Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

182,303 users have contributed to 42,218 threads and 254,754 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 2 new thread(s), 17 new post(s) and 40 new user(s).

  1. Home
  2. General & Hardware
  3. VSL with multiple pcs

  • VSL with multiple pcs

    D
    D
    Hi. After getting to hear VSL at the iLio booth at NAMM, we are taking the plunge and getting the full PRO version. My question is how many PC computers running Gigastudio will be needed to run VSL as a full orchestra?

    We plan to use intel PCs running at 3.2GHz with about 1GB (or more if needed) of RAM and fast 200GB SATA hard disks. Sound cards are currently MOTU 2408s which will be connected via ADAT lightpipe into a digital mixer.

    Will two of these computers be enough to run VSL or will three be better? Also if you have multiple computers, how do most people allocate the samples across different machines . . . for exanple strings on machine 1, winds and perc on machine 2 and brass on machine 3 etc . . .

    Thank you for your time . . . anwers and comments will be appreciated.
  • E
    E
    How inflexible. And lal that hardware. geesh. Too bad you aren't into Apple computers.

    Evan Evans
  • G
    G
    1) Don’t use Giga on your sequencer PC if possible.

    2) Two Giga PCs are really not enough for me.

    3) Get the whole library on each PCs if possible.

    4) Never store a full hard drive for sample library : performances collapse. Keep always 30% or more of your disk free.

    5) With the pro Edition put the library on Two 160 Gb or more Hard drive on two different IDE or Sata port (careful with some Sata disk, some of them get a badest seek time than some ATA 133)
    Like this, you share the stream.


    Regards
  • cmC
    VSL Team
    cmC
    last edited
    last edited

    @evanevans said:

    How inflexible. And lal that hardware. geesh. Too bad you aren't into Apple computers.

    evan, could you please elaborate what you wanted to say us with this reply and what the TLA *lal* stands for? my current state of information is that you hit several walls with all single machine setups, independent from which flavour of system they run. yes, macs can currenly load more instruments than PCs but don't forget to look at the price-ratio also.

    welcome d_cham,
    much will depend on the size of your performances and how much instruments you would expect to have ready for instant access. for really big orchestrations you might consider three or four giga PCs with 2GB RAM running XP, although of course it would be possible bounce parts of your performance to wave before you continue working on more tracks. many of the wonderfull demos on our site have been made using a single GS-computer.
    instead of trying to have all ca. 400.000 samples on your fingertips it would be more efficient to load selected articulations (eg. starting with basic all) and go into details while working on your piece.
    also i would choose more disks holding 120-160GB than a single one with 200 or even more GB to reduce the latency while accessing too much files from a single disk - this would be definately the bottleneck working with a large number of tracks
    christian
    and remember: only a CRAY can run an endless loop in just three seconds.
  • P
    P
    and what the TLA *lal* stands for?

    Hi CM

    I think he just means all. Its an anogram for all as teh is an anogram for the. He just writes really quickly, thats lal.

    Best

    Paul[/b]
  • N
    N
    Hey Dennis, good to see you here.

    Some background. First, the current Giga (and by all accounts the upcoming v.3) can load 1GB of samples if you have 2GB installed - if you set up Mattias' tweaks as described here: http://henningson.triona.se/musikbanken/gigastudio/

    Second, I'm not sure you'll need 3.2GHz even with Giga 3 - although I could be wrong; maybe someone will correct me. The standard-issue sample-streamers people are putting together today have an Intel motherboard, P4 2.8, 800MHz front side bus, Serial ATA on the motherboard (not on a card), and 2GB of fast RAM. Maybe CM can advise about SATA hard drives. Or maybe not SATA, but I think they're the best way to go.

    Note that this kind of machine is extreme overkill for the current Giga version, which is limited to 160 voices. But Giga 3 will stream as many voices as your system can deliver, so you may as well get maximum mileage. Plus it has a built-in convolution reverb.

