Hey Folks -

I've not posted since March, as my real life took over. I thought I would post what I had done, in case its useful to anyone trying to solve the RAM problem.

My ultimate solution: I built a VMWARE server to run multiple virtual XP x64 machines, each of which is running FX-Teleport. All of the virtual machines feed their samples back over a Gigbit LAN to my main DAW.

The specs: I built a free-standing (not rack) server in a quiet case:
Lian Li PC-V1200S-Plus-II (Silver) Aluminum Tower Case (with Cooling Kit) ($200)
Intel Quad-Core Xeon E5345 2.33GHz 8MB cache box $937.00
Intel S5000PSLSATA Server Board Dual Xeon 5000/5100 FB-DIMM $500.00

This board can hold up to 32 GB of ram... but at 2GB each, it tops out at 16GB. 4gb FBDIMMS are very expensive. There is room for an extra quad-core processor, too.

I put 8GB of ram (4x2) in.
3Ware RAID card.

VMware is a bit tricky to use, but any savy person here could do it, because my skills are limited. I ran it on a Linux platform, which required me to compile my own drivers for the 1 TB RAID0 array (2x500GB).

This may not be a useful way to go for most, and I have yet to work out the kinks, but I can report the following findings:

(1) FXTeleport works fine in XP64, and the VSL Daemon looks like it can handle all 4GB as a 32-bit application inside XP64. (I learned this while running XP64 natively, not in virtualizatio mode)

(2) As each virtual machine has its own IP address, you need a Teleport license for each machine.

(3) VMware can only assign 3GB of RAM to each virtual machine, so you can't max out the capabilities of XP64.

(4) Each virtual machine needs its own VSL key!!! They can't share a USB hub.

(5) It pops and clicks. This is most likely due to hard drive signal path issues - I would trouble shoot it, but I haven't been working on it lately.

(6) There are some other issues (assigning the USB keys to the virtual machines in the VMware interface can misfire sometimes, and you have to go in and re-assign it, which takes 5 seconds)

VMware (the 'single user' version) is free, or at least it was 6 months ago. The company has since IPO'd.

I haven't pushed it, but the processor hardly looks tasked at all. The RAID array is delivering 120MBps sustain, with faster bursts, so disk bandwidth shouldn't be a problem.

So, why bother posting? Because I think that, for someone who wanted to have all of their samples on one shared RAID array, and one single machine that hosts all of the (virtual) 64-bit machines, this thing could be a 'single tower' server that could hold the whole library. I've had to bow out of working out the kinks, because of other time constraints, but I thought I would post it FWIW. I strongly suspect that, if I had time to trouble shoot it, I could get past most of these issues.

Hope that's useful for someone.

Best regards,

Eric

P.S. I tried Parallels, and it was SOOO slow. The reason I used Ubuntu Linux was to have the thinnest (free) OS that could support the VMware server. You still need a license for XP 64bit...

Hey Gagga 3.0 -

You give me some interesting ideas. As for why the Mac, I have never built a box, didn't want to chance it, so I looked around for a pre-built box with enough DIMM slots. All of the major brand PC's have 4 max, and very few of their motherboards support more than 4GB. Lenovo makes a business desktop that supports 8GB. Only MAINGEAR makes a machine that holds 16. Also, I liked the idea of preserving Mac options going forward, as I am a Logic user still using Logic 5 Platinum (very good, but getting a little creaky - I only use it for sequencing).

I may very well end up returning my fancy Mac Pro and taking the 10% restock hit - its a 'research cost' in my mind. I may replace the Mac Pro with 2 Maingear boxes (each with 4GB and XP x64). With 8GB of ram, it would still be cheaper than 1 Mac Pro and with 4x4 each, I could hit 32 GB, which I don't think anybody needs - also, I could upgrade to quad cores if I needed more power at some point.

Could you elaborate on these board and virtualization options?

Christian -

From what I understand, XP x64 is only supported as HOST platform for Windows Server - that page you link to seems to be repeating the supported host platforms twice. Also, I notice in the Virtual Server FAQ's that USB support is very limited - no readers or scanners, etc. However, Syncrosoft may still run.

I sure would love to spend some time making music - but maybe I'm avoiding the challenge by tackling this one...

Best regards,

Eric

Dear Christian -

Virtual Server does not support 64-bit guests, unfortunately...

Q. Does Virtual Server 2005 support 64-bit processors?

A. Virtual Server 2005 R2 runs on both 32-bit and 64-bit (x64) host operating systems. It supports both AMD64 and Intel IA-32e/EM64T (x64) processors. Note that Virtual Server 2005 R2 does not support Itanium (IA-64) processors. Earlier versions of Virtual Server run on x64-based hardware provided it is running a 32-bit version of a supported host operating system.

Note that Virtual Server 2005 R2 requires that guest operating systems be 32-bit.

Not sure what to try next. more later...

Regards,

Eric

Thanks Christian -

Interesting - I'll look into that. Perhaps I'm headed in the Server direction after all? I worry that they'll be loud! Dell PowerEdge with 2 QUAD Xeon's? $2,623. I have 14 days to return my Mac Pro. But here's my question: Is 64-bit VI close enough that I'm wasting my time with this? Of course, when 64 bit comes, it will just work better, but I'm curious...

I'll post any further results!

Best regards,

Eric

Hi Folks -

OK, we're not quite to the goal yet, but I've got some data:

The system: MacPro 3.0GHz 2xDual Xeon. 10GB Ram.

1) First, I loaded Fusion, which is a beta release of a virtual machine simulation platform for Mac. Commercial release this summer. Supports 64-bit OS's, like XP x64. X64 loaded easily, without a hitch, as did Syncrosoft, Teleport, and VI.

2) Downloaded a trial version of XP x64 from Microsoft (fully functional, they give you an ISO and a 120 day activation key).

Results:

1) You can create 2 virtual machines, each with its own separate 4.5GB, AND ITS OWN VIENNA KEY (you can't even share them on virtual machines,
it seems). Each machine has its own bridged IP on the gigabit LAN.

VI Standalone loads and reports 4,096 MB free

2) I loaded FX-Teleport slaves on each virtual machine. It works!

The master (in Forte, on my main DAW) recognizes the virtual slaves as independent machines, each with its own IP.

VI plug-ins load in Teleport and report 4,096 MB free.

Unfortunately, this setup is EATING processing power for LUNCH. Probabably because those processors are

* Running Mac OSX
* Running TWO virtual XP x64 machines (OS's)

before you even get to VI.

So, I thought, well the ideal thing would be if you could create 1 virtual machine with say, 9 GB and access it all in Teleport. (If this worked, then I could just go with a real XP x64 boot on the Mac.)

Someone previously posted on the FX-Teleport forum saying that Teleport had some quirk where in XP x64, each plug-in opened in its own s32-bit pace and reported 4GB free.

So, I created a virtual machine with 7 GB to see if I could break the 32-bit barrier.

When you start out, with multiple instances of VI, they report 4,096 GB. And as I loaded a 600MB preset on one, the other continued to report 4,096MB free! Wait, then again, the instance into which the 600 MB was loaded ALSO reported 4,096. Probably VI has trouble counting its memory...

Bottom line: The Server application that ties the instances together maxes out at 3.9GB. I had 6 instances all stable, together holding 3.92GB of VI samples. Some dropout issues, but I did not tweak latency. Interestingly the 2.57 GB that VI instances now reported free was very close to the OS's report of 2.63 GB. Maybe they report 4,096 until the memory avail drops below?

On trying to load the next 550 MB Preset, the VI first just balked and stopped after 22 MB.

When I ran it again, it tried, and hung the system while trickling up to 4019 MB into the 'Server' application.

So: I had hoped that perhaps, you could take advantage of some loophole miracle and get at as much memory as a 64 bit system could serve up. If this were the case, I was going to load a pure XP x64 partition on the Mac Pro and use as much RAM as my heart desired. But alas, this is not to be. Or is it?

However, I have not given up:

Christian: If I could just get two separate installations of VI running on the 64-bit XP system, each of which pointed to its own server application, I could probably get 8GB or so loaded.

Similarly, if this strategy worked ad infinitum, then the Dell PowerEdge server, which holds 64 GB of RAM, and up to 4 dual-core Xeons, could probably load the whole library in a single convenient (if expensive) rack module.

What do you all think?

Best regards,

Eric

I'd just like to say a few words to remember Western Digital Caviar 300GB SE16 S/N WCAPD1335519. It was a good disk drive, and served me well since I bought my first Vienna library last spring. Last night, it gave its life for this project. The small desk, in disarray, just didn't have enough space, and then, over the edge, with a bang, and the tick-tick-tick of broken platters, it transmitted its final byte. In a final act of generostiy, it gave its CoolGear SATA case to another WD drive, this one 500GB. How long does it take to re-extract this library?
[]

Hey Folks -

I'm not that savvy with finding cheap memory - I tend to go straight to Crucial. At Crucial, unbuffered 2GB 240pin DDR2 at 533Mhz (PC2-4200) is about the price that Stephane quotes: USD $273/2GB (almost exactly €200). Memory markets are highly efficient... When you step up to 667 Mhz, the price goes to USD 321/2GB (€241). When you BUFFER it, it goes to USD 347/2GB (€261) and when you add those special heat fins? USD 382/2GB (€287). Times 4... I don't know how much you need that speed, buffering, and fins, but I just went with the reccomendation.

Wait a minute, the price for 8 GB has dropped USD $160 since I ordered yesterday! What did I say about efficient markets? Happily, (this one's for you DG) Crucial offers a 30-day one-time price adjustment option which they do not advertise, but which coincides with their return window. I have set an alarm in my calendar to check the price in 30 days!

I decided someone should be the guinea pig - I will post my results, but it may take a while. BTW, I see there is another XP simulator in beta called Fusion... I may try that too...

Best regards,

Eric

Hey DG -

There is precedent for people running Vista on Mac Pro. How reliable it is is another question, but I suspect the wrinkles will get ironed out before it matters to me (I hope).

http://www.wintellect.com/cs/blogs/jrobbins/archive/2007/02/15/vista-x64-on-a-mac-pro-totally-awesome-dude.aspx

Another issue has reared its ugly head - the Mac BIOS might not let me put more the 2gb to work in Windows XP - I hope that's not the case.

As for the memory: My 8gb cost me $1,700. If I can use a big chunk of that, say 7gb total, I think I come out about even vs. having two XP machines.

Anyway, hopefully I'll learn something that might be useful to others.

Best regards,

Eric

Well, here I go: I just ordered a 2.66 Ghz Mac Pro with 8GB of RAM, Parallels, XP32, and 500GB WD SATA drive. I'll see what I can get out of it: Multiple Parallels virtual machines running Teleport? x64 running Teleport? Perhaps for those maxing out on instances, my pursuit of full memory usage seems silly.

The deciding factor for me was the cost of RAM: To take a 4-DIMM slot Windows system to 16GB requires 4x4GB DIMMS (!!). The Mac can do it with 8x2GB. Its something like HALF the cost, and I don't see the price of 4GB dimms falling anytime soon. So, to me, the Mac Pro may be the best PC I can get. At the very least, I can go to 16GB when Vista comes out...almost no PC box currently has that capacity.

DG: I saw you on the on the Teleport forum, with that guy claiming that XP FX Teleport running in x64 can get you access to all 8GB RAM? Then the thread died. You seem to know a few who have Teleport on x64 - what have you heard, in terms of memory access?

I hope I'm not trying something that's already been disproven in the past. I've read all over this forum and unfortunately, interesting threads tend to dissolve into PC vs Mac diatribes, and I can't figure out whether anyone actually answered the original question. So, here I go. If I succeed, perhaps I will have something useful to share with everyone here. And if you know I'm going down a dead end, please stop me!

Ding-dong, its UPS, with my copies of Appassionata and Bosendorfer! Wheee, I've got work to do.

Wish me luck.

Best regards,

Eric

Hey guys -

My particular angle is that I'm not a pro, and I have very limited physical space available - to get more space in San Fran would cost me $1000 more/month in rent, which would buy a lot of gear. So, 4GB memory modules start to look like a reasonable option!

I'm trying to decide between buying a new PC with massive ram support, or buying the latest Mac Pro and running XP32 or XP64 to stay compatible with my current setup: I have two XP machines (3 and 2gb) one as master and the other as slave, with FX-teleport and Forte as the host on the big machine (and PC Logic as the sequencer).

I want to be ready with enough RAM space when 64 bit VI comes along.

On the PC end: very few PC's have enough room for more than 4GB; Shuttle has a box that supports 8 (4xddr2); MAINGEAR's X-cube will support a theoretical 16GB.

Mac Pro supports 16GB out of the box, and I like the idea of leaving my Mac options open by buying a Mac Pro.

So, at the very least I can run 32 bit XP on either system, and be happy with another 3GB of ram over Teleport (is Teleport friendly with Mac's runing XP?)

In my ideal world, I load XP 64 bit on my new PC or Mac, and then I make nice little 32-bit homes for say, Forte and Bidule, each of which can then get at almost 4 GB of application ram, to load samples. (I've read that 32-bit applications have the full 4GB available in X64).

Or, I run FX teleport, and just load as many instances as it will hold. I could switch and have the XP-64 be my master, and my current XP Pro 32-bit computer be my slave. (Is FX Teleport LAA?)

I guess my problem would come if the VI instances, when loaded into hosts on a Windows-based machine, are sharing the same RAM pool, in which case, I'm out of luck, and I may as well just get a 4GB PC and run XP.

Several folks have been successful with XP64 on a Mac - its all about finding the right drivers.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=231901

with posts such as:

Our 3rd & 4th Mac Pros arrived this morning (only ordered them yesterday) and are up & rendering in 3dsmax already under win x64 in less then 1.5 hours.

So, what do you guys think?

Regards,

Eric

Hey folks -

Forgive the multiple out-of-left-field posts. I'm kind of wed to the PC by existing equipment, but, drawn to the memory capacity and multiple processors of a Mac Pro. And I'm trying to keep things streamlined so that I don't have to route multiple audio signals around.

My idea would be to use it (the Mac Pro) as an FX teleport slave.

My other thinking is that I'm going to plunk down the cash for a new system, I'm afraid to do it with a PC, only to find later that I wanted to take the plunge and cross over. If I buy a Mac Pro and run, say, XP64, then I will have the option of just switching OS.

How much trouble am I going to have, in terms of drivers, etc? Please feel free to just point me to existing posts, or tell me where to do my own digging - I just need to know where to get started.

Thanks very much!

Best regards,

Eric

Hi -

I know I remember someone reporting some success with XP-64, but I can't remember who... I'm considering going 64 bit, so I can get the most memory out of my system. I understand that I need to get the right drivers, but from what I understand, that really refers mostly to the sound card - my card does have XP64 drivers. Other than that, is there anything else I need to think about? Might this mean that I can have all 4GB of 32-bit address space for my host application, or the VST stand-alone? An article on AMD's site said that XP64 can provide a normal, 32-bit operating environment with the full 4GB of space, for a 32-bit application.

Thanks so much for your thoughts and advice.

Best regards,

Eric

Thank you both!

I will check to see what's running in the background, and also consider an upgrade...

Regards,

Eric

Hi -

I'm new to Teleport, and I'm getting a lot of drop-out @ 512 samples with just one instance loaded on the slave. I'm curious if its my setup:

Slave: Pentium 4 2.4Ghz XP Home, 2GB Ram - Compaq laptop
Switch: Netgear 1000 Mbit 8-port
Card: The onboard Ether is 10Mbit, so i put a 1Gbit adapter in the PCMCIA slot. Reports 1GB speed...

Old VI interface (dusted off the machine).

What kind of latency can I expect, and is there a likely weak point in my setup? If I buy a new PC, with the works, can I expect better?

Thanks for your help,

Eric

Hey Folks - I just wanted to say thanks, and to report that my consultant was unable to find a solution. The Lenovo BIOS on my laptop just doesn't allow one to make the kinds of adjustments to the resource settings that would allow me to free up (some) of that extra 1GB of address space.

Thanks everyone for your help..

On a happier note, I got FX teleport, and am now squeezing an extra 1.5 GB out of my old Pentium 4 2.5GHZ with 2GB ram! Which gets me thinking..... Old MacDonald had a farm...

Best regards,

Eric

Hey Christian, Bjarne:

Thanks for the continuing help. My Task Manager reports:

Phsyical Memory (K)
Total 3,114,044
Available 2,528,868
System Cache 980,676

Commit Charge (K)
Total 379,792
Limit 2,983,252
Peak 593,872

Kernel Memory (K)

Total 117,664
Paged 53,000
Nopaged 64,688

PF Usages hovers at 370MB.

I've actually contacted a consultant to help me - I'll let everyone know if something of general utility comes from that.

Best regards,

Eric

Hi Sapkiller -

Thanks for the suggestion - I looked in the BIOS (F1 on start up) and there is no such switch on my system, or anything remotely resembling it.

I figured out that the video memory was using 512 MB (it has 256mb on board, but takes 256 more) , but when I disabled my Fire GL video card, it had no impact on the reported memory available.

I don't know how to reconcile the testimony of those in various forums who assert that 3.0 GB is the ceiling with the experiences of others on this forum who report more memory available.

What is your system, OS, memory, and how much does your system report as available?

Thanks again,

Regards,

Eric

Dear Christian -

Thank you for your extensive reply. I was not able to find a verbose mode, but when I profile the system from within the BIOS configuration utility (holding F1), it clearly shows the 4GB. As for what is taking the remainder of my memory, that is not clear. Summing the memory demands across all processes explains the decrement from the reported 3.1 total physical to the 2.7 available. As for what's happened to the 900MB, I don't know. I am fairly certain that my video card has its own dedicated RAM (hyper ram, 512MB), as it shows up in the Fire GL control panel, with its own clock speed, etc. I still get conflicting reports of the total physical memory from the System Information panel (from the control panel: 3.00 GB exactly), the task manager (3.144), and from the system profiler, which I put in my first reply (4.00GB).

I think I will try to find a BIOS expert who can help me re-allocate some of the ram? I'm not sure where I would find such an expert! But I will try.

Best regards,

Eric

Dear Nick -

That's great - thanks very much for your reply. Now, if I can just get my computer to see the 4 GB of RAM, I should be in good shape.

Best regards,

Eric

Thank you Christian -

Yes - I understand that I should not see the whole 4GB - but I was expecting better, too. What makes me really suspicious is that the number that shows in the System description is 3.00GB exactly. I see a little more in the task manager (3.144) so maybe some tweaking will get me back the rest. My video card is a ATI Mobility Fire GL 5200 - its control panel says it has 512MB of RAM, which is supposed to be ON the card itself, that was my understanding when I bought it (and why it took so long to get the thing, because they were back-ordered). Perhaps it is taking the system memory? The ATI control utility says that it is on the PCI bus...

Even though the system only shows 3.00 GB in the XP panel, when I run 'system information', I get:

OS Name Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Version 5.1.2600 Service Pack 2 Build 2600
OS Manufacturer Microsoft Corporation
System Name NEWSTUDIO1
System Manufacturer LENOVO
System Model 2623DDU
System Type X86-based PC
Processor x86 Family 6 Model 14 Stepping 8 GenuineIntel ~1995 Mhz
Processor x86 Family 6 Model 14 Stepping 8 GenuineIntel ~1994 Mhz
BIOS Version/Date LENOVO 79ETC9WW (2.09 ), 12/22/2006
SMBIOS Version 2.4
Windows Directory C:\\WINDOWS
System Directory C:\\WINDOWS\\system32
Boot Device \\Device\\HarddiskVolume1
Locale United States
Hardware Abstraction Layer Version = "5.1.2600.2765 (xpsp.050928-1517)"
User Name NEWSTUDIO1\\Eric
Time Zone Pacific Standard Time
Total Physical Memory 4,096.00 MB
Available Physical Memory 2.55 GB
Total Virtual Memory 3.00 GB
Available Virtual Memory 2.96 GB
Page File Space 5.88 GB
Page File C:\\pagefile.sys

Thoughts anyone?

I appreciate your help, especially since it is not your job to trouble shoot my XP problems! I'm looking forward to using all of that RAM for instruments!

Thanks again,

Eric

Hey Folks,

I heard that forte was, but can't find it in the documentation. I don't need a sequencer, just a host for VI...

Best regards,

Eric

Hi All -

Hope you can help me out with this one:

I just installed 4GB of ram in an XP Pro SP2 machine. The BIOS sees all 4 GB, but XP only sees 3.0. I've read all over the place about this, including talking to IBM tech support, but nothing seems to answer my question for certain: Can XP use more than 3GB? I've seen, for instance, a post on Dell's website that says, if you have 4 GB installed, you may only see 3.5 in XP, but to lose an entire GB?

Should I just send one of my pricey ($550) 2GB SO-DIMM sticks back (I'm using 2x2) and go with 1GB (and buy another library?)

Thanks,

Eric

System: IBM ThinkPAd T60p Core Duo 2.5GhZ 4 GB XP Pro SP2.

Hi MartinL -
Not clear to me why you've resigned yourself to not being able to use your ExpressCard port for eSATA? I have the i.connect eSATA 3.0Gb card, in the ExpressCard slot on a ThinkPad T60p and it SMOKES. I dropped a 560MB file from external to internal SATA drives on the T60p, and it took about 15 seconds. I couldn't believe it.
Hope that helps,
Eric

Hi -

I like the scaleability of the Mac Mini farm idea, but I'm Windows-bound. Has anyone had any success loading XP onto the minis and using FX teleport with a XP driver? Or, can you use Teleport cross-platform?
Moreover, will Vienna let you split your library over multiple platforms? Can you switch from Windows to Mac?

Thanks,

Eric

Interest point Steve - I guess I'm trying to think of how to use all of that memory before we get a 64-bit engine from VSL. The server might be able to apportion the huge amount of memory and put it into nice 3gb packages for the current 32 bit engine.

You inspire another question re: the mac mini, which I will post in its own thread...

Thanks!