E
Esthetix
Guest
cuz Im not sure what you gotta take in2 consideration
bigpharoah
Member
If you are using a PC try FX Teleport. It will also be available for Mac soon according to the developer. Go to FX-Max.com and check it out
bigpharoah
Member
Virtualization is one OS sharing resources over several machines, right?
Are there any real world applications for the workstation that do that?
Are there any real world applications for the workstation that do that?
Last edited:
D
dansgold
Guest
Technically, using a distributed processing setup with something like FX Teleport is not "daisy chaining", but the OP may not really know the difference anyway.
There is no good way to daisy chain PCs or "CPUs" together for music applications. Domething like FX Teleport is a good way to distribute the load across multiple machines.
There is no good way to daisy chain PCs or "CPUs" together for music applications. Domething like FX Teleport is a good way to distribute the load across multiple machines.
Last edited by a moderator:
E
Esthetix
Guest
FX Teleport... Interesting 
bigpharoah
Member
dansgold said:
When he says "CPUs" he is probably referring to workstations, and an ethernet network could physically resemble a daisy chain(especially using the tandem network model, which is a joke because no one uses that anymore). Workstations are also available with 2-16 processors, and these processors would be actually "daisychained". The increase in processing power would not be linear, and the hardware would be cost prohibitive though.
This is why I suggest FX Teleport, because with the exception of OS overhead you get full use of each processor.
Steinberg's "system link" actually is a system of daisychaining workstations via digital soundcards.
Virtualization seems like it is currently limited to server platforms and it would not be available to serve our needs here, except if we were to use a file server. I would like to know if you know of any apps that use this technology for the PC that we can implement now.
Esthetix said:FX Teleport... Interesting
It works, too. Just create templates and assign static ip addresses to the server PCs, and you will increase your workflow. I would never want to use Waves IR-1 without it. That thing will murder your CPU!
Last edited:
Guenon
New member
FX Teleport works. It's worth it to try it out.
Daisy chaining usually refers to a model where a device receives a signal and passes it to a second device, which passes it to yet another device, etc. It's a chain in which there is no parallel functionality between the nodes and usually no direct loopback connection between the end and the beginning of the chain. A common example is a MIDI daisy chain.
In contrast, processors in a single multiprocessor (dual or more) workstation usually use the symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) scheme nowadays, which means that every processor is connected to a common memory pool, and the operating system controls the workload by assigning every processor different individual tasks (or parts of a bigger task) on the fly, i.e. managing multiple threads utilizing each processor. This differs quite a bit from the general idea of "daisy chaining" in this context.
bigpharoah said:
Daisy chaining usually refers to a model where a device receives a signal and passes it to a second device, which passes it to yet another device, etc. It's a chain in which there is no parallel functionality between the nodes and usually no direct loopback connection between the end and the beginning of the chain. A common example is a MIDI daisy chain.
In contrast, processors in a single multiprocessor (dual or more) workstation usually use the symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) scheme nowadays, which means that every processor is connected to a common memory pool, and the operating system controls the workload by assigning every processor different individual tasks (or parts of a bigger task) on the fly, i.e. managing multiple threads utilizing each processor. This differs quite a bit from the general idea of "daisy chaining" in this context.
Last edited:
bigpharoah
Member
Daisychaining refers to a physical configuration, not the way an operating system interfaces with the hardware. In multiprocessor systems the processors are connected by the northbridge, chaining the processors together. The processors must communicate with each other, it is not just a matter of SMP.
This technology has been in use in Windows since NT, and the hardware available was extremely inefficient in those days. Each processor usually has its own physical memory with AMD processors. The OS dumps this into a swap file, but this is for the OS to access and not the processors.
The tandem network model is a daisy chain, and Steinberg System Link also involves daisy chaining computers, that is why it can be so inefficient. In a tandem network data can travel back and forth between all nodes, as with MIDI, but it is still physically a daisy chain.
This is a physical description, and not a logical one. It doesn't matter whether it is distributed processing or SMP. You are talking about models of data processing here, when the term daisy chaining refers to a physical networking model. Daisy chaining refers specifically to the tandem networking model, which Steinberg has in full effect.
This technology has been in use in Windows since NT, and the hardware available was extremely inefficient in those days. Each processor usually has its own physical memory with AMD processors. The OS dumps this into a swap file, but this is for the OS to access and not the processors.
The tandem network model is a daisy chain, and Steinberg System Link also involves daisy chaining computers, that is why it can be so inefficient. In a tandem network data can travel back and forth between all nodes, as with MIDI, but it is still physically a daisy chain.
This is a physical description, and not a logical one. It doesn't matter whether it is distributed processing or SMP. You are talking about models of data processing here, when the term daisy chaining refers to a physical networking model. Daisy chaining refers specifically to the tandem networking model, which Steinberg has in full effect.
Last edited:
Guenon
New member
bigpharoah said:
Naturally, and this is what I wanted to point out, too. The fact that the processors work in tandem the way they do makes them something else than a "daisy chain", in the sense I used the term. Now I understand you are referring to devices connected to each other as a "daisy chain" based on the physical configuration alone. In that case I just misunderstood the way you were using the term.
If the processors are said to be daisy chained on the grounds that they are chained through the north bridge (like in your example), then pretty much any pair of devices which interface with one another in this manner can effectively be called a "daisy chain", in a similar fashion? As I have previously understood, daisy chain configuration usually contains both a physical and a logical premise, the most essential in the latter case being the signal order of the devices: in a daisy chain the devices are not equal in every respect, but are connected in a certain signal order (what ever might be the signal which defines the configuration as such). There is always the first and the last device in a chain, and those two usually don't connect the defining signal in order to form a loop.
I see the term is used in multiple ways, and it's easily becoming quite fuzzy, especially as it's still usually used in the traditional sense in a common studio setup. As you clearly are talking from experience, I'm quite sure I should just upgrade my understanding of the term
Edit: Esthetix, by the way, the soon to be released Ableton Live 6 fully supports multi-processor computers. It runs multithreaded and, according to the betatesters, provides quite a significant performance boost when running on a multiprocessor or multicore computer, compared to an earlier version. Distributing the VST(i) workload between multiple computers still requires the use of something like FX Teleport, though. I'm sure multithreading will be a part of every DAW soon enough, as dual cores are becoming so commonplace.
Last edited:
bigpharoah
Member
Cubase SX is optimized at utilizing multiple cpu cores as well. It is unfortunate that so many programs are not.
After reading about virtualization, I think it would be interesting if there was a windows platform in which the fuctions of one operating system and sequencing could actually be distributed over multiple workstations, while the process remained transparent to the end user. So far it seems this is limited to Linux and Java based servers.
After reading about virtualization, I think it would be interesting if there was a windows platform in which the fuctions of one operating system and sequencing could actually be distributed over multiple workstations, while the process remained transparent to the end user. So far it seems this is limited to Linux and Java based servers.
Last edited:
E
Esthetix
Guest
Great stuff.
Kojak
New member
Or several OS's on one machine, or several OS's on seperate machines. Right now I'm doing research on respawning an instance of a compromised OS and compartmentalizing between them. But this is kind of virus/security related stuff.
You can do it, it's called VMWare. You'll need ESX server, which isn't cheap, but you can do it. It installs onto bare metal across all the machines, and then you simply instal windows on it like you would any normal computer. Right now in our lab we have 3 machines running like that, but we run several instances of the windows operating system on that virtual machine.