Return-Path: Received: from mail-oa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.219.41] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4897248 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:07:41 +0100 Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id k14so5979615oag.28 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:10:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=meXqeQD+HGxqT1vLFIavd+3KvfGxZShOXXNF03DW6Lg=; b=ziEivAYgKeNikdlX/Y7F7UGmBB625dysL50v9gnqC52xDXM9JMGvoHUfLQY8TL3YX/ v5h2TSXhqcipc41wfcyIXLhJb3oYxP27SOoMeYTPmRDsVdBSEbJ3gQbGCGt+l83y7vXP MFJKf4nE9oc0auYkC2uPBhwHYuNPkCRmoIOHkGIetufaV6Qt8wOXUtPdS/mok5xIjfoA gkS8y4ej4rOhu03dEthPUm9EeM7YyDVBJdUhhJdtQhyk5ctV3hZzY6S3VQJNSB6epgLi O4KGPNl+hCff13Ak5pAFTMBTm/QnnP28VUmHjeWqnz2t5Nj6dH5r7SKKytfc5lO5lNql UrmQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.8.35 with SMTP id o3mr3705378oea.2.1352754653408; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:10:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.12.1 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:10:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:10:53 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Semi OT: Yet another mac mini render farm thread From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1f79a95acb004ce52bc83 --e89a8fb1f79a95acb004ce52bc83 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable could always pick one up and test it for 30 days. if its not up to snuff you can return it On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Nathan Shipley wrote: > > for a mac based render manager check > http://www.braverabbit.de/playground/?page_id=3D716 > > I've used Pipeline earlier this year for Maya renders at a Mac shop. > Works nicely. Takes away most of my concerns about the actual > render management part of things. > > > However, there's probably a reason you don't hear about this setup > more often. It's certainly a lot more expensive per core than an equivale= nt > PC setup would be. > > True. If I went this way, I'd mainly be thinking about something simple > and on the smaller end that I could set up here in my studio and expand i= f > needed. Frequently I could use a few more machines cranking on a 3D > render. For heavy rendering jobs, I usually just use Render Rocket (clou= d > rendering) and work that into the budget. But there are enough times tha= t > it would be helpful to have some extra juice that I'd consider spending $= 2 > - $3,000 for some more machines here. The plusses versus a PC setup bein= g > that everything else I have is already OSX, they're small, they're quiet, > low power consumption, they'd network together easily. > > Enticingly, the Geekbench score recorded for the late 2012 i7 Mini (11,65= 6) > is almost as good as the 2010 2.4 GHz 8-core Mac Pro I'm using (14,158 as > my workstation). By that metric, adding three Mac Minis to my setup woul= d > be like having more than two additional Mac Pros to render with for about > $2500. > > One of my main concerns would be about reliability if they're pegged at > 100% CPU usage for extended periods of time without some additional > cooling/ventilation... > > - Nathan > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Teddy Gage wrote: > >> I really don't remember. This was about five years ago and we were tryin= g >> to network together ten Mac pros plus SCSI ram modules and a hugely >> expensive and unstable RAID. Probably not the best example and I bet its= a >> ton easier these days. However, there's probably a reason you don't hear >> about this setup more often. It's certainly a lot more expensive per cor= e >> than an equivalent PC setup would be. >> On Nov 12, 2012 3:20 PM, "Tony Romain" >> wrote: >> >>> I think where I'm at is trying to figure out what the main limiting >>> factor is here versus building something from the ground up, piece by p= iece >>> (probably PC based for cost). >>> >>> Do you have a sense of specifically what the networking issues were? >>> For cinema rendering, my understanding is that once the net render fil= es >>> have been distributed amongst the nodes, their really isn't a ton of >>> network traffic, except for the rendered frames being copied back over = to >>> the server. However, I may be wrong on this=85 I don't know a ton of w= hat >>> goes on under the hood of these farms=85 >>> >>> Have been exchanging emails with the owner of this company: >>> >>> http://h-sq.com/products/minirack/index.html >>> >>> to see if he's heard any anecdotal info from any of his clients. He >>> hand't heard anything specific other than describing one server set-up = he'd >>> heard of that utilized 160 mac minis for some type of test automation (= not >>> sure what that is), but they were all being taxed 100% of the time and >>> seemed to run fine=85 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *tony romain* *|* *principal/creative director* >>> >>> *trance* >>> *motion graphic animation and design* >>> 323 651 1114 >>> www.trancedesigns.com >>> >>> From: Teddy Gage >>> Reply-To: AE list >>> Date: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:05 PM >>> To: AE list >>> Subject: Re: [AE] Semi OT: Yet another mac mini render farm thread >>> >>> My main concern would be the networking back end. Unless you have an >>> applescript wizard on hand you may run into some problems, even with a >>> networked rendering package like deadline. We tried to do something lik= e >>> this at a place I was working a few years ago and it was rage-inducing.= The >>> frustrating thing was "it should have worked" but it just didn't. There >>> were always problems. maybe if you installed win 7 pro in bootcamp on a= ll >>> of them. but I guess that would defeat the purpose. Things have probabl= y >>> come along since then however >>> >> > --=20 danny princz exposedideas.com --e89a8fb1f79a95acb004ce52bc83 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable could always pick one up and test it for 30 days. if its not up to snuff yo= u can return it