    Also note that with the exception of 3-lay Legato instruments (which right now are only on EXS), VSL is not polyphony-intensive, since it's recorded with extremely short reverb - i.e. notes don't keep ringing when you release them. So whether you *need* more than two machines is hard to say. You can do a lot with only one cheap PC in Giga 2.5 (the current one) - as long as you don't run a lot of Legato instruments. And you'll always want one more machine, no matter how many you have!
  • R
    R
    I have two machines (2 and 1 gig of ram) - I think Three running at 2 gig ram each is perfect for most composition templates (I am working towards having a third machine added after I upgrade my 1 gig machine. 2.8 ghz would be much better price points today.

    Rob
  • V
    V
    last edited
    last edited

    @cm said:



    instead of trying to have all ca. 400.000 samples on your fingertips it would be more efficient to load selected articulations (eg. starting with basic all) and go into details while working on your piece.
    also i would choose more disks holding 120-160GB than a single one with 200 or even more GB to reduce the latency while accessing too much files from a single disk - this would be definately the bottleneck working with a large number of tracks
    christian


    Would formatting two 160 GB drives in a RAID-0 (striped) array give you even better performance than formatting them separately and storing different sections on each?
  • A
    A
    If you had vsl in your hands and didn't have a computer. What kind of computer would you have bought (for opus 1 use?)

    Since you have more knowledge than me...
  • P
    P
    [quote=Audun Jemtland] What kind of computer would you have bought (for opus 1 use?)

    I guarantee I have less knowledge than you about computers Audun, but based on Antons demos, I would go for an Apple G5
  • cmC
    VSL Team
    cmC
    valerie, all tests i did showed that striping (raid 0) speeds up access significantly, the best result so far are noticed with 10.000 rpm SATA drives.
    for those not familiar with that: striping means access to 2 disks simultaneously, so while seek-time is the same, data throughput is almost doubled (you should use two identical models of disks for best results)
    one thing that doesn't work at all for streaming is to use the type of onboard raid controllers from promise (and others) for creating a raid, whereas the much more expensive (SCSI-)models from mylex,adaptec and others work fine. W2K and XP can create software raids which is cheap and performant, but please note that raid 0 doubles the risk of loosing all data from the striped disks, because if one disk fails, you're lost
    christian
    and remember: only a CRAY can run an endless loop in just three seconds.
  • N
    N
    Are there any 10K RPM SATA drives other than the Western Digital Raptors? The problem with them, of course, is that the largest ones are "only" 72GB.
  • cmC
    VSL Team
    cmC
    nick, have not found any so far - i'd assume we'll have to wait a while until we see the first 146 GB disks with 10.000 rpm - but to have four of them would give you a nice amount of disk space [;)]
    christian

    btw: has somebody tried the built-in raid option with panther?
    and remember: only a CRAY can run an endless loop in just three seconds.
  • P
    P
    If you want to go larger and/or faster than the WD Raptor these days you still have to go Ultra2-SCSI. Quite expensive... [H]

    PolarBear
  • D
    D
    Thanks guys this was very very useful. Also good to hear from you again Nick!
  • N
    N
    last edited
    last edited

    @Another User said:

    I'd assume we'll have to wait a while until we see the first 146 GB disks with 10.000 rpm


    My understanding is that disks of all sizes cost the same to make. The difference is that the yield is lower for larger ones. (Which of course negates my first sentence, but the point remains!)
  • cmC
    VSL Team
    cmC
    nick, i'm sure they have the same thermal problems as the IBM (=hitachi) 146GB - i don't even risk to use a 72 GB raptor without an additional fan
    christian
    and remember: only a CRAY can run an endless loop in just three seconds.
  • N
    N
    Hm. I hadn't thought about the heat. And I have a 36 and 72 Raptor in one of my machines...I'd better check the cooling!
  • C
    C
    last edited
    last edited

    @Nick Batzdorf said:

    Hm. I hadn't thought about the heat. And I have a 36 and 72 Raptor in one of my machines...I'd better check the cooling!

    Nick and others with 10,000 RPM drives,
    Please give us a report on the poly and performance you get when you migrate to 3.0 (Orchestra) . Many of us are anxious to see what kind of performance you get.
  • N
    N
    I'll try, but the machine with the Raptors doesn't have Giga on it. As of now, Giga runs on relatively cheap PCs, so that would be overkill!