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

Andrew D Lyons tstexture at gmail.com
Tue Jul 20 16:49:48 EDT 2010


There is a management overhead with moving stuff around between local
drives, and some risk of using wrong caches via human error as well - so I
guess it really does depend on your network. I have to admit - the last
pipeline I saw that used a local drive on a regular basis was designed in
the mid 1990's...

Cheers

On 20 July 2010 13:17, houdini <houdini at retrovertigo.nl> wrote:

>  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
>



-- 
=======================================
Andrew D Lyons | Digital Artist | http://www.tstex.com
=======================================



More information about the Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list