On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Nathan Shipley <nshipley@gmail.com= > wrote:
>=A0for a mac base= d render manager check=A0http://www.braverabbit.de/playground= /?page_id=3D716

I've used Pipeline earlier this year for Maya rend= ers at a Mac shop. =A0Works nicely. =A0Takes away most of my concerns about= the actual render=A0management=A0part of things.

>=A0=A0However, there's probably a reaso= n you don't hear about this setup more often. It's certainly a lot = more expensive per core than an equivalent PC setup would be.

True. =A0If I went this way, I&#= 39;d mainly be thinking about something simple and on the smaller end that = I could set up here in my studio and expand if needed. =A0Frequently I coul= d use a few more machines cranking on a 3D render. =A0For heavy rendering j= obs, I usually just use Render Rocket (cloud rendering) and work that into = the budget. =A0But there are enough times that it would be helpful to have = some extra juice that I'd consider spending $2 - $3,000 for some more m= achines here. =A0The plusses versus a PC setup being that everything else I= have is already OSX, they're small, they're quiet, low power consu= mption, they'd network together easily.

Enticingly, the Geekbench score recorded for the late 2012 i7 Mini = (11,656) is almost as good as the 2010 2.4 GHz 8-core Mac Pro I'm= using (14,158 as my workstation). = =A0By that metric, adding three Mac Minis to my setup would be like having = more than two additional Mac Pros to render with for about $2500.

One of my main concerns would be about= reliability if they're pegged at 100% CPU usage for extended periods o= f time without some additional cooling/ventilation...

- Nathan

On Mon,= Nov 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com>= wrote:

I really don't remember. This was about five years ago a= nd we were trying to network together ten Mac pros plus SCSI ram modules an= d a hugely expensive and unstable RAID. Probably not the best example and I= bet its a ton easier these days. However, there's probably a reason yo= u don't hear about this setup more often. It's certainly a lot more= expensive per core than an equivalent PC setup would be.

On Nov 12, 2012 3:20 PM, "Tony Romain"= <to= nyr-aelist@trancedesigns.com> wrote:
I think where I'm at is trying to figure out what= the main limiting factor is here versus building something from the ground= up, piece by piece (probably PC based for cost).

Do you have a sense of specifically what the networking= issues were? =A0For cinema rendering, my understanding is that once the ne= t render files have been distributed amongst the nodes, their really isn= 9;t a ton of network traffic, except for the rendered frames being copied b= ack over to the server. =A0However, I may be wrong on this=85 I don't k= now a ton of what goes on under the hood of these farms=85

Have been exchanging emails with the owner of this comp= any:


to see if he's heard any anecdotal info from any of= his clients. =A0He hand't heard anything specific other than describin= g one server set-up he'd heard of that utilized 160 mac minis for some = type of test automation (not sure what that is), but they were all being ta= xed 100% of the time and seemed to run fine=85



From: Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com>
= Reply-To: AE list <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Date: Monday, November 12, 2012 12= :05 PM
To: AE list <AE-List@media-motion.= tv>
Subject: Re: [AE] Semi OT: Yet ano= ther mac mini render farm thread

My main concern would be the networking = back end. Unless you have an applescript wizard on hand you may run into so= me problems, even with a networked rendering package like deadline. We trie= d to do something like this at a place I was working a few years ago and it= was rage-inducing. The frustrating thing was "it should have worked&q= uot; but it just didn't. There were always problems. maybe if you insta= lled win 7 pro in bootcamp on all of them. but I guess that would defeat th= e purpose. Things have probably come along since then however




--
danny princz=

exposedideas.com
--e89a8fb1f79a95acb004ce52bc83--