Technically under a gigabit, and the same is true almost up to 4 streams, but that's just copy time. Once it's there, the bandwidth between storage and instances would easily meet that requirement, then all you need transferred back to your end is the current image / audio. Still, as much as I hate to say it, residential internet speeds are still outrageously slow, variable, and expensive, but I'm just speculating about the future for fun right now. (If you're working in a studio, I would think it'd be less outlandish to find those speeds to the wide web, but I'm unsure of your current setup) 16 GB of RAM for video editing / compositing (Not trying to talk down, just unsure if the "video" prefix is applicable or redundant to the latter). Fair enough :PRed Raw, at 4k, is 36MB/sec.
"At least 16GB for compositing?" I don't even know what that means.
We're friends. Which is why I say, with affection, "you're talking out of your ass." I'm not. Don't make us both upset by deliberately misunderstanding things I do for a living to make a point you can't support.
...so you're seriously advocating a workflow where I'm reliant on "the cloud" for monitoring and editing 4k video? Now you're just being ludicrous. No, you're wishing and presenting it as fact in order to argue that you have a leg to stand on. You don't. if gigabit ethernet isn't fast enough for data transport for what I do, there will be no WAN fast enough for the foreseeable future. A T3 is 4mbit. You're stating that somehow 1Gbit is going to happen at a pedestrian level... all so that I can put my 10TB per movie on someone else's server. You misunderstand me. I know what compositing is. I'm arguing what 16GB has to do with it. You're now arguing for RAM on an individual machine, while my argument has been (and has been clarified three times now) that the issue is even with the skookum fast machine in the sky, the pipe betwixt here and there cannot be made fast enough on an internet backbone. Just to drive home a point, I've got 20GB of RAM and it isn't enough. 64-bit workflows allow RAM caching and my next machine will probably have 64GB or more. And I don't do video.Technically under a gigabit, and the same is true almost up to 4 streams, but that's just copy time. Once it's there, the bandwidth between storage and instances would easily meet that requirement, then all you need transferred back to your end is the current image / audio.
but I'm just speculating about the future for fun right now.
16 GB of RAM for video editing / compositing (Not trying to talk down, just unsure if the "video" prefix is applicable or redundant to the latter).
I've been saying from the start that this is a one day thing and not a today thing. I'm also pointing out that the initial transfer operation is a one time thing. Yeah, it's slow. But it's a day's worth of copy time on gigabit (Don't know why you brought a T3 into the equation, and your number is off by an order of magnitude). It's absolutely possible, and the intention in the long run would be to lower costs. Instead of rolling your own storage array, instead of building your own monster machine, you buy a little time on another network that has been optimized to do all these things on a massive scale. This would be turning that $5-10k workstation into a cheap front-end + monthly server costs. Perhaps high end video editing is too high of bandwidth to be worthwhile. But I'm still not convinced either way that this is inapplicable to any digital work.No, you're wishing and presenting it as fact in order to argue that you have a leg to stand on.
You're stating that somehow 1Gbit is going to happen at a pedestrian level... all so that I can put my 10TB per movie on someone else's server.