while on subject of buying licences.. better of buying Arnold ;)
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Paul Griswold < [email protected]> wrote: > Satellite rendering has always been a total nightmare IMHO. > > You'd be better off buying additional licenses. > > -Paul > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Sven Constable > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> this is how I plan to do it. Should work, right? :) I'm not sure if its >> possible to run two raysats on the same machine, each from an other >> "source". But I'd like to use satellite rendering also on the workstation, >> even when the nodes acting as satellites for the batchrender nodes >> already. >> >> sven >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sven >> Constable >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 20:37 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: batch render licenses with satellites (mr) >> >> Thanks for your answer. >> For the 24 machines... yeah, I meant it as a possible scenario. I agree, >> it >> will not be very efficient to use four sattelites. What I maybe will do, >> is >> using five machines for batch.exe (as I'm doing right now) and buying five >> more machines for raysat.exe only. So each of the original nodes uses one >> additional machine as a satellite. No machine is supposed to run >> xsibatch.exe AND raysat.exe together. >> >> Btw. I asked it here, because my local reseller closed its doors. >> >> sven >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen >> Blair >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 20:17 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: batch render licenses with satellites (mr) >> >> For satellite, it is four machines, not four CPUs. >> Counting CPUs and cores was too much hassle so they hardcoded the >> satellite >> limit at four machines. >> >> >> It should be possible, but if you had 24 machines you'd probably be better >> off getting some more batch licenses. >> >> "each acting as a satellite for >> one of the other 5 nodes" >> >> It sounds like you want render nodes to use satellites, and also to be >> satellites. At the same time. >> I don't think that's a good idea. If I remember correctly we (Softimage) >> used to say "don't do that". >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> On 27/02/2013 1:58 PM, Sven Constable wrote: >> > Hi list, >> > >> > I'm planning to extend my small renderfarm (mental ray). >> > One softimage network license comes with 5 batch licenses plus one >> > interactive license for softimage itself, which acts as a full >> batchrender >> > license when softimage is not used. >> > So far so good but... AD says that xsibatch.exe can also use up to 4 >> > satellite CPUs. >> > If all render nodes are single CPU systems...does this mean, I could >> > (theoretically) utilitize 24 (6x4) machines with batch rendering? >> > (Six nodes, each running one xsibatch.exe and four satellite nodes >> > each). With one softimage license? >> > >> > I know about the pros and cons regarding distributed tile rendering >> > but that's an other story. The question is, is this possible? Maybe >> > someone tried it already. Of course bigger studios doesn't care about >> > it, but >> small >> > shops or single freelancers could make some use out of it. I could >> > just throw 5 additional rendernodes into the farm, each acting as a >> > satellite >> for >> > one of the other 5 nodes. Would cost me a third of a 2nd softimage >> license, >> > that I wouldn't use anyway... >> > >> > greets >> > Sven >> > >> > >> > >
