for RAID-1, the NAS would write each backup twice, once per disk. The logic behind it is that it is less probable to have 2 disks fail simultaneously than 1. In the event of a single disk failing, the Synology NAS would still be able to recover a backup from the 2nd healthy disk. Building a Lightroom PC Why I switched to Windows and built a water-cooled 5.2GHz 6-core editing machine If there's one thing that will make even the most powerful computer feel like a 7 year old rig, it's Adobe Lightroom paired with RAW files from any high-megapixel camera. When you install Skitch you are also given a Skitch account. The size tool is a little imprecise though. This can become useful once you decide to share your pictures with others. You can apply the typical text, paint, lines, shapes and arrows in any color. Best free sketch app for mac. OK, this has probably been asked before, but. I've just upgraded my network and storage setup - I have a Windows 10 desktop PC in my office (dedicated concrete 'man-shed' in the back garden). I have Cat 6 GbE for internet and the like, plus a dedicated 20,000 Mb/s link (2 x 10Gb-SR in LACP over fibre optic) to a Synology RS3617xs with 12 x 4 TB HDDs in RAID10. NAS is in the house for security reasons and the fact that it's FAR TOO LOUD to tolerate in my office. Rather than running my catalog on the local PC and having to back it and the backups up to the NAS, and then having the NAS sync the backup to the local storage/cloud, is there a really good reason why I couldn't/shouldn't run the catalog from the NAS on an iSCSI target volume? My plan going forward is to keep photo folders and catalogs together in one place if possible and keep the catalog sizes relatively small. I've read lots of arguments about network speed limitations being a reason to not have the catalog networked, but my network transfer speeds are significantly faster than even a local SATA SSD would be. Are there other good technical reasons why it's not a good idea? I don't have a speed-demon network, but I have a similar setup as you. I put the current year's photos and the catalog on an SSD local to my computer, then sync to the NAS. Older photos are stored physically on the NAS (but the previews are on the local SSD). I put the catalog and the preview folder within my Dropbox (which is on the SSD). In this fashion, my 'current' photos load quickly when need be (and the previews for older ones are 'local'). The catalog syncs with revision(s) to dropbox (which has come in handy), but the whole arrangement uses less than 60 GB on my local SSD. Like you, my NAS syncs to the cloud so that there are numerous backups distributed geographically (and that's good as we had our house struck by lightning last year and catch fire!). My sense is that the catalog and the files you're working on (zooming in, etc) should be on the fastest SSD you can manage locally. Others may refute this, but I have little speed bottlenecks with this arrangement. I don't think that the question whether Lightroom sees the disk as a local disk is very relevant. What is relevant is whether it is safe to use such a setup. As far as I know, it is always technically possible to start Iightroom from a catalog on a shared disk, but you run a great risk of catalog corruption. For that reason I would never trust my production catalog to such a setup, even if the system presents the disk as a virtual local disk and even if initial tests seem to indicate that Lightroom can be fooled into thinking that it is. Roelof, thanks for your reply, but I'm really looking for hard facts, rather than conjecture. My network cables aren't cables, they're custom length, steel-wire-armoured pre-terminated, fully tested OM3 fibre-optics, made by a network company who supply to the UK military. There's no switch involved, connection is direct. NICs are new, made by Intel, running Intel's latest driver set which underwent extensive design and testing to allow use of VLANs and teaming in non-server Windows SKUs - long running saga here: Dual connections are bonded via LACP, which provides redundancy and seamless failover: A flaky network is something I don't have. If no one can really explain Why I shouldn't do it, I'll have to do as Tony suggested - Try it out and report my findings.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |