Return-Path: Received: from mail-ve0-f174.google.com ([209.85.128.174] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5010242 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:48:03 +0100 Received: by mail-ve0-f174.google.com with SMTP id jz10so245596veb.5 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=mXgYBkxD9csRNtQn1BBEVL+uMY3omJLCMVldTZP0dTE=; b=EITNIwyujitibEe14co2jvgwPG9788GOhjbJiL3vAtN5i8brVlVDagcL4yt0nebfSF 57Oc9TAREyiRyL79evKEqGN3qC1ZJaDH1QEQLdpC74ysGR/ukHmt1JJCieJBg5mG32fv iVypbH8hea6jdD23zm46sOJMZCfGSpwLnTWDeKXWvbuFDh74RElziyyN+/SHE+yQNB2i D1YlF3NlzOQrAPbOZ3Ek14iu8bK7iYEA/bJle602kihKEYDjW0v1q0Wsga95dDy4njzh utj+cbnVfM19NxZg7/K2D3UCr/hAwlbDHNZ+B0LTckSz8RuNXMEWvUwbb5p4sjQeGHNx 6zpQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.151.203 with SMTP id d11mr16255187vcw.9.1363906519702; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Sender: marcelvanberk@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.187.74 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:55:19 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: oriFes-nItFSmQVW3cRpCGDUsHI Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Pushing MP in AE - 6GB per core From: LSSLSS To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7c909d228804d8773be0 --f46d043c7c909d228804d8773be0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 As Todd meniones, it doesn't really work as such I think. I fed my 32 threads 6Gb per core and was left with 9 threads to render. while giving it 5Gb a core gave me 10 threads to render. And as a result it saved a couple of seconds on a 5 and a half minute render. 6Gb in 5m42sec 5Gb in 5m36sec fine tuning will give you best results depending on the need for processing per frame I think, aka. depending on the amount of heavy effects per frame. met vriendelijke groet/ kind regards, marcel van berk hoge bomen / LSSLSS Rotterdam NL info@lsslss.nl 06 485 605 58 2013/3/21 Todd Kopriva > Darby, > > We have tested with 6GB per background process, but we haven't done > significant testing above that. > > The likely worst thing that happens is that you're wasting RAM because > the rendering process doesn't need what you're feeding it, so you're > unnecessarily taking away from such things as the RAM cache and the OS > and other applications. > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to > --f46d043c7c909d228804d8773be0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As Todd meniones, it doesn't really work as such I think.

I fed my 32 threads 6Gb per core and was left with 9 threads to rende= r.
while giving it 5Gb a core gave me 10 threads to render.

And as a result it saved a couple of seconds on a 5 and= a half minute render.

6Gb in 5m42sec
5G= b in 5m36sec

fine tuning will give you best result= s depending on the need for processing per frame I think, aka. depending on= the amount of heavy effects per frame.

met vriendelijke groet/ kind regards,

marcel van berk
hoge bomen / LSSLSS
Rotterdam NL

06 485 605 58



2013/3/21 Todd Kopriva <toddkopriva= @gmail.com>
Darby,

We have tested with 6GB per background process, but we haven't done
significant testing above that.

The likely worst thing that happens is that you're wasting RAM because<= br> the rendering process doesn't need what you're feeding it, so you&#= 39;re
unnecessarily taking away from such things as the RAM cache and the OS
and other applications.

+---End of message---+
To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>

--f46d043c7c909d228804d8773be0--