There are plenty of cheap NVMe SSDs that can push 3.5Gbytes/sec (Samsung 970, Adata XPG). Even with dual 10Gbe NICs, you can't match that, nor the low access times of local storage.
But I do agree that SAN storage is the norm here.
But I do agree that SAN storage is the norm here.
It's done this way so people can connect to the storage that's appropriate for the task at hand.
Different projects can be stored on different SAN/NAS arrays , each specc'ed out according to the size/needs of the project.
eg a short run animation doesn't need the same storage capacity of a full length feature film. They may have similar throughput needs though. (Summarising here, but the general concept is ok)
So, lets say someone is a Flame editor (Flame generally has high bandwidth needs). They're working on project A for today. So they connect to the storage being used for that project from their workstation. The next day, they might be working on a different project, so will be connecting to a different set of storage.
Other people using different software will connect to the same storage for their tasks, but can have different latency/throughput needs.
Obviously, this isn't the approach taken by single person multimedia er... "houses". ;)
High end networking gear already has higher throughput:
http://www.mellanox.com/page/ethernet_cards_overview
https://www.servethehome.com/mellanox-connectx-6-brings-200g...
A SAN/NAS using the same PCIe 4.0 SSD's you mention could probably fill the pipes too.
... and it would probably need a bunch of network stack tuning. ;)
> High end networking gear already has higher throughput:
100GB/s > 200Gbps
You would need 4x 200Gbps ports to reach 100GB/s, so 2x MCX653105A-ECAT (each 2x 16-lanes) at > $700 each, and pay for 1/10th of a ~$30 000 switch, IOW 100GB/s would cost you ~ $4400, before paying for the storage.
Sure, it could be done, but it wouldn't be cheap, and you'll have used most of the PCIe lanes.
EPYC servers (128 PCIe lanes) would probably be the go too, not Xeons.
This is just Imagineering though. ;)
With the specifics, wouldn't it be 4 cards needed? Each card has 2x 100Gb/s ports, so 8 ports in total.
That being said, after re-reading the comment they're talking about adding multiple PCIe cards to a box to achieve 100GB/s of local total throughput.
That would be achievable over a network by adding multiple PCIe 200Gb/s network cards too. :)
As a sibling comment mentions though... the cost difference would be substantial. :(
It's good to see that local storage has finally returned to the reasonable state of being faster than network storage. SATA / SAS was a long, slow period ...
So, even with protocol overhead from all the stack layers chewing up maybe an order of magnitude, that'd still leave 10GBps.
So .. I guess it's still possible, if impractical, to outperform a good PCIe SSD with the latest network interface.
More 0's needed? :)
Maybe a slight typo there? Need to add a few zeros? :)
Mind you, you'll pay $15K for it, but if you're in that business you can well afford it even if you're not a top tier Hollywood production shop.
Given that your storage array costs that much, the fully loaded Mac Pro price (somewhere in the $20K range?) is not that outrageous. The people who use Red cameras and G-Tech storage arrays are the Mac Pro demographic Apple is going for here.
Disclaimer: I used to work with G-Tech but no longer there.
They are popular though. I see them a lot, but I have had very little success with them over the years.