Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-f178.google.com ([209.85.220.178] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5008542 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 02:36:10 +0100 Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hz11so939987vcb.23 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:43:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=I0rzZu5W9/NkYvN6Akwek25hP8Z5kHfOGkQCHppSnvI=; b=J0NPfREUW5ePPwYRd6SPeCHmfVOB0O1HDpNUHa8Nc1bRbTqwOCmhxtm34qLasfbQVE rKX80Bv4Mfaam/xLkiUw5+cPuKnyIqgSIlWR7SAx6GvfAqS850MJv7FL7X5SaFe2dT3U +5xrGKfpC9bzv/v87Kcr12ya/RGADULkX0mLJCYKjdBIGBqTFH4yAl68bg6I1VqU8VpH d5x7McE0tcSDcCEfZ7DRjksHlU0vOJ09MVHyGXpxG2wSw65QSdSkIkv7pyBctP900odx U11pkfJ6RkoI488ZiDVGv28qIQ7tt7b8HobGS/8aJeXxfYth2kW4JwNJLPx/4Chb6km2 mw1Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.156.8 with SMTP id u8mr5580492vcw.24.1363743802976; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:43:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.92.169 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:43:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:43:22 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Pushing MP in AE - 6GB per core From: Darby Edelen To: After Effects Mail List , Stephen van Vuuren Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c817af11e4004d85158c8 --f46d043c817af11e4004d85158c8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I did this for the first time the other day as well. I managed to successfully supply up to 12GB to 6 of my 32 threads. I didn't push it any further, no need in my case, but I got the feeling that I could. I'm curious about what sorts of negative impact using such a large chunk of RAM for render multiple frames might have. It seems that I push some of my more complicated comps a little too far to the point where AE will almost always fallback to foreground rendering only (not enough RAM available to the background processes), in these cases would there be any reason not to use 8GB, 12GB or even 16GB per background process? --f46d043c817af11e4004d85158c8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I did this for the first time the other day as well.= =A0 I managed to successfully supply up to 12GB to 6 of my 32 threads.=A0 I= didn't push it any further, no need in my case, but I got the feeling = that I could.

I'm curious about what sorts of negative impact using such a large = chunk of RAM for render multiple frames might have.=A0=A0 It seems that I p= ush some of my more complicated comps a little too far to the point where A= E will almost always fallback to foreground rendering only (not enough RAM = available to the background processes), in these cases would there be any r= eason not to use 8GB, 12GB or even 16GB per background process?
--f46d043c817af11e4004d85158c8--