 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||||
 |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| 
| User list | You are not logged in.
Is it a worthwhile option having a small renderfarm to do such high resolution work.
Rendering even a 1 gigapixel takes a considerable amount of time, that locks you out of the computer while its processing.
Would it be best to build a small renderfarm?
Unfortunately, I don't see any command line batch option with autopano yet to farm out an efficient workflow. Is this idea workable at the present moment?
The gigapixel image is time and memory and cpu hungry.
Does anyone know how to plant the seeds or foundation towards a small renderfarm?
what would be the best specs for such a rack?
Best does not equal the latest and the greatest.
(something small and reasonable that can be put aside to counter the demands of the hungry gigapixel image.)
That also brings me to the question of server space.
beside gigapan and HD view. How does one store such images on ones server. The last one I created knocked out 250mb even after further compressing of the tiles.
Its the best way to get broke or thro endless money on a dedicated server.
What are most people doing with your high res images?
It would be useful to hear the breakdown workflow for the paris 26giga project.
don't you agree?
Offline
It's described on the blog, why not check there first?
http://blog.paris-26-gigapixels.com/en/
Offline
"we were borrowed an Intel Server System SR2600UR that included 2 Intel Xeon processors 5500 series ans 6 SSD hard drives of 160 GB each, allowing a much faster data writing that standard hard drives. With this hardware that will certainly make jalous a number of geeks (16 cores, 24 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD), the rendering last only 3 hours and 14 minutes: an amazing performance. "
I'm impressed!
How much do you think that would have cost, if someone had to pay for it?
more importantly
How does the autoPano's renderer work?
Does it require CPU's, ram, GPU's?
Is it a scanline based renderer?
storing each line in the buffer and then dumping it to disk.
That makes the GPU use limited for viewing.
How would you have the renderer run only on the farm and not have your pc involved or likewise throw more cpus at it when not using the Pc at night?
Last edited by marquee (2010-04-01 01:46:02)
Offline
I am interested in this too.
I am yet to work out a good way to offload my pano-rendering to another machine so I can continue to work on other projects, I am looking at building a system like the one described above but I still don't think its enough, but I bet that 6x160GB INTEL SSD in RAID-0 would be sweet! hmm, maybe I have to re-evaluate my configuration
Note: Intel 5500 series is only Quad-core which means only a total of 8 and not 16!! hyper-threading!!! makes up the last 8 :-)
hmm, I should have read all this first and I would not have had to write my other post :-)
thanks guys
Henrik
Offline
BTW : we did again the paris rendering with another configuration.
Bi-Xeon 5670 with 12 GB memory and 6*80GB SSD drives. Bigger cpu, but smaller configuration.
2.0.7 version used for the original rendering took 1h53 minutes.
Offline
Alexandre,
Would you boil this down to faster CPU's and more cores, also the 80GB SSD's if INTEL's are faster then the 160GB's (which were Intel's).
12GB of ram isn't all that much, which is interesting, as its often stated here get more ram! but maybe the sweet point is between 8 and 24GB, knowing that 8 isn't enough, and 24 was what was used last.
Man, building that elusive perfect pano cruncher machine is getting harder and harder to nail, unless ofcourse everything is just maxed out.
thanks
Henrik
Offline
And to complicate things, let's not forget this last test was done with 2.0.7, not 2.5, which is much more important 
Offline
So true [bo]. The main difference of rendering speed comes from the CPU. 24 cores against 16 cores. 80GB SSD are just as fast as 160 GB SSD.
Offline
[bo] wrote:
And to complicate things, let's not forget this last test was done with 2.0.7, not 2.5, which is much more important
AlexandreJ wrote:
So true [bo]. The main difference of rendering speed comes from the CPU. 24 cores against 16 cores. 80GB SSD are just as fast as 160 GB SSD.
2.0.7 doesn't seem to use all the memory available, 2.5 seems to use as much as possible, so the render may run faster on that machine with APG 2.5.
Will more RAM or more Cores make a bigger difference? (and a processor with more cores may have more on-board cache)
Last edited by hankkarl (2010-08-05 20:26:56)
Offline
hankkarl wrote:
[bo] wrote:
And to complicate things, let's not forget this last test was done with 2.0.7, not 2.5, which is much more important
AlexandreJ wrote:
So true [bo]. The main difference of rendering speed comes from the CPU. 24 cores against 16 cores. 80GB SSD are just as fast as 160 GB SSD.
2.0.7 doesn't seem to use all the memory available, 2.5 seems to use as much as possible, so the render may run faster on that machine with APG 2.5.
Will more RAM or more Cores make a bigger difference? (and a processor with more cores may have more on-board cache)
Hankkarl,
thats the current $64k question, have a read here http://www.autopano.net/forum/t9538-can … processors though they do not test pano software, they way they scale is interesting though.
Henrik
Some people here might think this is all silly to worry about if your computer can perform better adding this or that,throwing money about which seem to them in a careless maner; but what this is really about is trying not to waste money, but putting the money into hardware where it counts to make this more efficient. Though the initial cost is higher, its paying off in the long run IMHO. However, as mentioned before its interesting to see what alternatives we can come up with to archive a similar or better outcome for less. Turning passion into profit.
Last edited by tived (2010-08-06 02:55:08)
Offline