Slashdot Mirror


Renderfarm Setup Tips?

CarlosOlivaG4 asks: "We're in the process of acquiring and setting up a renderfarm, and I'm hoping the Slashdot community might light us up a little here. We'll use 6 to 8 nodes first, but would like to be able to expand it in the future." There was an earlier version of this question, but it dealt more with the hardware of the farm's nodes, rather than the network and software infrastructure on which these nodes would be based.

"In the hardware side, we still haven't made a choice between using AMD's Opteron or Apple's Xserve G5 (they have some very nice and price convenient cluster nodes which seem to be ideal for this kind of job), with Linux. As for the networking between them, is Gigaethernet enough or should we be going for Fiber? The software used to manage the render queues is another important point as well: I've been looking into Rush, and even though it's a commercial package, it works on all of the platforms we currently use (W2k/XP, Irix, OS X and Linux). But then there is also Dr. Queue, which is open source and is supported on at least the *NIX members of the aforementioned OS's. Other options include RenderPal and Pixar's RenderMan, but I would prefer an F/OSS alternative. Finally, it's worth noting that we'll be using the renderfarm for Maya and Adobe AfterEffects."

253 comments

  1. Cinelerra by selfabuse · · Score: 5, Informative

    You might want to check out Cinelerra. It has pretty good support for renderfarms. I built one out of scrap 300mhz machines, and it only took a weekend.

    1. Re:Cinelerra by selfabuse · · Score: 3, Informative

      And here is the link I forgot.

    2. Re:Cinelerra by dhartman · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I've done a bit of work with Cinelerra and have been very pleased with the results. With three Athlon XP 1900 ish machines with no more than 512MB ram I was able to render at 30fps with full DVD resolution (720x480) output.

      The render nodes only run cli tools and do not require local storage. A bootable Knoppix cd could be made to create a temporary render node. Imagine using 10 computers in your office to render video in the off hours and reboot into Windoze in the morning with the user not knowing.

    3. Re:Cinelerra by vk2 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wow - you just made a karmafarm there..

      --
      No Sig for you.!
    4. Re:Cinelerra by dirvish · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of those?!

  2. Simple by hanssprudel · · Score: 2, Funny


    (a) Wait for the next new processor technology to hit Slashdot.

    (b) Build a Beowulf cluster of those.

    1. Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny
      Build a Beowulf cluster of those.


      I imagined someone would say that...

    2. Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, that's not quite right. That should read

      (a) Wait for the next new processor technology to hit Slashdot.

      (b) *Imagine* a Beowulf cluster of those.

  3. [OT] Re: Simple by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 1, Funny

    (c) Profit!

    --

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

  4. node deployment: g4u! by hubertf · · Score: 4, Informative

    Check out g4u for deploying your render machines - it's a image based disk cloning tool that uses DHCP and FTP and which doesn't care what you run on your clients. (g4u itself is based on NetBSD, but that doesn't matter for the application).

    I've used g4u to setup a ~50 node video rendering cluster, see my webpage on the Regensburg Marathon Cluster.

    Enjoy!

    - Hubert

    1. Re:node deployment: g4u! by KrackHouse · · Score: 1

      G4u kicks arse. Thanks to the creator!

      --
      What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
      http://houndwire.com
    2. Re:node deployment: g4u! by NullStream · · Score: 1

      It would be great if it wasn't so damned slow.

      Faster to dd to an itermediary drive and fan out to all your machines (with parallelism equal to the number of people you got).

      --
      "Survival of the fittest Max, and we've got the fucking gun!" - Pi
    3. Re:node deployment: g4u! by KrackHouse · · Score: 1

      Slow? I was just pulling down 6 images from my FTP server using G4u at over 90Mbits/s Uploads are slow because of the compression which is CPU intensive, maybe you should get one of those leftover dual processor Opterons from Riddick ;) We've shipped out hundreds of computers more than previously possible to local budget strapped schools thanks to G4U.

      --
      What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
      http://houndwire.com
    4. Re:node deployment: g4u! by hubertf · · Score: 1

      hundreds _more_?! Wow, sounds pretty impressive.
      One of these days I think I should make a "g4u testemonials" page... care to drop me a mail which describes what you do with g4u? (see the g4u homepage for my email address :-).

      - Hubert

    5. Re:node deployment: g4u! by NullStream · · Score: 1

      I built a small disconnected network to build 40 nodes using G4U. Grabbed a machine threw a big disk in it and gave it gigabit to the switch I was using. I left g4u running overnight uploading the image and it failed (other than the new nodes the rest of the hardware was pulled out of production). Ran again and many hours later it was done. By then we were running out of time so we ended up dumping it and making 4 images and fanning out. Ended up taking less time to do this than to use g4u for creating 1 image. I would give it another shot by making the image with dd and having g4u serve it (not sure how I would do that). Uploading the image was very very horrible and costly (in terms of time).

      --
      "Survival of the fittest Max, and we've got the fucking gun!" - Pi
    6. Re:node deployment: g4u! by hubertf · · Score: 1

      BTW, if you have a spare dual opteron with heaps of RAM, I'd love to make it my new g4u development machine. Anyone? :-)

      - Hubert

  5. I'm a Machead, but... by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't use macs. First off, you have less choice in renderers, and second, the hardware is more expensive. Rendering is grunt work. Buy cheap systems that you can upgrade more often, and run linux or something.

    Macs are very nice hardware, but you really don't need that for rendering. For workstations they make sense, but for rendering you really want to have a lot of fast computers rather than nice computers.

    --
    Everything seemed to be going so nice
    'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
    1. Re:I'm a Machead, but... by cbreaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hehe, but to me, fast IS nice. =)

      I'm not a Machead, I'm an x86head. Always will be.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    2. Re:I'm a Machead, but... by alinardo · · Score: 1

      We render a show called Odd Job Jack (search google) in flash using applescript and python mysql based linux server distributing the render queue. We don't buy new macs for this, we use our old crappy ones (G4 350 - g4 867). It works perfectly (relatively) and it is all free software (except for flash)

    3. Re:I'm a Machead, but... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, why? Others have used Macs and this is a ideal thing for a Xserve and it obvously was not a problem for the person in this question. Both platforms he has presented are both new and are both goign to run him a lot of money. Plus Apple has a Cluster Node config that will work well for him (only one hard disk....in this case you'd use some other storage or a Xserve Raid. In fact, I bet Pixar may use G5's soon if they don't have them soon. Xserves are fast and if you make yuor cluster out of them, you will get your renders much quicker.

      --

      Gorkman

    4. Re:I'm a Machead, but... by holymoo · · Score: 0

      also if we want to talk about hardware, macs can be fairly upgradeable at a price. xserves allow easy drive swapping; Ati still continues to make video cards for the mac; companies like sonnet will continue to make upgrade processors for macs; and several companies make ram for the mac. So upgrading shouldn't be a problem, but the problem is that the hardware upgrades will cost quite a bit more because there is less competition for upgrading macs.

    5. Re:I'm a Machead, but... by SethJohnson · · Score: 1


      Yeah because when you're building something like a renderfarm, you wanna bottom-dollar it.
    6. Re:I'm a Machead, but... by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Well, I know you're trying to be a smartass, but yeah, you do.

      Rendering is rediculously parallel, so if one computer messes up, goes down, explodes, whatever, whatever it was working on can be picked up by another computer. Chances are you won't lose more than one frame on one pass of your render. Some other node can redo whatever was lost, it's not a big deal at all.

      So having lots of unreliable but fast computers is more effective than having fewer reliable high quality ones. Two cheap PCs can do more work than, and cost less than one nice computer (in this case the Mac).

      Now the central server that collects all the render files and passes out work- that one should be a damn good computer. But the actual rendernodes themselves, they're grunts.

      --
      Everything seemed to be going so nice
      'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
    7. Re:I'm a Machead, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure this applies to rendering, but I'm pretty sure it could.

      You might wanna take a look at #3 on the Top500.org list to see what Macs can do before writing them off completely.

    8. Re:I'm a Machead, but... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      True enough....unless you are the type taht likes keeping things under warantee or service contract (and when I am doing something at work, I for sure order a service contract as well). I don't know if Apple has a service contract available(besides AppleCare), but I sure as heck don't want to depend on something for my business without one. One thing with service contracts is that they go up in price as the hardware gets older. At some point, you can either get a new server (and save money on the service contract) or pay an exhorbitant fee to keep the old one on contract. It's usually at that point where we jsut buy a new box. This keeps are hardware relatively up to date and somewhat guarantees that we won't have issues getting it fixed when it breaks.

      --

      Gorkman

    9. Re:I'm a Machead, but... by mcdesign · · Score: 3, Informative
      But if you are using Shake the OS X version is $2999.00 or $2000 dollars cheaper than the Linux version. The OS X version also comes with unlimited render only nodes for free. Each Linux render node costs $1499.

      So for say 10 computers:
      Cluster node version of Xserver 10 @ $2,999.00 = $29,990*
      Shake 1 @ $2,999 = $2,999
      Total = $ 32 989

      Now the Linux version will cost:
      Shake 1 @ $4,999 = $4,999
      Render nodes 9 @ = $13 491
      Total costs software = $18 490

      This leaves you with $14 499 to buy 10 x86 boxes or $1449.90 each. Those G5's don't seem so expensive after all.

      * Yes I know it will need more RAM but so will the Linux boxes.

    10. Re:I'm a Machead, but... by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Depends on which renderer you're using. Except for LightWave, RenderMan, Mental Ray, Animation Master, Cinema 4D, and even Blender, to name a few, it's true, you'll have problems getting support for OSX...oh, wait, that's quite a few right there, isn't it. Nevermind.

      The question with building a headless Intel render farm is going to be licensing. Great, you can build cheap machines, but are you going to have to buy extra licenses just because you chose to go cross-platform? It's not just the main render engine you have to worry about, but also the 3rd-party shaders that you inevitably buy for doing specific things the default package doesn't cover.

      If you do in-house programming instead, are you going to have your programmers write an Intel version of the shader as well as a Mac version? Good luck with that! Talk about unnecessary headaches. I think duplicate effort counts as an unjustifiable waste of money.

      Finally, it's important to make sure that you don't run into limitations in the software, specifically procedural shaders, that cause the images to render differently on different platforms. It's annoying to get your frames back and they don't look just like the tests; sometimes, that can render the results unacceptable.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    11. Re:I'm a Machead, but... by sqweak · · Score: 1

      right, you also neglected to mention:

      $1499 annual maintenence for linux shake gui
      $399 annual maintenence for linux render

      In order to compete with G5, you'd need top of the line opteron's (which are actually, in my tests YMMV, a few seconds per frame slower than G5's. Doesn't sound like much, but at 24FPS, seconds add up quickly). Good luck finding those comparably equipped to the xserve for under $1500.

      In fact, here's an equivalent render node from boxxtech.com:

      RenderBOXX 7104
      dual opteron model 246 (2Ghz), 1G (no 512 option) DDR400 RAM, 80G SATA, Dual GE

      $2,890.00

      For those of you keeping track, that makes cost of ownership for the two render nodes break down like so:

      Linux OSX
      HW 2890 2999
      License 1499 N/A
      Misc 399 N/A
      Total $4788 $2999

      thats Apple with a $1789 advantage PER SEAT. Can we please stop the FUD now?

    12. Re:I'm a Machead, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we use our old crappy ones (G4 350 - g4 867)"
      Bastard.

    13. Re:I'm a Machead, but... by cbreaker · · Score: 1

      What does top500 have to do with anything. Throw enough nodes in there and anyone can have the #1 spot.

      #2 is Intel Xeons, and #6 is AMD Opterons.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  6. Why run Linux? by puppetluva · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why would you run Linux on the Apple boxes? Wouldn't OSX be just as good?

    1. Re:Why run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Why would you run Linux on the Apple boxes? Wouldn't OSX be just as good?

      Freedom.

    2. Re:Why run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
      Why would you run Linux on the Apple boxes?

      Because of its unnecessary flashiness? OS X is notoriously bloated. For the command line junkies among us, Linux fits the bill.

    3. Re:Why run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because comparing the overhead on a stripped down linux box running just the bare minimum to OSX would make the OSX box look like a fat lady pushing a grocery cart full of bon bons.

    4. Re:Why run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      linux is faster

    5. Re:Why run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, but a sexy fat lady...

    6. Re:Why run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow could you be more vague? Faster at what? Post some statistics.

    7. Re:Why run Linux? by GFLPraxis · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I find Mac OS X to run faster on my 1 GHz G4 than Mandrake Linux 10.0 on my 2.6 ghz Pentium 4. That flashiness doesn't slow it down that much, you see...the Mac makes use of the 3d graphics card (which usually does almost nothing when you're not playing a 3d game) to control all the window effects. As a result, the processor is hardly taxed.

    8. Re:Why run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't compare it to Mandrake. For the purpose needed here, compare it to a bare Gentoo or Slackware box. Mandrake can be slooooooow.

    9. Re:Why run Linux? by outZider · · Score: 1

      Hello, anonymous! Where the hell do you get 'bloated' from?

      --
      - oZ
      // i am here.
    10. Re:Why run Linux? by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      I am sorry....OS X has less bloat WITH it's interface then other Operating Systems. That said, it's easy to NOT run the UI on these if you are really going for every CPU cycle you can but consider this...OS X can still run acceptably on many OLDER Macs. The 500 MHz Sawtooth G4 is still in use at work running Pather (and Jaguar before that). You CAN deactivate some of the glitz, but I have never seen anyone who has done that. These also ran Rage 128's. Very old machines running a very good OS. That said, load up any PPC Linux or Darwin and you can achieve what you need.

      --

      Gorkman

  7. Software? by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What render queue products are supported by your pieces of software? Why don't you try a few of them?
    I'm sure a demo can be arranged.
    I wouldn't go blindly marching in the direction of FOSS especially in something that is valuable enough to setup a renderfarm for.

    Most importantly, find out what the people who will be using the software like and dislike about each package. And what works for them. If it saves you $30 per hour times 5 people software and hardware cost become insignifigant after one work week.

    The biggest renderfarm in the world is useless if your people can't use it. Always remember that software is only good in its ability to meet the goals of the organization it supports.

    1. Re:Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      A gerat point hidden in the partent's post.

      Call the vendor and/or FOSS-project-team and get reference customers you can talk to.

    2. Re:Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I wouldn't go blindly marching in the direction of FOSS especially in something that is valuable enough to setup a renderfarm for.

      (emphasis mine)

      I don't see how asking for advice from a largely FOSS crowd is "blindly marching" in any way. It's called research. Try the FOSS first since you're not going to encounter a hard-sell pitch, then deal with the sales people for the proprietary stuff later.

      The biggest renderfarm in the world is useless if your people can't use it.

      Ahhh...I see...

      Always remember that software is only good in its ability to meet the goals of the organization it supports.

      Wow...fascinating.

  8. Our experiences by Thagg · · Score: 5, Informative

    We had a renderfarm for "The Chronicles of Riddick" of 40 boxes. Each box was a dual-proc Opteron.

    We evaluated several render-queue management systems, and decided on Rush. The most persuasive arguments for using Rush were the very good experience we have heard from other users, and the simplicity of extending it to manage a variety of different tasks. I have to add Hammerhead to the list of happy customers. It did everything we could have hoped for. In particular, it was able to handle the inevitable crashing of machines pretty well.

    While it's true that Rush is a proprietary, gotta-pay-for-it system; a robust render queue management system pays for itself very quickly in the ability to make your renferfarm productive. Perhaps a render queue manager is overkill when you have just 6 or 8 systems, but once you get up to 30 or 40 it is essential.

    Our experience is all under Linux, but if you're going to be running After Effects that means that you're not going to be running Linux -- so there's not too much more I can help you with there. We did find that the dual Opterons worked much more efficiently than dual Xeons in multiprocessor rendering -- don't know about the Xserves, though. We were running mostly Maya, RenderMan, Shake, and our own in-house tools on the farm.

    This farm is unfortunately powered down now that Riddick is done -- if you need some dual opterons, let me know at thad@hammerhead.com

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    1. Re:Our experiences by mebob · · Score: 1

      How much do you think the boxes would go for?

      --
      =1000101
    2. Re:Our experiences by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Welp, your post sparked some debate here at the office. I'm at a small studio making a full length animated movie. One aspect of it we've been chewing on is what to get in terms of render farm down the road. I just had a few questions for you, if you don't mind:

      1.) The words 'dual' and 'Opteron' both surprised us. We were kind of under the impression that maybe single proc machines would be better for a render farm. We were really curious why dual was chosen over single. Did the extra cost end up being worth it?

      2.) You mentioned that Opteron was more efficient than Xeons. I just had to ask: Was the particular software you were using particularly tuned to Opteron (i.e. 64-bit?) or was the 32-bit side of it just pleasant to work with? Any more insight you can share with me about the use of Opteron would be most helpful.

      3.) Did you guys end up buying a bunch of machines from a place like IBM or something, or was it more like "we bought the components and assembled ourselves..?" If it's the former, how'd you like the service?

      4.) Any regrets or things you'd do differently next time around?

      5.) Why are you getting rid of the machines used for Riddick? Or did I read that wrong?

      Appreciated,

      NanoG

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Our experiences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Maya renderer is not SSE optimized, so the extra fpu in the Opteron and Athlons gives them an edge. The Opterons are about equal to P4s in SSE enabled apps, the Athlons lag behind. Mac hardware is overpriced, especially if you are going to buy more in the future. And find some benchmarks - I don't think many apps use Altivec, but many do use SSE/SSE2.

      www.zoorender.com has a limited/single benchmark for Maya and Mental Ray on a variety of hardware. Pay attention to their comments about how the Maya renderer has better throughput on a dual-proc box when you run 2 processes vs 1 process with 2 cpus. Our queue did that by default.

      Rendering is all about CPU power and dual procs scale almost linearly. It's also nice to have half the servers to manage and also the flexibility of running 1 or 2 processes on a dual proc box with 2GB+ RAM. But, dual-proc hardware is more expensive - the cheapest option is always consumer whitebox hardware. Also, under windows, there is a ~1.6GB memory limit for a single process. But XP service pack 2 may expand this (for certain hardware? I don't know details.)

      Eventually you will have I/O bottlenecks, and this will become your main headache. 6-8 procs should work for normal samba/nfs NAS. I don't know AE, but it may render much faster than 3D stuff - in which case you will probably use attached disk.

      I can also vouch for RUSH's internals, I signed a NDA and got to see the code/architecture. It is amazingly scalable. We were considering buying it to replace our homegrown queue that managed 350 procs. Instead, we went out of business.

      But, with any queue you buy, there will always be scripting 'glue' and troubleshooting that needs to be done.(usually: can't find the files or I/O bottlenecks on the files, and tuning rendering/raytrace parameters) Bottom line: If I were you, I'd find some AE benchmarks on different hardware, then I'd get dual-proc Opterons (for flexibility and memory bandwidth) with 2GB RAM to start, and run linux - but I think AE will force you to run XP(?)

    4. Re:Our experiences by Thagg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Good questions

      1.) The words 'dual' and 'Opteron' both surprised us. We were kind of under the impression that maybe single proc machines would be better for a render farm. We were really curious why dual was chosen over single. Did the extra cost end up being worth it?

      The computers are relatively cheap -- it's render licenses (especially for RenderMan) that are expensive. With the newest version of RenderMan, Pixar has deigned to let us use the two processors of a dual-processor machine with a single license. This lowers the cost of rendering by about 60%, if the machine rendered twice as fast with dual processors. In fact, for RenderMan, the Opterons were indeed almost twice as fast, where the Xeons were only about 50% faster.

      Our other big rendering application was Shake, and it also allowed the use of two processors with one license.


      2.) You mentioned that Opteron was more efficient than Xeons. I just had to ask: Was the particular software you were using particularly tuned to Opteron (i.e. 64-bit?) or was the 32-bit side of it just pleasant to work with? Any more insight you can share with me about the use of Opteron would be most helpful.


      Yes and no. The Opterons are the first AMD machines to implement the SSE2 instructions, which are heavily used by RenderMan. Also, the HyperChannel communication between processors on the Opteron is light-years beyond the communication between Athlons and Xeons. On the other hand, there is absolutely no advantage in the 64-bitness of the Opterons -- we were running a 32-bit Linux (RedHat 9), and we weren't using more than 4 GB memory on any of the boxes.

      3.) Did you guys end up buying a bunch of machines from a place like IBM or something, or was it more like "we bought the components and assembled ourselves..?" If it's the former, how'd you like the service?

      We hired a beige-box manufacturer. We specced it out to various places, and PC Mall built them for the best price. If I had to do it over again, I'm not sure that I wouldn't go with IBM -- while they cost a lot more, I expect that they'd build more solid systems.

      4.) Any regrets or things you'd do differently next time around?

      We bought minitower machines instead of the more trendy, space- and power-efficient 1U or blade machines. We did that so that we could potentially use the new Gelato renderer from NVidia -- that software uses the current NVidia high-performance graphics cards as an external array processor, giving significantly better render performance.

      As we didn't end up using Gelato, that was perhaps a mistake. We ended up power and HVAC constrained in the end -- as happens with almost every renderfarm I've heard of.

      5.) Why are you getting rid of the machines used for Riddick? Or did I read that wrong?

      No, you read it right. Hammerhead is a small company, typically working on just one show at a time. We don't see a use for the machines for another nine months or so, as we begin development of the next project -- and it just isn't right to leave all that compute horespower idle.

      Thad Beier
      Hammerhead Productions

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    5. Re:Our experiences by isaac · · Score: 1
      We evaluated several render-queue management systems, and decided on Rush. The most persuasive arguments for using Rush were the very good experience we have heard from other users, and the simplicity of extending it to manage a variety of different tasks.

      I'd add that Greg Ercolano is a very smart guy with a lot of experience in render queue management - he wrote (in the '90s) the Race render queue management system used at Digital Domain. Productive use of computing resources was perhaps more important then as compared to the cheap cpu cycles you have now. (In addition to dedicated render machines, virtually every workstation in the company was used for rendering when not in use.)

      Rush, though I haven't used it, seems to incorporate a lot of the same ideas as Race. It's been a long time since I've administered a renderfarm, but it doesn't surprise me that Erco's software would be on the shortlist.

      -Isaac

      --
      I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
    6. Re:Our experiences by forkazoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      From previous posts, I seem to recall that you use Lightwave, right? Regarding 2), head over to blanos.com, and check out his benchmarks. I just looked at 2p P4 Xeons vs 2p Opterons. Looks like Opterons wipe the floor from the specific scenes I was looking at, but I didn't see any P4 Xeon 2p results for the radiosity test scene. I'd like to see that, as LW is supposed to use SSE pretty heavily in radiosity, so the clock speed of the P4 would be a potential bonus.

      The big difference between Pentia and Opterons is that Pentia use a shared front side bus, while the Opties use Hypertransport, whith a memory controller on each CPU, so the CPU's aren't fighting each other to get at data to chew on as much.

    7. Re:Our experiences by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      Thad,

      I just wanted to thank you for both your insight, and in taking the time to respond. You gave us some stuff to chew on here.

      Have a good day!

      NG

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:Our experiences by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Informative

      "From previous posts, I seem to recall that you use Lightwave, right?"

      Yes, that is correct.

      " 2), head over to blanos.com, and check out his benchmarks."

      Good idea!

      "but I didn't see any P4 Xeon 2p results for the radiosity test scene"

      Heh I just did that this morning. I ran the skull radiosity test with 8 threads. It was on a Dual P4 Xeon 2.4ghz 533 bus and Hyperthreading enabled. 119s. (I'll try to remember to log that at Blanos, time permitting...) That was running LW8, not sure if that make a difference.

      "The big difference between Pentia and Opterons is that Pentia use a shared front side bus, while the Opties use Hypertransport, whith a memory controller on each CPU, so the CPU's aren't fighting each other to get at data to chew on as much."

      Ugh. I hate trying to balance all this stuff because it's not so clear what exactly LW needs. For example, it takes so long to render, that it's not all that clear that moving 300 megs of textures through the memory bus is a huge bottleneck. (Good thing we got blanos!)

      Thanks for the reply

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    9. Re:Our experiences by CyberKnet · · Score: 1

      I've seen a lot of videos that HammerHead puts out, and (as most people are) I'm very impressed and usually completely overwhelmed. Are you able to tell us which productions were these machines involved in rendering?

      Also, in the interest of understanding how much it costs to set up a significant render farm, how much does this sort of thing cost? Is it all in the PCs, or would the backplane infrastructure cost surprise us a lot?

      Really I guess what I'm asking is if you could do a cost-per-node breakdown to show how much these things really cost, as opposed to a blunt "this is how much a machine costs"... I'm interested in what was needed above the cost of the machine and if it scales linearly.

      Thanks for the insight so far. I find fascinating to read about this stuff and its not often I can find people with with such amazing real world experience who are in a position to share said experience.

      --
      Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
    10. Re:Our experiences by Thagg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are you able to tell us which productions were these machines involved in rendering?

      These particular machines were just used for The Chronicles of Riddick. Computer technology advances so fast, has lowered in price so quickly, and movie post-production schedules are so long (six to nine months, typically) that we typically don't use any particular machines for more than a couple of films.

      Also, in the interest of understanding how much it costs to set up a significant render farm, how much does this sort of thing cost? Is it all in the PCs, or would the backplane infrastructure cost surprise us a lot?

      In fact the dominant cost, at least for us, is not the render boxes themselves. The network is a significant expense, as is the data server system. An even larger expense, though, are the licenses for the rendering software. Top-of-the-line rendering systems like RenderMan (for 3D) and Shake (for 2D) cost thousands of dollars per node. And then there are significant infrastructure costs in just electrical wiring and cooling.

      At least in the 10-to-50 server range, I would say that the costs are pretty linear. As you get bigger than that, you can start to see some economies of scale.

      At some point, it becomes profitable to start developing in-house software tools instead of buying licenses. Digital Domain's Nuke system was originally developed as a renderer for Flame, for example, so that the expensive Flame machines could be used for the interactive work and the batch rendering could happen on commodity hardware. For Riddick, we developed our own smoke-rendering system rather than use RenderMan, to free up render licenses for other parts of the movie.

      I'm afraid that an explict cost-per-node breakdown would get into details that we keep confidential, but this should give you an overview of our situation.

      Thad Beier
      Hammerhead Productions

      p.s we don't do Videos, we make Films.

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    11. Re:Our experiences by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1
      We hired a beige-box manufacturer. We specced it out to various places, and PC Mall built them for the best price. If I had to do it over again, I'm not sure that I wouldn't go with IBM -- while they cost a lot more, I expect that they'd build more solid systems.

      Did you talk to PC Mall salespeople for this service? I can't seem to find a beige-box configurator on their site.

      A few years ago, I got pretty sick of overpaying for Dell and HP hardware that had cheap disks and RAM that would go belly up after 90 days. We've been building our own servers with chassis and motherboards from SuperMicro, and have had good results in terms of reliability and especially cost. But we would like to get someone to do the assembly grunt work for us if we could spec out all the RAID controllers, disks, etc. ourselves.

      What other beige box manufacturers did you look at, besides PC Mall?

    12. Re:Our experiences by furiousgeorge · · Score: 1

      A different view:

      I work at . We used to use Rush. I was a bit clunky, but it got the job done. Unfortunately, once the # of employees got up in the hundreds and the # of render slaves got >500, Rush falls over. It just doesn't scale and it's central database can't keep up with the dispatch rate and query rate from the clients. Eventually it can't keep the farm full.

      The end result was we wrote our own distributor. It's a pretty sophisticated package that can distribute pretty much any batch processing job and scales properly.

      Not the solution for everybody, but for our size having the code in house to control made things a lot more convenient.

      I've also heard good things about Muster, but never tried it myself.

      I did some tests with the Opterons about a year ago - impressive speed compared to a P4 (having all those extra registers helps a LOT). At the time it was the development tools that were lacking so we couldn't use them, but I'd guess thats improved a lot since.

    13. Re:Our experiences by CyberKnet · · Score: 1

      p.s we don't do Videos, we make Films.
      My apoogies. I interchange the two words entirely too frequently... old habits die pretty hard.

      --
      Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
    14. Re:Our experiences by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Indeed, figuring out exactly what Lightwave wants is annoyingly not-straightforward. Has anybody ever written something like a PC-emulator where you can tweak various properties of the emulated CPU, and run batch jobs, and time them? Or some sort of debugger you can plug into any binary, and see how much data it is loading, what sort of cache usage is going on, etc? Obviously, the app would run much slower under an emulator. That's fine, it could still be really useful to have an easy way to see why your app is slow...

      In my own experience, memory bandwidth is important for interactive stuff, but not as big a deal when you are rendering. NAturally, that will vary with your own workflow. If you are using 1 GB of texture on a single poly with a simple shader, it'll be different than raytracing a million solid colored polys, which will be different from complicated procedural textures...

    15. Re:Our experiences by SociallyInept · · Score: 1

      How much did those dual opterons cost when you bought them?

      Do you expect the price per machine to go up, down or remain constant when you purchase your next renderfarm? Of course it is given that the next one will have more powerful machines in it.

      Why don't you simply add to the existing renderfarm instead of removing the old one? Is it just because they are in the minitower format instead of a more convenient blade/1RU format?

      Cheers,

      SI

    16. Re:Our experiences by MrEntropy · · Score: 1

      I just got off Around the World in 80 Days, one of our vendors (ironically named "Rushes") in London used Rush and seemed to be happy with it. Rush was written by Greg Ercalano, formerly of Digital Domain (and about a million other studios.) He wrote the Race render queue at DD and has a wealth of production experience, so you know you are getting a queue from someone who knows a production environment. And if Thad used it and like it, you know it is bulletproof. Thad is easily one of the smartest people I know in this business.

      From a hardware standpoint, back up a step and decide what it is you are going to be doing. You mentioned After Effects and Maya. Do you have some setups you are rendering now? Take them to a reseller and benchmark it. Find out what hardware runs it best. If you are committed to a Mac frontend, you might think about being consistent witht the backend. When we first converted from SGI to Intel/Linux, no small but of time was spent trying to figure out why a certain bit of software worked on one platform but not another, or why it produced just slightly different results. These issues are less common now, but they do happen. That being said, I agree with Thad, the AMD platform is much more cost effective from a price/perfomance standpoint.

      Good luck
      Derek

    17. Re:Our experiences by Thagg · · Score: 1

      I think that this is a very valid point -- that as your system gets bigger the decisions have to change. Certainly the bigger you are, the more of a win it becomes to write software, and configure hardware, to your particular needs rather than relying on an off-the-shelf solution.

      A big problem with this is that systems that end up really big (hundreds of employees and 500 renderers is really big as far as I'm concerned) don't start out big -- so the decisions and configurations you start with and are optimal when you start become completely wrong when the project grows. I'm quite impressed that you were able to move over to a custom in-house tool when you needed to -- especially as you were surely sweltering in the heat of production as you found Rush to be inadequate.

      Thad Beier
      Hammerhead Productions

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    18. Re:Our experiences by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      The Hypertansport link isn't what makes Opterons good in this situation (although it helps), it the on-chip memory controllers and the fact that there are 2 of them that makes them so fast

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    19. Re:Our experiences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any chance you can do a piece explaining how and what you do. It seems interesting but I have no idea what goes into rendering

      Thanx

    20. Re:Our experiences by gbulmash · · Score: 1
      If you want to see a still of some of Hammerhead's Riddick work... here's a shot at IMDb.

      Impressive stuff, and nice that IMDb has Hammerhead credited.

      Greg

    21. Re:Our experiences by dcmeserve · · Score: 4, Interesting
      An even larger expense, though, are the licenses for the rendering software.

      What did you think of the freeware options, e.g. Aqsis?

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    22. Re:Our experiences by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      2.) You mentioned that Opteron was more efficient than Xeons. I just had to ask: Was the particular software you were using particularly tuned to Opteron (i.e. 64-bit?) or was the 32-bit side of it just pleasant to work with? Any more insight you can share with me about the use of Opteron would be most helpful.

      The first three things I heard about Opterons, were that they are 64-bit, they are up to 8-way, and they have their own separate memory.

      When you are working on dual processors and a couple of gigs of memory, letting one processor get its data from one area of memory, and the other processor have its own memory, you get much more memory bandwidth, especially when each processor has its own data set.

    23. Re:Our experiences by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The better dual cpu performance of the opteron is down to the interlink between the processors and ram, while the xeon uses a shared bus system that gets overloaded with more cpus, each opteron has it's own block of memory that's directly connected by a dedicated bus, and then theres the hypertransport bus between the processors themselves.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    24. Re:Our experiences by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Well, its the NUMA architecture.. The fact that the memory is split between the two processors so half of the ram is directly connected to the memory controller on each cpu, thus the cpu can access the ram at full speed... This is how virtually all the highend 64bit cpus work.
      Contrast this to xeon (which cant be called high end by any stretch of the imagination) which uses a single bus shared by all the cpus, the more cpus you have the smaller share of the bus each one gets.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    25. Re:Our experiences by Thagg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I should have mentioned that are largest line item, by far, is the animators that drive all of this software. At least on a project of the scale of Riddick, it was best to use software with which our animators would be most productive. For rendering, that means RenderMan. There are many people who have strong experience in writing shaders and doing lighting in RenderMan -- and RenderMan is practically bullet-proof after decades now of work.

      We did try a couple of other rendering alternatives. We hoped to be able to use the new Cg shading language to do hardware rendering for some of the shots. We hired an absolute wizard named Hal Bertram to help us with that, but in the end decided that the hardware (at the time) was still not good enough to do final rendering. Interestingly, with the new NV40 chips incorporating Vertex Shader 3.0 and Pixel Shader 3.0 capabilities, almost all of those limitations have been overcome, and we'll be examining hardware rendering anew for our future projects. It seem inevitable to me that in the near future, we will be using hardware rendering for most of our shots -- the quality of what can be rendered with hardware is improving at a breathtaking pace.

      We also looked at some other non-free and free (although not open-source) software renderers, some even claiming to be compatible with RenderMan. While they are truly amazing efforts by small teams, we very quickly ran into devastating problems with each of them. I really hate to mention who they are, because they are trying so hard -- but they're not there yet.

      One renderer that I'm extremely excited about is Splutterfish's Brazil. It renders some spectacular images mind-bogglingly fast. In particular, it does what has come to be known as "ambient occlusion" so fast that I just can't believe it. Unfortunately, it only runs on the Operating System That Will Not Be Named.

      So, in the end, we spent the money for RenderMan to make best use of the really expensive resource, our animators. Having a familiar environment, and one where everything worked every time with no "gotcha's" was worth it. [OK, we did run into some RenderMan surprises...but nothing too serious].

      Thad Beier
      Hammerhead Productions
      thad@hammerhead.com

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    26. Re:Our experiences by usrerco · · Score: 1
      Hmm, it's only fair to mention you folks at . used Rush in a way it wasn't designed to be used, by throwing all the jobs at one Windows machine, instead of letting Rush distribute the job serving to multiple machines, which is its designed behavior.

      It's a distinguishing feature of rush that it does not use a centralized design.

      Yes, Rush will fall over if one goes out of their way to submit all the jobs to a single box, the same way one manager will fall over if they have to micromanage 500 employees. That is not how the system was designed to be used, and I warned that the system won't scale if all load is thrown at one box.

      The designed behavior is the user s workstation becomes the manager for that user's jobs. That way when multiple users submit jobs, load is automatically distributed to their workstations, avoiding a single point of failure, and a single point of load. Granted, when you were in production, the job checkpointing feature didn't exist yet (the feature in 102.41, released 03/03/2004, that lets one reboot a machine acting as a job server, and the jobs pick up where they left off after the reboot).

      IIRC, the folks at . wanted to implement a custom centralized priority mechanism based on a complex model that factored in license counting (a centralized task) instead of using Rush's own priority mechanism. And to implement that, submitted all the jobs at a single Windows machine, instead of distributing to a pool of multiple servers. True, distributing load would have created race conditions for license counting, but a few recoverable license errors due to races with license counting while polling the multiple servers would have been better than the negative effects of centralizing load. I believe that was my recommended position.

      Indeed, Rush is not designed to be centralized. If you retrofit a centralized problem on a distributed design, you won't get good results.

      It's only fair to mention other customers are using Rush effectively on networks as large as yours, using the default distributed model.

      ---
      full disclosure: I'm the designer of Rush

  9. Go with the G5's - your work is the important item by Selecter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Personally I'd go with the G5 Xserve with a few diskless cluster nodes tossed in.

    Thats only if you desire maximum ease of use with minimum setup and running hassles. The same ease of use the regular G5's have is built into all their server stuff too. I'm sure the linux dudes will have something to say about that.....

    I would take a really hard look at the ready made bio-information cluster they have all setup, and just load yer software as needed and off you go. But that's me. Some people seem to like futzing with computers.....After 20+ years doing that at work, I just wanna do what I wanna do when I wanna do it. Apple makes that easy.

    I get paid to deal with headaches, I'm not gonna deal with them at home too.

  10. Oops. by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 4, Funny

    My subconscious desire to get out of the computer field as a career must be surfacing--I read this as "reindeer farm". Then reality set back in and I almost made a lame "LapLANder" joke before tasering myself.

    1. Re:Oops. by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

      My subconscious desire to get out of the computer field as a career must be surfacing

      Either that or a very tragic example of caffeine deprivation.

      --
      "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    2. Re:Oops. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reindeer are not exactly kept on farms. The herds run (relatively) free most of the time. Anyhow, it would be a seriously bad career move even if the IT economy is a bit slow.

  11. XGRID by artlu · · Score: 3, Informative

    Recently, I have been working a lot with Apple's xgrid. We have been linking about 4 G5s/G4s together and getting impressive results. I don't understand your hardware situation, but if you are a Mac guy try it out.

    GroupShares.com

    --
    -------
    artlu.net
    1. Re:XGRID by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 2, Informative


      If you're considering Apple G5s, either in workstations or in Xserves, take a look at Apple's mailing list for help and resources. Folks there have been working about clustering and Xgrid on the Mac for a while now.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  12. Do it properly by smharr4 · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you're going to do this, do it properly. Get systems with massive amounts of I/O that will cope with all the data you're trying to throw at them. For this kind of work, you need only buy from one vendor: SGI.

    Don't bother with Intel/Linux, with dodgy hardware and the frequently-changing Linux code. Pay the money, get decent hardware with a support contract and a steady, stable, tried and trusted OS.

    Apple *may* be an appropriate choice, now that Pixar have ported RenderMan to OS X, but I don't like the idea of my arrays running at 7200 rpm's. Get SGI, get fibre channel, and (possibly) get gigabit ethernet.

    It'll all pay off - it won't be cheap, but in the long run, the results will be worth the money and the wait.

    1. Re:Do it properly by JDevers · · Score: 0, Troll

      Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Name an SGI system that isn't based on Intel/Linux, is even remotely competitive (in performance, not price), and is actually intended for this sort of work.

      I'm guessing most major 3D design companies don't "do it properly" when they build clusterfarms out of consumer level gear? This guy is talking about 30-40 NODES, the equipment will cost less than an SGI service contract alone. A 30 node cluster doing 3D rendering doesn't really need uber-I/O, the bottleneck will be at the CPU/FPU level 95% of the time.

      What is wrong with arrays running at 7200RPM? They generate more heat than a 5400 RPM, but not as much as 10K or 15K drives which are common in five 9's servers...

    2. Re:Do it properly by Donny+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

      >Get systems with massive amounts of I/O that will cope with all the data you're trying to throw at them.

      Render nodes get input via simple render scripts, output frames get written to the file server one by one every X seconds as they get rendred. Textures are shared but it's never "massive" and never "thrown at them" (compute nodes).
      The I/O loading is concentrated on the file server.

      > Don't bother with Intel/Linux, with dodgy hardware and the frequently-changing Linux code.

      So HP, IBM and other Intel/Linux servers that rendered all those movies are "dodgy hardware"?

      >Get SGI, get fibre channel, and (possibly) get gigabit ethernet.

      I don't think 8 nodes can write and read data quickly enough to saturate a gigabit link to NFS server since while frames are being rendered NFS' I/O is very low.
      With that number of nodes perhaps they could muddle thru without external storage (maybe even internal SCSI would do). GbE is more important (and cheaper) than FC storage so I'd say GbE is a must.

      n1 n2 n3 n4 n5 n6 n7 n8

      [gigabit lan]

      nfs1
      (optionally with direct-attach FC disk array)

    3. Re:Do it properly by p7 · · Score: 1

      One would think if Linux was so dodgy, ILM wouldn't have started a migration from SGI boxes to Linux boxes. Here are a few articles detailing how they love their new Linux setup. Not that that they don't have a few complaints (NFS performance.)

      ILM Linux Switch

      ILM Computers

      More on ILM Linux switch

    4. Re:Do it properly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A 30 node cluster doing 3D rendering doesn't really need uber-I/O, the bottleneck will be at the CPU/FPU level 95% of the time.
      The bottlenecks are memory latency (the ray tracer flailing about all over memory), and to a lesser extent bandwidth. Opterons should do the trick, especially for multiprocessor compute nodes.
    5. Re:Do it properly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work at a *major* animation studio with several *thousand* procs, ALL of which are Linux on x86 of one type or another. You don't need SGI.

    6. Re:Do it properly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually he does. Most large facilities are using Filers (ala NetApps) and/or SGI MIPS based servers running IRIX and a few places I know of a few places that are using Sun Sparc boxes with Solaris.

      Most of the large digital imaging facilities that are doing Digital Intermediates are using SGI 3000 servers running CXFS because nothing except MAYBE a Sun Fire running clustered VXFS can handle that kind of I/O

      Composting can be a heavy I/O intensive task. Even though the rendering process itself is not I/O intensive. Having a large number of nodes all writing back to the file server(s) at once will task the I/O on your file servers.

      But using something like clustered/load balanced fileservers might be the way to go.

  13. Why ask slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The first thing that you should do it find someone else to ask other than slashdot. Seriously, there are an extremely small number of readers who would actually know that answer to that, and none of them will post. You're just going to get a bunch of opinions from people who have no idea what they are talking about, like:
    "I have a mac and I have editied video recorded on my digital video recorder. Let me tell you everything you need to know..."
    "Beowulf cluster! Beowolf cluster! I have no idea what that means, but I'll say it anyways, because it seems appropriate in this circumstance!"
    If you have real money invested on this, get serious.

    1. Re:Why ask slashdot? by Lebo · · Score: 1

      Well, someone from Hamerhead (who worked on the FX for the new Riddick movie) posted about the renderfarm they used and his experiences. Sounds like the original question got some answers....

    2. Re:Why ask slashdot? by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Except maybe for the guy that responded well above you that worked for Hammerhead.

      You know, the guys that did the graphics for The Chronicles of Riddick?

      Yeah. Open mouth, insert foot. You got it.

    3. Re:Why ask slashdot? by ManoMarks · · Score: 1
      I wish I had mod points so I could mod you down.

      1) Did you notice how many people who had actual experience (including someone who works at Hammerhead Productions) chimed in to give advice. Therebye proving you dead wrong.

      2) Did you notice that in almost every single Ask Slashdot there's one punk who asks "Why ask here? You're just wasting your time." If these people really hate Ask Slashdot, they should stop reading it.

      --

      That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere

  14. pvm is the way by Goeland86 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think that what you're looking for is a renderfarm for computer graphics rendering, right? in that case, you should be looking at PVM or OpenMOSIX or even MPI. In either case, since you're going to have more data crunching than actual data transfer, I think that even T100 would be enough. gigabit will be nice, but fiber is not worth it. Drqueue is nice... if you can get it to work, and I didn't. We used pvmpovray for many things, and I think that might be worth a look. pvmpovray exists for gentoo with an ebuild script, which would make the installation and configuration the minimum pain for it. But that option requires a conversion from maya to povray files. Also, I don't know what the pricing is going to be like, but if it were up to me, I'd take the Opterons, because I believe they are faster, although I'm not positive on that, and because I know they're well supported under linux, and again, I think that's a more personal choice to make, but the impression I got from AMD is that you always get the most for your buck. The Opterons also let you find replacement parts or upgrades a little easier than the G5 if you burn a CPU or motherboard. That's just my $.02 worth of advice.

    --
    ---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
    1. Re:pvm is the way by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      This is what support contracts are for (AKA Apple Care). I am not sure if they have on site support yet, but you can bring yout Xserve into any Apple Store and they can either fix it or take care of it for you. With Apple, you have more support then buiding your own machines. If you really need 24/7 support for your renderfarm, then you can order some Xeon servers from IBM with appropriate support contract.

      --

      Gorkman

    2. Re:pvm is the way by Goeland86 · · Score: 1

      I've also just read something also very interesting for your case... Apple has XGrid working for MacOSX, very powerfule grid computing, essentially the same as MPI. There's also the possibility of doing network rendering of blender through XGrid. I don't know how compatible Maya is with blender, but there must be filters existing. Not to mention that blender is open source.

      --
      ---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
  15. My $0.02.. by midifarm · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I just want to let you know, I'm not a F500 company with jillions of dollars to spend, hence my two cents! I've been running After Effects and FCP using a host of various Macs for offline rendering. It's like a museum of Macs that are able to run OSX and I've been able to do it rather efficiently. I'd love to delve into Maya and perhaps Renderman eventually. I must tell ya that Pixar is completely converting to G5's and OSX for Renderman. I imagine they're getting the family discount, but it says a lot when the world's leading animation studio is going in that direction. I find that I have no problems with the computers. Granted I'd love a fridge rack of XServes for offline rendering, but for the time being my motley cluster is working just fine.

    Peace

    1. Re:My $0.02.. by Selecter · · Score: 2, Funny
      Damn, Motley Cluster is a hell of a name for a band....

    2. Re:My $0.02.. by Thagg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I could be wrong, but I thought that Pixar was going to stick with Intel-type machines for the renderfarm, although they are apparently moving to OS X boxes for their animator workstations.

      I'm porting all of our animation code from Linux to OS X as well -- more or less as an exercise in code portability -- and it's going pretty well. OS X 10.3 is dramatically more standards- (or at least Linux-) compliant than the earlier OS X versions were. Almost every program I have compiles with virtually no changes. The OpenGL and Glut implementations seem to work perfectly. The only surprise is how far behind the times the Mac graphics cards arel, but few of our programs really need to render 5 million polygons a second.

      Thad Beier

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    3. Re:My $0.02.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pixar is *not* moving its renderfarm to G5s and OS X. They're continuing to use cheap x86 hardware running Linux. Compared to the latest Intel and AMD offerings, G5 chips are too slow and unavailable in high enough densities to make them useful for a large-scale renderfarm.

    4. Re:My $0.02.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine they're getting the family discount, but it says a lot when the world's leading animation studio is going in that direction.

      Not really. They are in bed with the company that MAKES the hardware. It's almost embarrassing to Apple that they haven't switched yet..

    5. Re:My $0.02.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Cluster Fscks?

    6. Re:My $0.02.. by sqweak · · Score: 1

      Thad-

      I could *also* be wrong ;P but it was my understanding that they have completed the artist switch to G5's, and are planning to move the farm to xserves in the near future. I've been eyeing xgrid, slated for 10.4/tiger, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear them using a stock or modified version of that for queue management.

      core

  16. Small cluster by Donny+Smith · · Score: 0, Troll

    First, that is a very small cluster with embarrassingly parallel compute tasks (rendering of individual frames), so you should be able to find the answers on your own using Google.

    Secondly, from your questions it is obvious you're no rendering farm guru so why did the task of planning/researching the configuration get assigned to you? You should rather work with the users to collect and write down the goals (what is the purpose of this cluster, how do users use it, what are their expectations, how it's going to be managed, etc.) and find a small and focused SI who will propose you a better solution than you can come up on your own even with help of Slashdotters.

    It's impossible to give a good answer to your questions since you've provided very little info, but in addition to the render nodes, one NFS node for file server and a single gigabit network will do.

    Don't skimp on the software and don't use F/OSS just because you "prefer" it (Why do you prefer it? It doesn't sound like you're going to dive into the source and improve it or something.)
    Instead of focusing on the coolness, focus on creating a user-friendly and maintenance friendly system. Do geeky stuff at home.

    1. Re:Small cluster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Secondly, from your questions it is obvious you're no rendering farm guru so why did the task of planning/researching the configuration get assigned to you? You should ... find a small and focused SI who will propose you a better solution than you can come up on your own

      This attitude bothers me, and not for the first time here on Slashdot. How the hell do you think those experts got to be experts? Do you think they just *poofed* into being with all their knowledge and skills already existent? No, at some point, they started with little or no knowledge of the subject and gradually accumulated enough knowledge and experience to become experts!

      Sheeesh! If everybody listened to this advice they never would do anything new or different for fear of coming up with some sub-optimal solution.

    2. Re:Small cluster by Welsh+Dwarf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is something I posted on an earlier discussion. The fact of the matter is that once you've got to a certain level in a subject, you forget what it's like to be starting out, or even that you 'started out', and hence loose all consideration for people new to your field.

      Not a dig, just a remark on human nature

      --
      Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
    3. Re:Small cluster by deKernel · · Score: 1

      Gee, what is it like to be perfect and born with all of the knowledge of the Universe? What? You weren't born with that knowledge? Then where did you get it?

    4. Re:Small cluster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they mean they "prefer" it, as in "I $$$prefer$$$ F/OSS".

    5. Re:Small cluster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheeesh! If everybody listened to this advice they never would do anything new or different for fear of coming up with some sub-optimal solution. At least then Bush Jr wouldn't be President.
      /funny cause it's true

    6. Re:Small cluster by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      Experts became experts by READING the appropriate documentation.

      Building a renderfarm has been done before and is a well-documented process. Choosing the software that you're going to be using should be based on the work you're going to perform -- not some random /.'ers opinion.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    7. Re:Small cluster by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      The internet. I never bought a book or attended a workshop or anything like that.
      I do not claim to be an expert, but I would do my own research and then ask one-two very specific questions on a specialized forum.
      The way the question is asked makes it clear the poster hasn't done his homework and expects others to do it for him.

      Okay maybe I was too harsh in the way I said it, but really, this question belongs to a newsgroup/forum for beginners.
      I believe most Slashdotters prefer to see a "how I created a high performance render farm" rather than "what is a high performance render farm" kind of article.

      Existing answers to this kind of question abound on the Internet, if you do a simple search you'll find the 1st result ("Need help for building and setup a render farm" at highend2d.com) to be exactly the same like this question: search Google for:
      render cluster maya nodes small

    8. Re:Small cluster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From WHOM. The correct pronoun, for an indirect object, is WHOM.

    9. Re:Small cluster by Gumber · · Score: 1

      If everyone listened to his advice, they'd at least have a good picture of the real requirements of the project they were undertaking, which would leave them in a much better position to learn while doing than just plunging in without a clear definition of problem.

      And besides that, a smart person could learn alot from doing the requirements gathering and then working closely with an SI to define and implement a solution.

  17. Light us up by Reckless+Visionary · · Score: 4, Funny
    I'm hoping the Slashdot community might light us up a little here.

    Light us up the bomb!

    --
    I think I'll stop here.
  18. I had a related question by RelliK · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... but it was rejected. How do you deal with terabytes of data (50+ TB), all in a single directory tree, all must be accessible to every node? This is larger than what you can store on a single filer. Also, for performance reasons, the data must be separated across multiple filers. Currently we use lots of symlinks to tie it all together into a single logical directory tree, but that's a really ugly solution. There's got to be a better way. Right? Anyone?

    --
    ___
    If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    1. Re:I had a related question by addaon · · Score: 1

      I'm sure I'm missing some obvious part of your question, but... nullfs? unionfs?

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    2. Re:I had a related question by zulux · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Currently we use lots of symlinks to tie it all together into a single logical directory tree, but that's a really ugly solution.

      I don't think a bunch of symlinks is ugly at all. If it works well - who cares?

      Are you haveing trouble with any of your simlinked directory structures - in my little FreeBSD world, I've never noticed any problem at all except for a few utilities that are aware of simlinks and will allow you to chose to traverse them or not - like rsync.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    3. Re:I had a related question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Take a look at Veritas Storage Foundation Cluster File System. You can have your 50+ Terabytes on a SAN fabric, and each server on the fabric can have the 50+ terabyte LUN mapped to them. The Cluster File System manages all of the concurrent access to the filesystem from each node so things don't get clobbered.

      You'll get your performance through the SAN by utilizing high performance FCAL disks and multiple HBAs to your servers. You can have the load balanced across the HBAs to give you the bandwidth that you require.

    4. Re:I had a related question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cluster-xfs ?

    5. Re:I had a related question by sith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree that a SAN could be the way to go. Moving your storage to fibre instead of trying to throw it on the same network link as your render management and all make sense.

      All the SAN solutions out there are rather a bit wonky. Not saying they won't work, they're just all wonky. If Apple's xSan actually performs in the real world the way the claim (and the way it was working at NAB) then it could be the be-all-end-all. It'll be crossplatform and all, with file-level locking. Whether it really works or not...

    6. Re:I had a related question by lotaris · · Score: 1

      SAN with polyserve cluster filesystem? (sitting behind a clustered NAS if you can't do fibre to every node)
      http://www.polyserve.com

    7. Re:I had a related question by dolphin-brother · · Score: 2, Informative
      That's a difficult question to answer without knowing something of your setup. How are the spindles organized--SAN, individual file servers NFS cross-mounting, or what? Which OSes are you running? Also, how much money are you able to spend to resolve this problem?

      If you could rebuild everything from the ground up (and had tons of money to throw at it), you'd most likely want to build a system based on a very expensive vendor solution.

      Assuming that you can't do that, your best bet would be to go with some sort of parallel filesystem, the likes of Lustre, GFS, Ibrix, GPFS or CxFS. The architectures of these vary, but the basic principle they share is performance scalability based on increasing the number of data paths to the disk. So if you have, say, 100 nodes on a high-speed network, you take 10 of them and attach them to your SAN. The parallel filesystem spans the entire SAN and so requests from the nodes can reach any bit on the SAN from any of the ten paths. If you need more performance, you add more paths: controllers, HBAs and storage nodes. I know GPFS scales linearly in performance based on the number of paths to the data, and I believe the others scale well also.

      I haven't hit 50 TB on disk (I have on tape, but your post suggests that tape wouldn't give you the performance you need), but I have set up several 4-8 TB GPFS filesystems that could easily grow to 50 TB if I had the spindles.

      Good luck finding a solution; symlink-based solutions on a convnentional *NIX filesystem are a nightmare; I sympathize.

    8. Re:I had a related question by chiph · · Score: 1

      You call a company like EMC that specializes in storage area networks. Chip H.

    9. Re:I had a related question by RelliK · · Score: 1
      That's a difficult question to answer without knowing something of your setup. How are the spindles organized--SAN, individual file servers NFS cross-mounting, or what? Which OSes are you running? Also, how much money are you able to spend to resolve this problem?

      We have a bunch of netapp/bluearc filers and a single symlink tree that distributes data across them, so it's NFS. Render nodes run Linux. I have no experience with SAN. Can you point me to more info?

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    10. Re:I had a related question by sirwired · · Score: 1

      Well, as an IBM shill, there are a couple of solutions I could mention that Big Blue offers: (Will these meet your specific requirements? I don't know. I'm just a lowly support engineer.)

      1) SAN File System. Your filer (actually the SAN File System nodes) handle requests for data, but the data itself travels directly over the SAN to your clients. (Which obviously need SAN connections.)

      2) GPFS. (General Parallel File System) Clients available for AIX and Linux. A pretty decent clustering filesystem, with fairly low overhead and excellent throughput. Somewhat popular in supercomputing applications.

    11. Re:I had a related question by dolphin-brother · · Score: 1
      Hmm. It would be a challenge to implement a parallel filesystem across your storage appliances (if that is what the netapp/bluearc products are).

      A traditional SAN breaks up the path components, so that you could access the same disks with multiple disk controllers, with those controllers pointing to different host bus adapters inside the attached servers. I'm guessing your appliances put all (or at least the majority) of the path--disks, controller(s), network stack, protocols--in a sealed box, so access to those disks is limited to the appliance. Not very scalable from a parallel filesystem standpoint.

      There is a nice overview of SANs at Wikipedia. For product specifics, you'll want to check out SAN vendors: EMC, HP, IBM...

    12. Re:I had a related question by RadioSilence · · Score: 1

      You are looking for a SAN...

    13. Re:I had a related question by iamnotaclown · · Score: 1

      We're using Data Frameworks to manage about 30 TB spread across BlueArc filers. It is all NFS and symlink based. Data Frameworks uses a database backend to keep track of allocations. It has an API as well.

    14. Re:I had a related question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoo hoo hoo! You mad me laugh! Call the one who's going to be around. Call IBM.

    15. Re:I had a related question by boomgopher · · Score: 1, Funny

      "How do you deal with terabytes of data (50+ TB), all in a single directory tree, all must be accessible to every node?"

      Easy! Just use Gnome 2.6 - it has super-duper spatial browser behavior. All your troubles will be solved.

      --
      Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
    16. Re:I had a related question by NullStream · · Score: 1
      1. Choose a notional pattern and set of guideliness that your 2D and 3D people are forced to adhere to. This is not only for pathing but file names (some studios are very pedantic about this).
      2. Microsoft DFS can let you run many file servers using big (ie. FreeBSD or other non-windows) beasts so the entire namespace is visiable to everyone but the specifics are left to the admins to deal with (shuffle around transpearently to the users). Samba's implementation of DFS is horribly broken (only allows 'lower case' paths.
      3. Choose your hardware carefully, your disk system will be the biggest bottle neck on your renderfarm (even if you have fully switched gigabit to each node).
      4. Whatever disc architecture you choose test a demo in a production like environment or you'll regret it when the bill comes.
      --
      "Survival of the fittest Max, and we've got the fucking gun!" - Pi
    17. Re:I had a related question by ngreenfeld · · Score: 1

      Check out Storage Computer (storage.com). Their site sucks, but they're now selling storage software really primed for computer clusters, and their prices are less than the competition. Ask them for the details.

    18. Re:I had a related question by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 1

      cluster-xfs?

      cluster-fxs ?

  19. Sun Grid Engine, at least for Maya by FueledByRamen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know what the setup for After Effects and such looks like, but I managed to build a pretty good Sun Grid Engine system for distributing Maya batch renders. SGE is free, works on Linux or Solaris, x86 or SPARC (I obviously used the x86 linux binaries), and seems to be very well designed. I set up a pretty solid system for netbooting the clients, running them diskless (or with local swap drives), adding new clients on the fly (all scripted), and it all worked flawlessly. You could submit a batch job and it would distribute it per-frame as an array job to all the different nodes. Or you could just run SETI on all of them...

    It's since been taken down in favor of running Alfred (because I no longer use Maya's builtin renderer, we've moved on to MTOR and PRMan), but I still have all of the files and scripts for it. If anyone's interested, I'd be happy to share: sabretooth@gmail.com

    --
    Every cloud has a silver lining (except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Iridium & Strontium 90)
    1. Re:Sun Grid Engine, at least for Maya by DThorne · · Score: 1

      I'm a huge SGE fan...we use it with Houdini, Renderman, and whatever else we choose to throw at it. You can set up a working farm in very short order, with a lot less script writing that going with Expect or other roll-your-own solutions. Obviously Rush or Pixar's Alfred are nice, but they cost money, still take time to set up, and you're forced to work the way *they* work.

      Two thumbs way up...

      http://gridengine.sunsource.net/

      DT

    2. Re:Sun Grid Engine, at least for Maya by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm using SGE with a machine room full of solaris boxes to distribute interactive jobs, it's one of those pieces of software you look at afterwards and think, "Yeah, that's nice". Nice, easy to use and flexible system which does what it says on the tin, if not the cutting edge of distributed computing.

      --
      Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
    3. Re:Sun Grid Engine, at least for Maya by FueledByRamen · · Score: 1

      Ahh crap, maybe I shouldn't have offered that. 6 emails already... I'm going to put a web page up detailing how I did it. I won't be posting the link here because my cable modem will probably catch fire.

      --
      Every cloud has a silver lining (except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Iridium & Strontium 90)
  20. High Performance Computing Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I manage a large Linux cluster that is used for a wide variety of tasks, including running Renderman. Our nodes are dual Xeon 2.4 GHz with 2 GB RAM and they are more than sufficient for the design group's rendering needs (primarily Maya). Our scheduler (OpenPBS) lets them request up to 64 processors at a time, which, I'm told by their IT guy, works well with their Renderman maitre de.

    There is a fiber interface (Myrinet) to each node used by the MPI crowd, but our rendering group doesn't use it; they seem content with the performance of Ethernet over copper. Your needs may be different, of course, but latency isn't really an issue for rendering, and copper should provide all the bandwidth you need.

    I'm not knowledgable regarding all the software packages you list there, but I'm wondering if any of them would really take advantage of a 64-bit kernel (either on Opteron or G5-PPC970). Of course you can put a PPC version of Linux on the Xserve, but not without sacrificing nearly all Apple-provided management. If you expand the cluster to a large number of nodes, or even if you keep a small number of nodes but place it in a remote location, Xserve running Linux would be painful to manage (no remote power-off/-on, remote console problems). Xserve is shiny and has the requisite blue LED's, but and AMD or Intel box (from the right vendor) would be much easier to manage remotely.

  21. GigE is probably good enough by Fooby · · Score: 1

    Unless you have plenty of cash to blow. In my experience with clusters the network is rarely your biggest bottleneck if you're using GigE. Rendering should be parallelized enough that it won't be saturating the network.

  22. Server Install image by blueskies · · Score: 1

    For one, consider creating a standard image for all of your machines and have them install using pxeboot or etherboot. If any of the machines get hosed, you can reboot them and force them to reinstall their OS in 5 minutes.

    It seems to me that fiber is a waste of money. You implement gigE using copper. I would think that most of the data transfer is going to be the scene data and then an image transfered back.

    The company i used to work for was developing a global illumination raytracer and we created a program that tiled the output image; however, it still needed the entire scene so it could calculate all of the lighting and rays. I don't know what rendering software exists nowdays so I can't give any advice there.

    (I think this image was created using our renderer using environmental lighting because i vaguely remember this scene (while we were fixing bugs for them) from this company before we went under in 2002)

  23. PCI-Express by Viking+Coder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My question is - when is someone going to make a blade with PCI-Express and enough room for the latest batch of cards from NVidia and ATI?

    Seriously - this is going to become a huge issue, as more rendering is pushed out to the stream processor that is the GPU.

    --
    Education is the silver bullet.
    1. Re:PCI-Express by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My question is - when is someone going to make a blade with PCI-Express and enough room for the latest batch of cards from NVidia and ATI?
      Never, in my estimation. Blade systems are way overpriced for what they deliver. They are compact, but that's only important for high-value apps (like giant scientific/engineering simulators) or high-physical security applications (like banking).

      For render farms, something like the mini-ITX form factor would be more cost effective. They're not much bigger than blades, but a third the price, and you aren't locked in to a single vendor.

    2. Re:PCI-Express by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might be interested in this link http://openvidia.sourceforge.net/screenshots.shtml a machine with many graphics cards on the PCI.

    3. Re:PCI-Express by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Or common ordinary everyday file servers and print servers when your running out of floor space. That is what we use them for. Blades can be used by almost everyone.

      --

      Gorkman

    4. Re:PCI-Express by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      I'm on a high-value app (giant scientific visualization).

      I've been pitching the low-cost cluster idea, but the IS guys at our customer sites don't want to hear about it. *sigh* So, it looks like way-expensive Blades...

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    5. Re:PCI-Express by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that system is composed of multiple PCI slots - we really need a way to cram as many PCI-Express cards into a room as possible. All while not pissing off our customer with perceived high maintenance. So, Blades with PCI-Express would fit the bill - but they don't exist.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
  24. Render managers by tikoloshe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We have a 50 node dual 3Ghz render farm, 20 on w2k and 30 on linux 2.4.20 (ok Redhat9) We are currently using Muster www.vvertex.com, but are not that happy with it. It was reasonably priced, and the developers are very helpful, but its not quite there yet. I have been seriously considering building my own using a SQL database (currently Postgresql, but may swich to MySql) and perl. A render manager is really just a database with a bit of network sockets and scripts to run occasionally. A simple concept that is probably going to come back and bite me :)

    --
    --
  25. Slave Labour by windside · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is a bit off-topic, but William Gibson put forth an interesting idea about rednering farms in his most recent novel, Pattern Recognition. [This is something of a spoiler, so if you are planning on reading the book, stop reading.]

    At one point in the book, the main character discovers a huge rendering farm in Russia that is staffed entirely by white-collar criminals who are "doing time". Since Russian prisons are a well-known hotebed of communicable diseases, this "Dream Factory" (as it is called) is referred to as the only prison in Russia that prisonners are trying to get inside. They are forced to work all day, but in exchange they can live comfortably without fear of the infection (or some other grisly fate) that would befall them in an ordinary prison.

    Personally, I don't find this idea so far-fetched, especially in places like Russia or even the USA where the prison systems are under tremendous strain and there is a huge amount of untapped labour that would likely be happy to work in exchange for a guarantee of safety and sanitary conditions.

    --
    ...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
    Churchill
    1. Re:Slave Labour by baudilus · · Score: 1

      If ever anyone ever missed a point, it's you.

      Interesting post, but doesn't belong here. He's talking about redering images, not meat.

    2. Re:Slave Labour by windside · · Score: 1

      I didn't miss the point. Gibson's rendering farm is for a series of high-quality video clips from "footage" that appears on the internet. It's the prisoners' job to hand-render each frame. Sorry if I failed to make that clear, but I was trying to avoid divulging too much information about the plot.

      I'm happy to admit that I haven't the first clue what goes into the rendering process, but Gibson gave the impression that it is a highly labour-intensive process.

      --
      ...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
      Churchill
  26. Light you up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure! You have a choice of match, lighter, flamethrower, or handy-dandy C4 block. =)

  27. dynebolic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is a distro called dynebolic which is specifically for multimedia. It features Veejay, Cinelera, MJPEG tools etc. It is supposed to run off the CD. It is supposed to use every computer hooked to the network that is running dynebolic in the manner of a render farm. That is a very attractive idea. Go around the house, put in dynebolic CDs and go nuts.

    I can't say that it is great because I haven't been able to do much of the above. Maybe you will have better luck.

    1. Re:dynebolic by speedbump · · Score: 1

      Well, I've just spent 24 hours poking around with dyne:bolic and I gotta say it sure is interesting. My primary interest is 24P video editing, with the eventual transition to various HD frame sizes, while doing it all on the cheap and in Linux.

      I've kept my eye on Cinelerra for a couple years now, but every time I've got around to downloading and trying to build it, there's always a problem, and I've given up, thinking, it just isn't there yet.

      Dyne:bolic sort of changed that; at least I can boot up a system which allows me to start playing with Cinelerra without a lot of time or effort spent getting to a starting point. I have learned now what Cinelerra can do and what one needs to edit with it on a day-to-day basis.

      So, thanks for the heads-up on dyne:bolic, it really helped me.

  28. simple by maxbang · · Score: 1

    Just catch a plane down to New Zealand, kidnap Peter Jackson's iPod, and tell him he ain't gettin' it back until he signs over Weta's setup to you as sole proprietor. Sheesh - all this talk of hardware, software, fiber/GbE, and the like is waaay too complicated.

    --
    I also reply below your current threshold.
  29. Product Specific Farm by fiber0pti · · Score: 1

    I would suggest you look into a product specific rendering cluster. For example, Alias Maya, Newtek Lightwave, etc... I have a render farm with all of the render clients on the same machines. So whether the project requires a specific application I can use the same computers to render.

    My .02.

    1. Re:Product Specific Farm by tikoloshe · · Score: 0

      Then you need a Render Manager Manager (which isn't such a bad idea)

      --
      --
  30. selfabuse is krama whore master!! Bow before him! by Evil+MarNuke · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Who else can get two +5 posting from a single idea simply by failing to include a link?!

    Bow before the kramam whore master!!

    --
    The journey is better then the end.
  31. Dude what are you talking about? by entertainment · · Score: 1

    SGI is history in this biz... There is no way to cost effectively use those boxes anymore. I work at DD and we use a linux/win2k renderfarm. Only thing SGIs are good for is Flame... Also, since this guy is running After Effects, he's either Win or Mac.

  32. Dearest AC, by beantowne · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    You know, some of us aren't here because of the oh-so-important /. karma. Many are here to keep themselves informed and educated. How's about giving the guy the benefit of the doubt and go render yerself a chill-pill? Take note: I'm logged in and not afraid of the big bad flamebait mod.

    1. Re:Dearest AC, by secolactico · · Score: 1

      How's about giving the guy the benefit of the doubt and go render yerself a chill-pill?

      Maybe you could follow your own advice.

      Shoot man, sometimes I think I'm the only one with a sense of humor, but seeing how somebody modded grandparent Funny, I guess I'm not truly alone.

      Unless you were trying to be funny also... in which case render me some of those chill-pill thingys.

      BTW: I didn't post grandparent. I'm too lazy to check that Anonymously box.

      --
      No sig
  33. Who wants to be the first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to kick you in the balls for making that movie...

    1. Re:Who wants to be the first... by beef3k · · Score: 1

      Who wants to be the first to kick YOU in the balls for not understanding that they only made special effects for Riddick? Food on the table, you know.

      Blame the director if you really feel that bad about spending $10 in the theater.

    2. Re:Who wants to be the first... by dj_cel · · Score: 1

      You are obviously a troll. Despite the fact that the "director" may have made decisions different than you would have made, you don't have a clue as to how complex it is to pull off visual effects like the ones in this movie, especially from a small house. I go to see certain movies such as this not with the expectation that they will blow me away, but as an animator, to experience new effects and visuals. Be more open minded and less childish.

      If only I had Mod Points

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  34. That's easy! by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

    The cheapest and easiest way to set up a renderfarm is to use someone else's computers!

    We used to run Lightwave for work-related projects, but we only had a few machines allocated to the media lab. So after hours, we'd sneak around the cube farms and pop a client boot disk in every machine we could find.

    1. Re:That's easy! by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Only acceptable in a Uni environment although I like the way you think! :) If I could do that with our system I work on. After hours processing could jump up! Here's an idea...with a all mac shop, could you have the main cluster (using Xgrid) add the developer's nodes when they go home? I imagine adding 10-15 nodes to the cluster at night only could help clean out your render queues! Also, a good scheduler can help too (cron is too weak....make it something else).

      --

      Gorkman

  35. GridIron X-Factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  36. Re:selfabuse is krama whore master!! Bow before hi by selfabuse · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    So, get someone with mod points to mod me down. I don't lose sleep at night over my slashdot karma.

  37. You must new here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's quite common. I'd even say it's valid. The +5 cap is the reason why.

  38. Depends on your workstations by BBStriker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hey

    I've set up and administrated a number of farms over the years (doing it as I type. its.. what I do). One thing you really want to do, certainly with Maya's renderer, is to try to use the same OS and platform on your farm as you use on your user workstations. There can be subtle or even obvious differences in the render output between OS's, and since you'll have enough issues to deal with you'll want to keep cross-platform incompatabilities out of the mix. Please, trust me on this. Had to deal with Maya Irix/Win2k/Linux differences in the past.

    As for queueing software, give Condor a look-see. Free and functional. I reverse-engineered a Perl version of it before they made their source available, and my version has been run quite successfully at several animation studios and an effects house over the years. It's a well architected system for distributed computing.

    Feel free to contact me if you've got any other render system or management questions. I'm always interested in seeing how other studios approach the challenge.

  39. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We're in the process of acquiring and setting up a renderfarm, and I'm hoping the Slashdot community might light us up a little here."

    Sorry Slashdot is NOT a power utility!

  40. gigabit ethernet likely overkill by cryptozoologist · · Score: 1

    rendering is processor intensive (usually) and not io intensive so you will probably do just fine with plain old 100 mbit ethernet. take the money you save on networking and spend it on more nodes.

    1. Re:gigabit ethernet likely overkill by NovySan · · Score: 2, Informative

      3D rendering is proc intensive. 2D composite work (Shake, Digital Fusion, Nuke, etc) is NETWORK I/O intensive. You must have gigE at least from the main background plate server and shared element server. The pipe that drops off the final product is usually sending (HD proxies for internal review) and receiving (final output frames) so it's best to have that gigE too.

  41. Solution by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1


    Try a cluster file system.



    "Filers" create "hot spots" whereby often-accessed directories/files create IO bottlenecks.



    I think you can use this CFS to create a directory tree with over 200TB of data (/home/lun1, /home/lun2, .../home/lun255). You can't "tie" them together like with LVM but you do get huge throughput as opposed to a single-host bottleneck with a volume manager and/or clustered NAS filers with the hot spot problem.

  42. Figure out what rendering engine first! by Dynedain · · Score: 1

    Everything you have mentioned is dependent on what render engine you are using.

    First, figure that out, then go to the forums for that engine and ask your question there.

    I just built an 8-node renderfarm for using Vray, which means 3D Studio, which means Win2k and it was a piece of cake.

    6-8 nodes is tiny. Figure your use, then ask on the right forum. Many, many people have done this already.

    --
    I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  43. What kind of rendering? by beegle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a fun idea in the abstract, but if you're looking for concrete advice, you need to give us some concrete data. Most importantly, -what- are you rendering?

    If you're at a university and you're doing some sort of bioinformatics visualization, use whatever the researchers are most comfortable with. The odds are good that this is whatever the CS department was teaching on 5 years ago. Probably Suns or Windows machines. Slave... errr, grad student labor is cheap, so use an OSS scheduling and job management system if you can.

    At most other places, a similar rule applies: use whatever the users are most comfortable with. If you're using Mac workstations and software, then it may make sense to go with a G5 rendering farm. If you're using Windows... well, okay. Windows render farms still suck, but at least buy PCs to leave your options open. Unless you're a really large organization (that is, the sort that doesn't have to resort to Ask Slashdot for research), you probably want to use products that come with support contracts. $20k/year is a pretty good deal when compared to keeping a full-time support person for the same task.

    --
    --
  44. farm tools by Noclar7 · · Score: 1

    Here is a fresh After Effects grid rendering tool just released last month for both mac & pc. Havent tried it yet, as I kindof laugh at comp render times when compared to 3d rendering. http://www.gridironxfactor.com/index_home.asp And this is the render manager we use, thats worked like a dream since its first install. We use it for Lightwave, but there is the option for Maya as well (even though mayas native renderer is 8P)available for PC,MacOSX,Linux http://www.liquiddreamsolutions.com/

  45. Deadline Render Queue (beta) by bhouston · · Score: 5, Interesting
    At Frantic Films we have over the past year developed our own network rendering solution: Deadline. Our solution has just recently entered a beta testing period thus if people are so inclined one can have a look at the current product (screenshots) and possibly download a trial version (download page). We used Deadline on a number of recent feature films including Scooby Doo 2 and Paycheck.

    We did this because we primarily use Discreet's 3dsmax (with Brazil and V-Ray) and Eyeon's Digital Fusion. We have found that most existing render farm solutions do not support these two packages very well -- thus we decided to develop our own custom solution. We also support After Effects, Alias|Maya, AIR and other RenderMan compliant rendering packages.

    Of interest to the general Slashdot crowd may be that this Deadline Render Management Solution is based on the open source (BSD License) Exocortex C# library originally released with this C# 3D Engine. Deadline is built with C# in the hopes that using Mono we will be able to start supporting Linux with minimal extra effort.

    I'll be reading all the posts on this Slashdot thread but I would also appreciate any direct feedback on our current beta product. We also found solutions such as Rush and Smedge to be less than user friendly in many respects. Thus we have tried as best as we could to increase a 3D package that is not well supported by most render farm management solutions -- except for Discreet's Backburner (which we found not that that scalable.)

    1. Re:Deadline Render Queue (beta) by brobison · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We have almost requirements here at Blur Studio. I tried the Deadline beta, and it seems like a definate improvement over Backburner =) AS you mentioned, it's not very scalable. How many machines do you guys have on your farm? I wasn't very confident in Deadline being able to handle a large number of hosts, with it's XML polling architecture.

      We have our own in-house solution as well: Assburner. Assburner is GPLed and we hope to do a public release in the next month or two. Along with our production tracking software: Resin.

    2. Re:Deadline Render Queue (beta) by bhouston · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cool stuff. We will be posting a new beta on the site later today -- with a couple enhancements. I just loaded up Deadline Monitor here and it shows that we have 98 machines current rendering, 3 idle, 41 offline (user workstations) and 5 machines disabled. Overnight during really heavy production loads (i.e. back in February with Scooby Doo 2) we would have all possibly machines rendering except for the 5 or so disabled ones (which are file servers or underpowered machines.) Thus from a pragmatic standpoint it scales at least to 150 machines without any trouble. How big is the blur render farm?

  46. Rush to Boxx by beantowne · · Score: 1
    A friend who works at a large effects shop in San Fran informs me they've got the following setup:

    IRUSH

    BOXX nodes

  47. Getting the most out of G5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make sure that you have software (or compilers) available that will make use of the vector processor on the G5. If you don't (and it sounds like the stuff form Pixar and such should), it would probably be more cost effective to go with some other system running linux.

  48. SAN in the back and LAN up front by Atticka · · Score: 0
    If you looking for something that can handle a lot of disk IO and shared data, I'd suggest a SAN solution on the backend of your servers and then Gigabit LAN on the front end for your clients.

    The benefit to this is that your consolidating your storage while removing any data/disk traffic off your network. SAN's offer much better fault tolerance and its WAY easier to administer.

    Backups become much easier to handle when your data is on one spot and when it comes time to expand, your options are virtually unlimited (depending on your initial solution).

    Apple's G5 server is a good packaged solution, but will limit you when it comes to any type of large expansion plans. Compaq servers work well and they also offer an excellent SAN based solution.....and no, I dont work for either Compaq or Apple!

    --
    No sig here...
  49. (-1, troll) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    OS X Server can run without a GUI. Imagine that.

  50. Grid Engine by johnjones · · Score: 1

    ok I only have experance with a custom T&L rendering platform but the grid engine worked very well I have used it at a couple of hardware design places and it's CPU blancing was very nice indeed
    it supports

    Apple Mac OS/X
    Compaq Tru64 Unix 5.0, 5.1
    Hewlett Packard HP-UX 11.x
    IBM AIX 4.3, 5.1
    Linux x86, kernel 2.4, glibc >= 2.2
    Linux AMD64 (Opteron), kernel 2.4, glibc >= 2.2
    Silicon Graphics IRIX 6.5
    Sun Microsystems Solaris (Sparc) 7 and higher 32-bit
    Sun Microsystems Solaris (Sparc) 7 and higher 64-bit
    Sun Microsystems Solaris (x86) 8 and higher

    see http://gridengine.sunsource.net/
    I would look at what software you want to run BEFORE buying hardware

    regards

    John jones

  51. Few Comments.. by AusG4 · · Score: 1

    First off, the G5 XServe's are very fast machines and the cluster node is, of course, designed for just this sort of thing in the minimal amount of space. You should be aware that they are LOUD as hell though... louder than the G4 XServes, which sound like a plane taking off. That said, plan on hiding them away from your workspace because even one of them in the same room with you will drive you nuts. This is no different than a 1U server from Dell/Whoever though.

    You'll only really need to buy a single non-cluster-node XServe to make your system work, and even that isn't needed if you have a desktop Mac to admin them from. Make sure you invest in either Apple's Remote Desktop application, or you install a VNC server or something on each of your cluster nodes. You'll want to get access to the desktop, and with those machines sans-video card, a remote desktop application is obviously the only way. For your type of application, sometimes the command prompt can only get you so far. :)

    That said, if you do go with the Apple solution, there is not much reason to run Linux on them. Most open source apps you can build for Linux will build on OSX without issue, and keeping OSX on the machines gives you the ability to run Adobe After Effects on the machines and use the After Effects built-in cluster rendering. It's not that I dislike Linux, but it's just not needed here, especially when OSX offers you the addition of a whole host of commercial applications over the usual open source ones. Also, the cluster nodes include OSX Server (5 User). The 5 user licenses are for the filing sharing functionality, so they don't apply to what you're doing and for all intents and purposes, it works and acts largely like the OSX you know and use everyday, so the OS is included in the price of the hardware and you're not paying an extra invoice for it.

    As for interconnecting them, the XServe machines all feature dual gigabit ethernet, which you'll want to obviously connect to a gigabit ethernet switch.

    That said, you're left with the option of storage. The best bet for a smaller scale cluster (6-12 CPU's, as you mentioned) would be just to dedicate a single non-cluster-node XServe with all 4 disks installed and striped into a single volume. Connect the second gigabit ethernet port of your Xserve cluster machines to a second switch and then use NFS on OS X server to share to your cluster nodes. This will provide plenty of performance over a seperate gigabit ethernet connection, though your mileage may vary depending on what you want to do.

    Obviously, for more machines, you'll do well to look into more advanced storage. XSan can do just this once they release it, which I imagine it will be when you're ready to scale up that far.

    Hope that helps, at least as far as Apple solutions go.
    --
    bash-3.00$ uname -a
    SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
  52. Darwin by Dav3K · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But more to the parent's point, OSX could be run Darwin-only, AKA BSD-style command-line interface. The bloat can be stripped out of OSX just as easily as it can for linux. Additionally, the user would have the comfort in knowing that his render farm is using the same OS as the workstations used to control it.

    As other respondants have suggested, I guess it would come down to which OS supported the entire collection of desired applications for the job.

  53. For true 64 bitness, launch every Linux! by LightStruk · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apple has not yet released a true 64-bit version of OS X, while Gentoo released a PPC64 version a few weeks ago. If you're going to buy 64 bits of CPU, you might as well get 64 bits of OS too.

  54. Sound more like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll use 6 to 8 nodes first

    Sounds more like a 'gentlemans renderfarm' than an actual working one :)

  55. Openmosix/PlumpOS and Gentoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the cheap we have created a small 12 node cluster using PlumpOS for the drone nodes and Gentoo patched for OpenMosix as the master node(s). On the hardware side we're using a mix of Linux compatible PC's (P4's @ 2.4-3.0 GHz) all connected via Gbit NIC's and a Gbit switch. Took about 8 hours to setup. The system is very stable and fast.

  56. I'm not an animator... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    but I do work in a 3D department at a television production studio. I can't say Rush is the best, but we use it and the animators are generally happy with it. We have about 10 render only boxes and another 9 or 10 workstations that Rush let's you "online" when you are not using them (lunch, nights, weekends, long meetings...).

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  57. Re:selfabuse is krama whore master!! Bow before hi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent (selfabuse) up. It was an on-topic defense to the grandparent's accusations, after this guy made two very informative and interesting points. Don't punish him for being helpful!

  58. Some Tips by mnemonic_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These are just some tips I've heard in my 4 years of experience.

    Whichever processors you go with, make sure the entire farm uses the same type. Otherwise peculiar rendering differences might occur, in things like particles, hair/fur and fluids.

    I suggest going with the Opterons just for the PC compatibility. While the CG industry is becoming more diverse hardware-wise, it is still dominated by PC's and to a much lesser extent SGI boxes (5 years ago it was all SGI). Using PC's keeps your options open. Perhaps someday you will find 3ds max and its included distributed rendreing software more suitable for a task, and that can only be used with PC's. Same goes with the Mental Ray and Brazil renderers and the Combustion compositing software. Macs just have not been widely used in the 3d graphics industry, and so the vast majority of 3d content creation software is PC and SGI only (Maya Unlimited is only available on PC and SGI, while a lower end wersion is on Mac). And VirtualPC cannot be used to emulate 3d hardware acceleration (and it shouldn't be used for anything processor intensive anyways), though this only applies to the hardware rendered viewports in the apps. Having only Macs would be risky, and could limit your capabilities significantly.

    Pixar's PRMan (Photorealistic RenderMan) is a full blown renderer, not just something to help distribute render jobs. It is generally considered the best in the industry, though MentalRay and Brazil have gained significant followings. For a cheap but effective render queueing system, check out Smegde. Smedge was used by Manex Visual Effects for handling some of the effects shots in the Matrix trilogy. If you're running the Linux version of Maya (x86 only) it is not too difficult to distribute the render tasks yourself using shell scripts and the command-line renderer.

    GB Ethernet should be fine, the bottleneck will be in the actual image processing not data transfer rates. 100Mb ethenet might even get the job done, thught I'd use GB for the added speed when copying large files. YMMV of course.

    Overall I'd try to create a very flexible system, one that will definitely support the newest CG software down the road and one that ensures compatibility with everything, for those always short deadlines. Goodl luck with your rendering.

  59. using google by vasqzr · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This attitude bothers me, and not for the first time here on Slashdot. How the hell do you think those experts got to be experts? Do you think they just *poofed* into being with all their knowledge and skills already existent?

    By RTFM'ing and Googling.

    It's probably faster to search the web than submit to Slashdot, hope its accepted, and then sort through the replies.

    1. Re:using google by CromeDome · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right. It probably is. However, Slashdot is supposed to be a community, right? So what's wrong for asking the community for help? That is one of the things community is about.

      I don't see the problem with asking here. You can actually get a lot more insight from a lot of different backgrounds in one place. Yeah, you have to weed out some of the gems, but moderation helps some with that.

      You elitist pigs are starting to bug me. We've all needed help from time to time, yourself included I'm sure. Don't knock others for asking for help.

      CromeDome

    2. Re:using google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it is much a community anymore, if it ever was.

  60. Be careful by Catamaran · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Be careful how you configure your network or you may end up with something like this.

    --
    Test 1 2 3 4
  61. Try Isilon by elan · · Score: 1

    Good stuff, much easier to set up and maintain than that SAN/NAS crap.

    http://www.isilon.com/

    And no, I don't work there.

  62. You forgot the link! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DyneBolic

    How are you ever going to get Karma?

  63. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is the parent modded flamebait? He is absolutely right. Renderfarms are a highly specialized use of computers. You don't consult a general pratitioner group on brain surgery. Why consult a general technology group on renderfarming? The best you can hope for is that someone who knows a little something about it can point you to a good resource somewhere (which you probably could have found through Google anyway). The worst is that some idiot with no clue will give you bad advice and screw your setup.

  64. Mixing layers here... by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1
    Gigaethernet enough or should we be going for Fiber

    Well quit mixing your media here. What do you mean GbE is enough, it runs over both copper and fiber. Now there are other layer 2 protocols that run over both copper and fiber (all though different cables) for example - what SAN are you going to use ? iSCSI, FC, SRP, NFS ?

    What networking are you going to use ? GbE, TokenRing, FDDI, ???

    What HPC/Interconnect are you going to use Infiniband, Myrinet, VI, ???

    Some of these are the same networks, some of these are not, they all run at various speeds with various types of cabling. Now go ask your question again

    PS GbE is probably good for networking, probably not for your SAN

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    1. Re:Mixing layers here... by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      Presumeably the poster was asking about fibre channel. For an 8-node cluster, FC can support pretty high bandwidth, but so can GbE using SMB or even iSCSI. Also, GbE switches are cheap compared to fibre SANs.

  65. can't resist by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 1
    For true 64 bitness, launch every Linux!

    All your Linux are belong to us!

  66. Hiring Competent People? by drewzhrodague · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You could also hire competent unemployed systems people to help out -- like myself!

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  67. nVidia Gelato by Guspaz · · Score: 2, Informative

    You might want to look into nVidia Gelato. It's a 3D renderer that uses Quadro FX cards as secondary FPUs, supposedly doubling or more the speed of rendering. They claim it's two to six times faster than the leading renderer. There's a demo, so you can verify those claims for your uses.

    It runs under Linux, and "will function with whatever [render farm] management system you currently use.".

    To reiterate, it's a SOFTWARE renderer, that is hardware accelerated by using the video card as a co-processor.

    1. Re:nVidia Gelato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Larry Gritz still at NVidia? Entropy produced far richer images than Renderman, no wonder Pixar threatened to sue. Looking at the gelato page it looks like larry may yet have the last laugh.

  68. OT Question for midifarm by chadjg · · Score: 1

    I do my video editing work on a old G4 using FCP 3.0 (I know, I'm behind.) Occasionally I get stuck with 8 hour renders that generate 6 gig or better render files.

    Is there any cheap solution that will let me spread this work out? I don't use AE at all. My shop is incredibly cheap so it would have to be a free or nearly free solution. I know that's asking a lot. It just isn't worth it to get more macs and put FCP express on them. That's the only thing I can think of.

    Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

    --
    Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
    1. Re:OT Question for midifarm by midifarm · · Score: 1
      I don't know about the older versions of FCP, but I know you can spread out renders with the new version. I'm not sure if Xgrid is something that you could use to parse that amongst machines as well. You could inquire with the ACG at Apple. I know it was originally made for scientific crap, but it might coincide with FCP. Save your money on AE and get Motion when it comes out. Good luck. If you've got any more questions feel free to ask.

      Peace

    2. Re:OT Question for midifarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FCP HD (FCP 4.5) does NOT spread renders out to remote machines. Show me where it does ... I just flipped through the manual, just got our copies at work, and I don't see squat in this stack o' printed manuals about distributed renders. Prove me wrong, this is one time I want to be wrong.

    3. Re:OT Question for midifarm by midifarm · · Score: 1
      I just called Apple and they said that HD most certainly does. I haven't upgraded, but it's something I will be doing very soon.

      Peace

    4. Re:OT Question for midifarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shake does distributed rendering, Final Cut Pro HD ***DOES NOT***. Go ahead, buy a copy of FCP-HD, and find out that it doesn't do what you've been lead to believe.

  69. use hypertransport, or infiband. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    use hypertransport, or infiband. dont build some POS cluster. Build something that has decent hardware, and have fun doing it!

  70. Sounds like a job for a P4EE by m3j00 · · Score: 0

    This is surely an extreme situation that requires extreme action. Nothing less than the budget-friendly P4EE.

  71. IMP by Smallpond · · Score: 1

    imp is a POV-RAY based distibuted renderfarm for Win or Lin.

  72. Renderfarms, 3D Max and After Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firstly, I would recommend PC hardware over MAC, you can get your hands on really cheap used / off lease PC's. A pIII 500 will run you somewhere in the range of $150 - $200 (Canadian). I have been using an assorted collection computers, both of the cheap variety and free computers scrounged from friends and family, to render my 3D animated series (which I'd plug but I dont need a slashdotting ;).

    Your render farm computers don't need keyboards, mice, sound cards, cd rom's or monitors because you can remotely admin each using UltraVNC.

    3 pentium III 500's are basicly equivalent to 1 p4 1.4 ghz. It all depends on how many computers you want to have on at one time sucking back the electricity and heating up the house.

    3D Max has a very usable network rendering manager, I'm not familiar with solutions for MAYA or Renderman renderers. There is a a href="http://www.gridironxfactor.com/products/over view.asp">plugin for after effects 6 that lets you use all your CPU's together in real time while you are working in after effects to generate preview frames while you work, and to render.

  73. Our farm by acidream · · Score: 1

    I work at a small post production facility in Hollywood. We have a render farm of 6 dual Xeon Win2000 Boxx rack machines as well as five dual Xeon Win2000 Boxx workstations that render in their spare time. We run Maya and After Effects and we use Smedge to handle the distributed rendering for both maya and AE and Mental Ray. We also have another Dual Xeon box running Server 2003 with a eight drive raid setup with two main partitions, one is raid 1 for the maya scenes and the AE projects and the other is raid 0 for the rendered frames and comps. We started with just two rack machines, but we add one or two every couple months when the budget permits. Our renders are sent to Smedge via a script that we run from an Interix csh. It greatly simplifies the process of sending out renders. Each project we work on has a script with the name of the project, or the shot, and when we're ready to render we run the script which parses the text file with all the parameters for the render such as frame range, render quality and so on. Some people don't care for Smedge to much, but it gets the job done, and works for most all 3d applications as well as most compositing apps.

  74. OpenMosix & PPC970 by mnemoth_54 · · Score: 1

    Personally I think openmosix and a IBM PPC bladecenter woulbe be the ideal option, but as I recall openmosix hasn't been ported to PPC yet. In the short term, I think the Opterons will have better linux support, but IBM certainly has the resources to change that if they want to.

    Consider with the bladeservers, you can fit 14 SMP blades into a 7U bladecenter, double the density of using Apple's offering. IBM's PPC blades are slightly cheaper than Apple's xserve too. Not to mention that the PPC blades cost about as much as the Xeon ones, and they actually come w/ both procs.

    I don't even want to imagine the power bill for 28 P4 Xeons @~200w each!

  75. Re:Sun Grid Engine - its good by Splork · · Score: 1

    We're replacing our a**-slow "Platform LSF" commercial cpu farm management software with GridWare / Sun Grid Engine. Its great! Grid Engine performs operations on jobs in an instant just as if you were running them locally (*unlike LSF which is too slow at common tasks like job submission or job killing to be useful*). its also free, with support from sun available if you feel like wasting money.

  76. Follow these steps by hackstraw · · Score: 0

    1) determine what kind of problem you want to solve with your render farm
    2) determine what software will solve this problem
    3) determine what hardware supports the software
    4) hire a competent admin to make it work

  77. Xgrid by NAT0 · · Score: 1

    I know little about it myself but i think apple's Xgrid technology could be worth a look.

  78. Get a couple of Skids of X-Boxes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a couple of Skids of X-Boxes, good bang for the buck and who could resist saying the next big thing was rendered on 100 X-boxes via Linux/OpenMosix .... sigh....

  79. network rendering for Maya and Lightwave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know the original poster said Maya, so there happens to be an inexpensive renderfarm software called Butterflynet from liquid dream solutions (liquiddreamsolutions.com). It supports both Maya and Lightwave; I use it here at Long Island University quite effectively for rendering student projects on unlimited nodes. It's fairly stable, though your mileage may vary. I think its also available for the MAC platform as well.

    It handles crashed nodes fairly well, it doesn't handle crashed machines too well. It is able to run in the backgroun on low priority, so that someone can be using their machine with little slowdown in their user experience.

  80. Job opening FYI by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    For a "Render Farm" manager Here.

    Just thought this was an appropriate discussion. Also, maybe a "slashjobs" would be an interesting addition to this site.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  81. Advice gleaned from years of bitter experience by gorodish · · Score: 3, Informative
    Having built two generations of renderfarms, and now working on a third, I'd suggest building it as cheap as possible. You will want to upgrade every 2 years or so, so make sure that you won't feel bad disposing of the old farm when it's time for the new.

    Regarding networking: you have to look carefully at the way the farm will be used. If you are doing any kind of compositing (which requires high I/O rates), you'll benefit from gigabit ethernet. You'll also benefit from gigabit if you have exceptionally short render times (less than 30 minutes per frame), since in this case I/O is a significant fraction of each frame's render cycle. But the longer your per-frame render time, the less necessary gigabit is. We've always used 100base and it still serves us well. Fiber is expensive and provides nothing you'll need that copper can't provide.

    The individual machines should have identical configurations and be interchangable. Your goal is to not care when an individual machine dies. In light of this, there should be no local storage of data. You can save money on support if you buy spares instead of service contracts. Warranties also work, but the big manufacturers give their worst service to warranty-only customers.

    Don't wire anything but ethernet to the machines. KVM wiring is expensive and unnecessary. Each machine should run unattended until it dies; when it does, you can wheel over a monitor and keyboard to diagnose it.

    Opterons are fast, compatible, cool, lower-power and cheap. Xserves are nice, but we've found that Darwin doesn't integrate well into a pure Unix environment. You'd also be locking yourself into a single manufacturer.

    Linux is cheap and effective, and easier to configure correctly as a server OS than as a desktop OS. There is so much commercial software available for it now that there is little reason to consider Windows or a commercial Unix. We haven't found Linux support from the big manufacturers to be all that great; if you use Linux, assume that you will have to solve most problems on your own.

  82. Post Production House by acidream · · Score: 2, Informative

    I work at a small post production facility in Hollywood. We have a render farm of 6 dual Xeon Win2000 Boxx rack machines as well as five dual Xeon Win2000 Boxx workstations that render in their spare time. We run Maya and After Effects and we use Smedge to handle the distributed rendering for both maya and AE and Mental Ray. We also have another Dual Xeon box running Server 2003 with a eight drive raid setup with two main partitions, one is raid 1 for the maya scenes and the AE projects and the other is raid 0 for the rendered frames and comps. We started with just two rack machines, but we add one or two every couple months when the budget permits. Our renders are sent to Smedge via a script that we run from an Interix csh. It greatly simplifies the process of sending out renders. Each project we work on has a script with the name of the project, or the shot, and when we're ready to render we run the script which parses the text file with all the parameters for the render such as frame range, render quality and so on. Some people don't care for Smedge to much, but it gets the job done, and works for most all 3d applications as well as most compositing apps.

  83. Render Farm tips by usrerco · · Score: 1

    FILE SERVER
    For a large farm, the most important thing is a strong file server that can handle the load you're going to throw at it.

    Netapp is a great choice; many production companies, small and large have switched to netapp when all other PC solutions failed (W2K servers, OSX servers, Linux servers), and their problems went away. Netapp is pricey, but you can find used equipment, or rental solutions.

    IMHO, linux/windows is great for the nodes, but not as file servers. Linux especially has had its NFS services beaten into submission when you get a 30 host (60 cpu) farm beating on the one linux server over NFS. Whereas an SGI Origin rack mount or Netapp server can handle that and more (100 - 200 hosts).

    A problem with Windows servers is that they license connections. If you try to run a Windows XP or 2K system as a file server, you'll quickly find the OS won't let you share the drive to more than 10 machines. You have to run 2K or 2003 Server to server more than that, and you have to make sure you have enough client licenses to serve the network as you grow it. Linux servers (and most other servers, including SGI) have no such connection limit on NFS.

    LOAD BALANCING
    When you start getting above 100 hosts, consider using a switch that can handle load balancing, so that when the farm is rendering hard, the workstations still get high priority bandwidth to the disk server, otherwise loading a tiny text file from a workstation can take minutes when the farm is being heavily utilized.

    With Cisco switches, the terminology is QOS (Quality Of Service), made popular by VoIP services which deal with high volumes of network traffic, which happens to be a similar problem to file system traffic on a render farms.

    There are usually two bottle necks; the network at the file server, and the file server itself. Rarely are the workstations/nodes a bottle neck.

    SUBNETTING
    Sometimes it pays to have multiple network segments all hanging off the same file server, where the server has separate network cards for each segment. This way you distribute the network traffic, rather than concentrating it all at one point (the server's network card).

    One way is to put all the workstations on one network, the farm on another. Or split a large farm into separate subnets. You may be able to then use the server's own config to balance the network packets so it gives higher precedence to the workstations, and lower to the farm, so users can access files quickly, no matter how busy the farm is.

    AIR CONDITIONING
    Especially in hot regions like Los Angeles, it's very important to have a suitable A/C system to keep the machine room cool. Often people have to scramble to upgrade their A/C system when their farm starts heating up, and find out there's no physical way to upgrade their A/C due to the limitations of their machine room, or adequate exposure to the outside for ventilation.

    You sysadmins probably want to have a pager system that alerts you when the machine room starts heating up, or a script that shuts down the farm if the temperature exceeds some maximum.

    Watching the temp of the cpus is a good way to detect dead or dying CPU fans, the major cause of outages on nodes.

    USE AN EXPANDABLE SWITCHBOX
    Many of the Belkin switch boxes are chainable, so that you can have literally hundreds of machines accessable from one monitor/keyboard combo.

    Get a good expandable switch box so that you can see the physical console of each node, in case the machine(s) blue screen, panic, etc. so you can see what the problem is with a box, so that you can solve it, rather than just rebooting the box regularly. Often problems are obviously advertised on the console, but a cheap farm setup where there's no easy way to see the console of each box (ie. "lets just use remote desktops!") looses the ability to see what's wrong with a machine when it dies. Get to know how to read a BSOD, so you can determine if it's a ram problem, or a driver problem.

    COPPER

  84. But not flies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With Linux you will never get freedom from the swarms of flies that follow you.

    Or the Open Sores that will infest every inch of your dirty hairy communist body.

  85. But what about freedom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you must march in the direction of FOSS.

    Your battle cry can be "GNU GNU LONG LIVE GNU!"

    How could you possibly sleep at night if you dont use GNU/Linux? Just think of how you are improving the lives of the poor people in India by using GNU/Linux.

    AND THIS IS THE YEAR OF LINUX ON THE DESKTOP!!!

  86. It would have sparked some debate here too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Welp, your post sparked some debate here at the office"

    And it would have sparked debate here too, but we always seem to get a message that our subnet has been banned.

  87. Network Rendering Program - Free Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is the location of some source code for establishing a network renderer:

    reppu-0.1pre1.tar.gz - [size 12556 bytes]

    Here is the page that goes with it:

    Network Rendering Program

    Although it was originally written for use with Blender, I know, for a fact, it has been modified to use with other 3D packages, with some tweaks in the code.

    I run a render farm, but don't want to get into it because of how things are moderated here; however, it consists of SGI, Mac, Dec Alpha, and Linux boxen and works well.

    I use most 3D packages with the exception of SI...due to cost... and have run a modified REPPU with all of them.

    REPPU was originally written by Upi Tamminen.

  88. Linux is the roxor! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Linux is the r0x0r! Everything should be done in Linux!!!

    You know what? We will never use Linux here! Why? Because every time some IT nerd infested with flies comes into my office suggesting Linux I laugh at him! Its quite funny. I pretend to listen to the cost savings that Open Sores will give us, let him mumble and fidget for half an hour, then in the end tell him that we are a Microsoft only shop and we dont use software stolen from the likes of SCO. He then mumbles something about how Linux is not stolen, it is open source, the community supports it blah blah blah. I laugh at him and tell him to have a good day.

  89. Render Farm tips. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if this will help out but for what it is worth.....

    I take care of a 400 cpu render farm at work and found the biggest problem was NFS timeouts due to a very busy server. My point being the conduit between the farm and remote file system should have lots of thought invested. We run gigabit between the render nodes (linux) and the server, (Solaris on a quad 480) attached to the core switch via a pair of bonded gig links. Depending on the job and size of textures, et al., the server would have issues handling the load/requests.

    Once the current main project in production is finished, I have plans to change things. Currently the farm set up has 6 /24 networks connected to a Foundry switch, as is the server. The server is connected to the main array via 4 2G FC, 2 active, 2 passive. I want to install a FC card in one node per farm network and have the remaining nodes in that network request files from it instead of the sun server. Since it has a direct connection the the array (84 disks in RAID 5), my hopes are my NFS issues will be a thing of the past. My only concern is the bus in the Sun box. I may look at new hardware, I like what they have done with the Opteron Architecture from a main board perspective. The can move massive amounts of data around. Its all about IO..

    For queuing we use custom software, prior to that we used a product called "Muster". It worked well enough, but it would not do path substitution on referenced or included files.

    My take on dual CPU setups, Maya, MR, RM, and most other current offerings have some level of multi threading. At one time I sent 2 jobs to each machine with each cpu working on one, now I send one job and let both CPUs work on it. We didn't notice a huge difference in render times, but it did help with the NFS issues a bit, and that is what we were after at the time.

    Should you go to fibre? No not unless you have distance issues. You are actually talking about the media the data travels over. The difference is light vrs electricity. The biggest advantage to using fibre is the distance you can go with out the use of a repeater of some sort. Gigabit is gigabit be it over air, glass, copper or any other media. Always use switches if you can.

    If I was setting up my first render farm, I'd use the cheapest current hardware I could find (within reason). You are after CPU more than anything. Good memory, but it doesn't have to be the best, and of course a gigabit port. Reason I say this is with cheap hardware it doesn't hurt the pocket book as much, and with the savings you can throw a heck of a lot more CPUs at the solution. Also doing a 'forklift' upgrade will not hurt as much. Keep a few spares on a shelf, this should result in a quicker turn around time than a RMA. And the money you would save on the support contracts could be used toward the spares. I like Apple, I think their SAN solution is very "neat". But I would not use them for a render farm solution unless there was lots of money for the project and you *know* it will support all the render engines you plan to deploy. Running linux on an Xserv is a bit of a silly idea if the thinking is to run something like 'maya for linux' as it is not compiled for powerPC. OSX has more render client support than linux on powerPC.

    Good luck with things,
    greg

    1. Re:Render Farm tips. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      next time i'll use a spell checker.

  90. 2d vs 3D rendering by HonkyLips · · Score: 1

    As a professional After Effects designer, I'll just remind you that a 2D compositing program such as AE will have different demands to a 3D raytracer such as Maya. AE will render in seconds per frame, so the overall render times will come down to network bandwidth and storage efficiency. There are some specific, unique situations where After Effects will render faster on a single machine than on a network, because the transfer time for all the render assets may be longer than the render itself. Depending on the complexity of your renders and the age of your machines, I'd say it would be unusual for AE to spend for than about 10 seconds on any single frame, and some simple compositions will render at about 1 second per frame or faster. So a network set up specifically for AE will rely heavily on throughput. Maya renders will be much slower, several minutes to several hours per frame, so network traffic is not going to have an immediate effect on render speeds in the same way. But the assets required by Maya can be much bigger - you might end up with several hundred meg. of texture files. Again, it's possible with highly detailed renders that it can take more time to send data over the network than it does to render it. Pixar have had this problem and had to recode the parts of their software dealing with cacheing etc etc. Personally I'd go for the Mac solution, their stuff just works.

    --
    Putting syrup in coffee is some form of blasphemy.
  91. Rush and OSX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the best render manager ive used is Rush...
    its runs on every platform, and support just about every app your ever likely to use..

    as for going for G5s, if your planning on rendering AE material then forget about running Linux on them.

    if you planning on using them for Shake then savings made on render licenses can make them the cheaper overall option..

  92. Has to be said... by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of renderfarms...a 2D cluster!

    1. Re:Has to be said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there is an advantage to parallel rendering over a cluster. It would be expensive to implement, and none of the commerical folks who have render engines have parallel ports.

      but i could be wrong...
      greg

    2. Re:Has to be said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      before anyone freaks...

      what i ment by "expensive to implement", you would need some serious bandwidth between nodes for the amount of data required to be xferd. A gigabit network would not do if you were expecting to see an advantage over a distributed setup. You would likly be looking at something like Myrinet interconnects. They are not cheap nor is the multiplexor (switch).

      but it would be neat to do anyway... 8)

      greg

    3. Re:Has to be said... by sebastiencharland · · Score: 1

      Tryed it.

      For a single frame calculation, you don't see much improvment if you go with more than 4 cpus. over 12, your taking more time as you had cpus.

      You also need to have a cluster that can share sockets connections between the host, otherwise, the job will most likely stay on the initator node.

      I was investigating this avenue because of the cost of licenses. The advantage of a cluster is obviously to save on licenses. :-)

      I used openmosix and found that it was not stable enough to be put into production.

      But I haven't given up on the idea :-)

      Seb

  93. Render Farm Experience by sunstoned · · Score: 1

    Yo, I and a cohort developed a business plan around a render farm business just before the dotbomb (thus, why we didn't actually go after funding). We have a substantial amount of research done, although the stuff is three years old now. If you want any of this info, just let me know. Email me at ryan(at)suydams.com Just a quick note, a massive array of disposable nodes, connected by simple ethernet (GigE) is plenty for most rendering jobs. You gain little by having a massively parallel system image, but the cost goes up tremendously. As the rendering batch jobs are naturally threaded (i.e., each frame of the animation can be rendered as it's own work-unit), you will find just a simple LAN will be plenty sufficient for your needs. Finally, check out www.boxxtech.com as they have some awesome rendernodes already built (on Xeon or Opteron platforms).

  94. Your only choice maybe... by saha · · Score: 1
    Your only choice maybe to go with Apple, because of your need to run Maya and Adobe AfterEffects. Linux does Maya, but not AfterEffects. I would look into trying to get a Xserve Renderfarm to work with Xgrid. This is something that someone in Apple would be able help you if you ask the right person, because it can showcase several pieces of their technology working together with Adobe applications. Seems like all the components from Apple are there, just have to have their sales engineer be able to validate that it will work with Xgrid or any other render queue software of your choice.

    On the flip side Linux enjoys having engineering programs like Fluent and Nastran, which OSX doesn't have support for yet. If the programs you need only ran on Irix, Linux or Windows then that is hardware platform you would need to acquire.

  95. Adobe and Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A possible concern with the apple solution is continued support. Adobe is not going to be putting too much effort into supporting OSX with Steve Jobs developing competing applications. If you were going to run Apple's new compositing app, the G5s would be the way to go. While Linux cannot run AE, the hardware can, and you could boot the proper OS for whatever application needs rendering.

  96. The FX was cool by eforhan · · Score: 1

    I have to say I really liked the movie for the first 20-30 minutes. The SFX and environment was great.

    After that, the plot took an odd twist and I just never caught up with it.

  97. Re: Renderfarm Setup Tips? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the risk of being blatantly self-promotional, check out qube from www.pipelinefx.com - it's based on the system we used for the Final Fantasy movie, and is now being sold as a commercial product to film, TV, and game companies. Distributed processing will form the backbone of your pipeline, and should be carefully considered and evaluated. Take a look at all the different systems out there, and think about your growth and future needs - you want a system that can handle anything you think to throw at it.

  98. Professional Whitepaper by Mighty · · Score: 1

    If you're using 3dsmax, you should look into the pdf by Gary Davis. I haven't read the whole thing, but he gives excellent insights to developing one, including the great advantages and common pitfalls of them. Google for it. He emailed it to me, but I think he has it back up on his server.

  99. Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya! by Moqawama · · Score: 1

    Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya!

    Death to American dogs, and death to all the invaders in our lands. We will not stop fighting until ten million of you have paid the price for shedding the blood of our brothers!!

    Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya!
    Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya!