Any stalwarts out there who have tried out the gigabit ethernet setup for L7 distributed audio processing? Anybody know why Apple says the node machine has to be a G5 while the host can be a G4? And does it really HAVE to be a G5??

On Dec 2, 2004, at 1:29 AM, Tom G wrote: > > Anybody know why Apple says the node machine has to be a G5 while the > host can be a G4? And does it really HAVE to be a G5?? Tom! The way I understand it - there is overhead involved in Node processing. And on anything less than a G5 - that overhead would defeat the purpose of have the node do the work. I hope that makes sense! Dave Shirk Pamlico Sounds

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Dave Shirk <dave@p...> wrote: > I hope that makes sense! Yes makes perfect sense. {musing...} I wonder if anything in the architecture would stop me from loading it up and playing with it with my two G4s. Might try it just for some masochistic fun.

"Tom G" <cosynthwiz@...> writes: >Anybody know why Apple says the node machine >has to be a G5 while the host can be a G4? And >does it really HAVE to be a G5?? Officially, the node machine has to be a G5 hooked up via Gigabit Ethernet or Firewire. Apple won't sanction or tech support anything less. However, it does work with a G4 and 100Mb/s ethernet. But as you might guess, you do so at your own risk. There can be problems with the weakest version of this unofficial setup. I prefer this "Digidesign" approach of stating what will absolutely work, not what might work sort of kind of maybe with fingers crossed. Contrast this with Synthology's approach which states that 512MB RAM is sufficient. It isn't if you want to play chords and with low latency. But for monophonic lines at a buffer setting of 2048 it's fine. Tech support is a huge drain on any company. Avoiding a certain amount of calls by only officially supporting what is tested to work well is a win-win situation. The company can pour more resources into software development and the user has less doubts about what to use to make things work right. ProTools users will likely understand this well. f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!" <http://home.goodmedia.com/~zerobeat>

On Dec 2, 2004, at 07:29, Tom G wrote: > Any stalwarts out there who have tried out the gigabit ethernet setup > for L7 distributed audio processing? > > Anybody know why Apple says the node machine has to be a G5 while the > host can be a G4? And does it really HAVE to be a G5?? I did a low-level test in our Company network: 6 Tracks with about 15 plugins overall, there was one Space Designer. Standard 100 Mbit, 2 switches and 2 hubs were involved, one hub is a small (cheap) one. Host: G4 Powerbook with 512 MB RAM Node 1: G5 dual with 1 GB RAM Node 2: G4 single with 512 MB RAM The G5 node didn't run perfectly but I would say it worked. Response of the G4 node was too slow. The fact is that Logic on the Powerbook couldn't play the song on it's own without freezing. It could play it with the G5 node but I had occasional dropouts. This is not bad, because if you have slightly better equipment than mine it can run - at least for some tracks. My personal assumption: For low-level or even mid-level work 100 Mbit Ethernet could do it. I had a lot of collisions in the hubs so perhaps it is better to have only switches or a direct cable between the two Macs. Unfortunately a G4 seems really to slow because I had a so many crackles and dropouts that I can't blame the network alone. So if you need a node just occasionally you can try over a 100 Mbit network with a G5 node. If you really want to produce than I suggest to use G5's only and Gigabit Ethernet. I haven't tested the other way round, with the G5 as host, because this is not my machine and there is no Logic. Maybe I install it there because I received the "Old Lady" piano which does not like the 512 MB RAM of the Powerbook very much :) --- I appreciate the attempt of Apple to give us distributed audio possibilities. But I would like to know if a faceless Logic node application can't be built for other Unix systems. Why a complete G5, with overloaded operating system, the finder, the graphic capabilities and much more, not to mention the price? It would be perrfect to have workstations which are supported by a couple of 1 HE Linux machines. Three of them are smaller and about the same price as one dual G5. And powerhungry studios could even buy a blade server with 12 or more machines in one cabinet. Peter Ostry

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "f-erenc szabo" <zerobeat@g... > However, it does work with a G4 and 100Mb/s ethernet. But > as you might guess, you do so at your own risk. There can > be problems with the weakest version of this unofficial setup. > > I prefer this "Digidesign" approach of stating what will absolutely > work, not what might work sort of kind of maybe with fingers > crossed. I agree! And that approach is fair enough as long as there is some configuration that works as advertised. In fact, I don't know why I'm looking for trouble now that I'm FINALLY getting the software stabilized on OSX after a grueling transition. Mainly, because I happen to have two G4s makes me wish I could use them for this. Let me ask about ethernet (I'm a C++ programmer but definitely not a network guy...). It sounds like you are saying the G4/G5 is one thing, and 100Mb/s vs Gigabit is another. So my naive question is whether Gigabit is supported on G4. At first flush it sounds like the 100Mb/s is the bottleneck? Thanks for your detailed response!

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Peter Ostry <po@o...> wrote: > On Dec 2, 2004, at 07:29, Tom G wrote: > >does it really HAVE to be a G5?? > > G4 seems really to slow because I had a so many crackles and dropouts > that I can't blame the network alone. So if you need a node just > occasionally you can try over a 100 Mbit network with a G5 node. If you > really want to produce than I suggest to use G5's only and Gigabit > Ethernet. > Peter Ostry Peter, thanks for your detailed response! Let me ask about ethernet (I'm a C++ programmer but definitely not a network guy...). It sounds like you are saying the G4/G5 is one thing, and 100Mb/s vs Gigabit is another. So my naive question is whether Gigabit is supported on G4. At first flush it sounds like the 100Mb/s is the bottleneck? I think a Unix Logic server is a fine idea.

Hi guys can anyone tell me why i cant get midi to reaktor ? i put it on as an audio instrument... and its fine with my control freak right... but then when i use it as an audio unit effect i cant send any midi to it what am i doing wrong guys ? VC

"f-erenc szabo" <zerobeat@g... writes: >> However, it does work with a G4 and 100Mb/s ethernet. But >> as you might guess, you do so at your own risk. There can >> be problems with the weakest version of this unofficial setup. >> I prefer this "Digidesign" approach of stating what will absolutely >> work, not what might work sort of kind of maybe with fingers >> crossed. "Tom G" <cosynthwiz@...> writes: >It sounds like you are saying the G4/G5 is one thing, >and 100Mb/s vs Gigabit is another. So my naive >question is whether Gigabit is supported on G4. At >first flush it sounds like the 100Mb/s is the bottleneck? Most G4 towers have Gigabit Ethernet. Every Quicksilver and every MirrorDoor model definitely does. And so do some G4 PowerBooks. The bottleneck is both the transmission speed AND the processor speed. So if your node Mac is only a G4 and you're only running at 100Mb/s, then that's double whammy... two strikes against you. f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!" <http://home.goodmedia.com/~zerobeat>

On Dec 6, 2004, at 04:26, Tom G wrote: > Let me ask about ethernet (I'm a C++ programmer but definitely not a > network guy...). It sounds like you are saying the G4/G5 is one > thing, and 100Mb/s vs Gigabit is another. So my naive question is > whether Gigabit is supported on G4. At first flush it sounds like > the 100Mb/s is the bottleneck? Hard to say and depends on the usage. It's like programming: everytime you write a really fast routine some others become bottlenecks :) Peter Ostry

> can anyone tell me why i cant get midi to reaktor ? > i put it on as an audio instrument... and its fine with my control > freak right... > but then when i use it as an audio unit effect > i cant send any midi to it > what am i doing wrong guys ? Logic doesn't send midi directly to *any* AU effect, does it? Isn't that why it's an incredibly complicated affair controlling plug-ins with a basic midi controller? Go to the Logic FAQ and it'll show you how to get midi to a plug-in via the environment and a slew of transformers/switches/mousetraps. I'm a smart guy, and it made my head hurt. u b i k

<quoting fixed by admin> > can anyone tell me why i cant get midi to reaktor ? > i put it on as an audio instrument... and its fine with my control > freak right... > but then when i use it as an audio unit effect > i cant send any midi to it > what am i doing wrong guys ? Logic doesn't send midi directly to *any* AU effect, does it? Isn't that why it's an incredibly complicated affair controlling plug-ins with a basic midi controller? Go to the Logic FAQ and it'll show you how to get midi to a plug-in via the environment and a slew of transformers/switches/mousetraps. I'm a smart guy, and it made my head hurt. u b i k i can control instruments fine with it.... and they are AU its only the audio channel that doesnt seem to get it i was actually looking at the FAQ before i posted here couldnt see anything on it would you mind telling me what it said ? kris