HansKeesom wrote:You can test thing for yourself asking a $200 credit or a 14 day free ride
prices can be seen at http://www.opsource.net/Services/Cloud-Hosting/Pricing
I made my calculation based on 1 day a month so 3%, just for the few times I need to work on a panorama that does not finish on my 16 GB machine.
gkaefer wrote:PS: first posting welcome on forum! Actually you're not the first one posting in first post talking & asking about gigapixels. So I dont knwo how many gigas you did made, so sorry if you're an old stager but most importand much more than having 64GB Ram Servers available is practise practise and much more practise. each single project will give you new sticks & bumpers you've to sturggle with. so getting familar with workflows is wise to do it with 18mm sphericals ....
gkaefer wrote:I posted some days ago a setup of an new Computer 2011 socket, Xeon based.
the "addon" option of SSD I mentioned is more than that. so maybe rather reduce the 6discRAID5 to a RAID1 with 2 discs but do not miss the SSDs.
the setup is fit for next two years. a second Xeon can be added to add more 6cores/12threads and RAM can be upgraded up to 256GB with this setup and if you replace them to bigger ones than even up to 512GB.
gkaefer wrote:About memory and PS: no idea if there are limits (does the 300.000 x 300.000 pixel limit still exist in PS?)
autopano & memory calculation for RAM: http://www.kolor.com/forum/p87033-2011-08-11-11-53-58#p87033
So if you wanna do gigapixels on a regular job basis you need to save time and to make better use of the resources, I would use 64GB with trend to more.
tived wrote:To the OP, i have 48GB and the ability to overclock a dual XEON X5650 @ 2.66Ghz to 4.3Ghz or I can stick in another 48GB for a total 96GB and I can only squeeze 3.1Ghz with the type of ram I am using now with 96GB. Now I do occasionally work on 10-20GB file sizes, and this is heavy lifting. As you noted in your current config, that you could do things to the file in Photoshop, but when it came to saving it, things would have stood still or at least appeared to have done so. Why! Slow storage!!! ;-) You need to have a storage array fast enough to off load the data to disk/SSD, in this case you will need a nice fast array. With my current setup, which is a bit slow at the moment I can average 1GB/sec and peak at 4GB/sec thats with 2x 6 SSD's in RAID-0 which makes it RAID-00 of 12 disks (across two controllers), plus i have another 8 SSD RAID-0 for my OS/apps on a 3rd controller.
tived wrote:You can use Hans's calculator and try and work out how much you need, but most single CPU's boards are limited to 64GB of RAM
HansKeesom wrote:Just throwing in my two cents : instead of buying a machine it might be an idea to hire on in the cloud.
HansKeesom wrote:Klaus, as long as you think your opinion is the same as a fact, there is no point in discussing anything with you. Therefore and again, I give up.
HansKeesom wrote:I am still testing things, maybe in some days I will have to conclude it will not work, but for the moment I am positive.
manneke-d wrote:HansKeesom wrote:Just throwing in my two cents : instead of buying a machine it might be an idea to hire on in the cloud.
That cloud discussion, well for me it is not an option. I do not like cloud computing (altough I have a Dropbox account) for various reasons. I like to have full control on my work.
And beside that: the time that it will take to upload, process and download is more than when I do it on my local computer.
East, west, home's best. So to say.
klausesser wrote:HansKeesom wrote:I am still testing things, maybe in some days I will have to conclude it will not work, but for the moment I am positive.
Being positive always is a good idea
But to pin it down to facts: did you ever in real life worked a, letÂ´s say, 6 Gigapixel panorama via the cloud the way you suggest?
leifs wrote:After a second look at your result and mine it seems that warping is your achilles heel:
your system use 19 min while mine use 2 min
Rendering benchmark: 29 min:54 s
Initialization: 320.521 ms
Warping: 18 min:59 s
Cutting: 1 min:43 s
Blending: 6 min:46 s
Saving: 1 min:31 s
Rendering benchmark: 5 min:8 s
Initialization: 289.127 ms
Warping: 2 min:16 s
Cutting: 51.9385 s
Blending: 59.8949 s
Saving: 19.2497 s
HansKeesom wrote:Remarkable, what can have caused that?
leifs wrote:HansKeesom wrote:Remarkable, what can have caused that?
In my system:
Really fast temp/scratch-disks. SSDs in RAID 0.
Enough RAM to avoid heavy disk access (much faster than SDDs in RAID 0)
How to achieve that in VM's I don't know.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests