Slashdot Mirror


South Park Turns to Xserve for Storage Upgrade

Lam1969 writes "Computerworld reports that South Park producers are turning away from digital linear tape and direct-attached disk storage to a linear tape open setup complimented by Xserve RAID disk arrays. The show's creators never thought South Park would last nine seasons, so a storage hardware upgrade was necessary. J.J. Franzen, technology supervisor at South Park Studios in Los Angeles, says he chose Apple hardware based on a "gut" feeling. From the article: 'While South Park may appear technologically amateurish with its character cutouts, over the past nine seasons the cartoon series has added a great deal of storage-consuming detail, including backgrounds and crowd shots that can take up to 100MB of memory each.'"

15 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why so huge? by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Informative

    No. It's Maya.

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  2. They're not even very interesting by tap · · Score: 2, Informative

    Their old system was a DLT7000 tape drive. I used one of these for backup around five years ago. They hold 35GB uncompressed per tape and have a trasfer speed of 5 MB/sec. Think about trying to backup a 350 GB drive on one of these things. DLT7000 was replaced by LTO-1 and SDLT about four plus years ago. These systems get 100 GB on a tape. I guess they skipped that generation and went to LTO-2, 200 GB on a tape.

    Last time I was buying this stuff, a 24 tape auto-loader was around $15,000 and the tapes were $50 each. That's only about 6 terrabytes before you have to manually change tapes. If you look at how much it costs to build a multi-terrabyte NAS server with 250GB+ SATA drives (way less), and how much faster and easier to deal with it is, you have to wonder what the point of tape is nowdays.

    Of course the South Park people's data isn't very big at all. They've only got two terra-bytes to deal with! That's nothing by today's standards. I built a system five times that size two years ago. For less than they paid for the Apple Xservers today too.

  3. Re:I've Got To Wonder.. by SynapseLapse · · Score: 3, Informative

    True the image itself is only 2mb, but they render the show in Maya. So Scripts+models+textures+scenes=100mb.

  4. Interview with JJ Franzen by datafr0g · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.southparkstudios.com/behind/interviews. php?tab=20#3

    Interesting stuff - has some background technical info on how an episode is put together and what systems they use to do it all.

    --
    "Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
  5. Re:For those of us who are ignorant by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those of us who are ignorant and don't see why someone would use Apple hardware over good commodity stuff, what's the advantage in going with Xserve stuff?

    Well, the Xserve stuff is cheaper.

    Or, did you mean "commodity" as in "I got my 13 year old cousin to build something from parts he bought online?" Yeah, people who put any value on their data and time don't simply don't do that.

  6. Re:What does Simpsons use? by ChadN · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Simpsons is now an all digital production, according to the DVD commentary. It may involve "hand drawing", but that either means hand drawing immediately scanned into a computer (for cleanup and coloring), or drawing on a tablet, etc. that goes directly into a computer. I don't know what software is used, but I haven't searched either.

    --
    "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
  7. Re:Full quote... WTF? by samkass · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Poor performance, but awsome tech support and familiar interface."

    While the performance of MacOS X as a MySQL server was well-documented by Anandtech to be sub-par, I haven't seen any benchmarks showing any performance problems with the xRAID/xServe combination as a file server. And last I checked, it was extremely competitive on a dollar-per-GB basis for the claimed performance and reliability levels. If they just need something to store lots of files online, and have it be easy to administer, it doesn't seem like a bad deal.

    --
    E pluribus unum
  8. Re:Why so huge? by poopdeville · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  9. Computer ink and paint only. by tinrobot · · Score: 2, Informative

    The characters are still drawn and animated in pencil.

    Film Roman here in LA does design/boards/layout, while several studios in Korea do the actual animation as well as the digital ink/paint.

  10. 2MB per frame by Brendor · · Score: 2, Informative
    NTSC video is 720px x 486px at 29.997 frames per second. 2 seconds of video is close to 100MB

    He is also probably talking about assets pre rendering. Every character has textures associated with it, and the geometry, while not that huge, adds up.

  11. XServe RAIDs by Bobartig · · Score: 3, Informative

    What should be said is that it is NOT PowerPC hardware, there are NO G5's in them, and they don't run OSX. They're a sleek chassis full of RAID hardware, fiber channel connectivity, and 7 independant SATA controllers each with 2 hot swappable drives. Price/GB compared to rival products is extremely competitive, as in worlds cheaper. With 2x 512MB caches and dual fibrechannel connectivity, performance is pretty amazing with a full compliment of drives. The RAID servers are certified to work with Novell, Oracle, Windows Server, MacOSX, RedHat, YellowDog, Emulex, Cisco, ATTO, ADIC, etc. etc. etc. They still need some method of administering it (its just the storage), which may be an XServe, or virtually any other modern computer.

    --
    This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
  12. Re:Full quote... WTF? by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It would surprise me if they didn't, given the Windows, Red Hat, Novell and Terra Soft certifications they boast about on their website.

    --
    Donate free food here
  13. Re:Apples hardware? by tfb · · Score: 3, Informative
    Almost no storage system vendors make hard drives. Many of them probably don't actually make anything in terms of hardware. What they `make' is several things which turn out to be a good deal more important than hardware:
    • a system which has actually been properly designed in terms of performance, scalability and so on;
    • a system which they will support, so you don't have to grovel around finding a replacement for some disk that has died and which turns out to not be a current part any more;
    • a system which isn't designed by some spotty teenager who (a) will have no idea about the above two issues, and (b) will then leave or (worse) have some kind of tantrum and refuse to support it any more.

    If your data is worth anything at all, and you are not in the commercially unusual position of being able to do your own system and support it etc (I'm ruling out google here, right) yourself, then it is very unlikely that the spotty-teen approach is better than the storage-system-vendor one, despite the latter having a higher up-front cost and being less fashionable on slashdot. Whether Apple are such a vendor I don't know: I guess they'd like to be.
  14. Re:The Simpsons animates in real time for broadcas by Kankraka · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually that was Futurama, as seen in 2ACV16 - Anthology of Interest I's opening sequence. "Painstakenly Drawn Before a Live Audience."

  15. Re:Full quote... WTF? by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Informative

    Does Apple still support this when you're not running Mac OS X?

    Yes, they do. Support, though the project hasn't needed it, is one of the main reasons we got it.

    With AppleCare Premium, 24x7 telephone and email support is included, as well as 24x7 4-hour on-site hardware service. Apple supports it as fibre channel storage, and they don't care what it's attached to. See also Apple's non-Mac OS X certifications for Xserve RAID. No, it doesn't include Fedora Core, but they still support the product itself.