[Sidefx-houdini-list] network bgeo generation vs local

Francois Duchesneau sidefx at trinix.ca
Tue Jul 20 16:47:42 EDT 2010


Thanks for the tip.

I know things are improving network wise here. We are still using samba
which slows down traffic from what I understood but I think there're gonna
get rid of that and use nfs. In the end I was under the impression I would
never be as fast on the network as local.

I still don't understand why it takes longer to bake on the network vs
local + copy time. I wonder if it were possible for Houdini to do the bgeo
generation in a tmp folder locally and copy the file after it's generated.

Maybe I should go to work at Pixar :)

François

>   Hi Micheal,
>
> I suppose pixar is using something gigabit+-ish for network? My network
> here is
> fairly heterogeneous, all nics are gigabit speed (and so is the switch)
> but the
> harddisk are sata and old ata's and the server is firewalled and has a p3
> cpu.
> Far from optimal. I certainly believe that with the right hardware the
> speed
> difference between local and network disappears.
>
> @Francois: you could let the IT guy tinker with MTU settings, that might
> help
> speeding up network traffic. The default is 1500 which is nice for the
> usual
> small packages travelling over the network but not for big files.
>
> On 07/20/2010 09:41 PM, Michael O'Brien wrote:
>> Hola~
>>
>> Most of the performance depends on what sort of hardware you have local
>> vs
>> network and what sort of network bandwidth you have. We are at the point
>> where we can write a file over the network faster than we can write to a
>> local drive. We are hoping to get to a point where the user's local
>> drive is
>> fairly minimal.
>>
>> MO
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: sidefx-houdini-list-bounces at sidefx.com [mailto:sidefx-houdini-
>>> list-bounces at sidefx.com] On Behalf Of houdini
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:55 AM
>>> To: sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Sidefx-houdini-list] network bgeo generation vs local
>>>
>>>    Did a test on Linux and the same issue. Network writing is a lot
>>> slower than
>>> writing locally (factor 2). But if i add the copy/move time the
>>> difference per
>>> file is smaller. The network writing cost around 27seconds to perform,
>>> the local
>>> writing plus copy 22 seconds. The time might be dependant on the size
>>> of the
>>> bgeo (52mb file here), not sure if it has impact on the performance .
>>>
>>> Hans
>>>
>>> On 07/20/2010 04:38 PM, Francois Duchesneau wrote:
>>>> I've done some benchmarks regarding working local vs network for file
>>>> generation and I've come with those results.
>>>>
>>>> 131 sec. to bake a bgeo file on the network vs 8 sec. locally. To
>>> copy the
>>>> local file to the network takes 40 sec.
>>>>
>>>> So what I do know is to bake locally and copy to save time. Before I
>>>> create a pipeline for that I was wondering if others have dealt with
>>> that
>>>> and how. Is there an option? Is that issue only on Windows.
>>>>
>>>> François
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>>>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>>>> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>>> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
>





More information about the Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list