TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- VST processor offload over network

VST processor offload over network

Apologies in advance, but for the life of me I cannot think of the name of that VST program that allows you to leverage CPU resources on another networked PC.

If you know it, can you reply?

I'm at the end of the road on my current rig, and I rather not spend the money on upgrading right now since I have my wife's rig with a P4 2.8. It ought to be able to handle the extra things that I cannot completely aggregate onto my one PC.

Thanks in advance,

Adam

Uh. Program that does it?

I am familiar with using VST System link in Cubase/Nuendo.

Or Sony Vegas has network rendering options.

I think it is dependant on the software you're using.

FX teleport springs to mind.

http://www.fx-max.com/fxt/

Why do you need FX Teleport?
# If your CPU resource on the main machine is insufficient, you may want to use another machine for the heaviest FX.
# Even if your CPU horsepower is sufficient for your needs, adding an extra machine will eliminate the peaks of CPU, HD and RAM usage, increasing the reliability of the system.
# Convenience reasons: a dedicated machine means dedicated keyboard, mouse and monitor just for control over your FX.
# Overall stability: in case your FX plug-in crashes the machine, the host machine with your song will remain stable and you won't lose your work.

Wonder if it works on wifi.. since i have wifi at home.. only 54mb/s though :\

quote:

Originally posted by Aesthetic FX teleport springs to mind. http://www.fx-max.com/fxt/ Why do you need FX Teleport? # If your CPU resource on the main machine is insufficient, you may want to use another machine for the heaviest FX. # Even if your CPU horsepower is sufficient for your needs, adding an extra machine will eliminate the peaks of CPU, HD and RAM usage, increasing the reliability of the system. # Convenience reasons: a dedicated machine means dedicated keyboard, mouse and monitor just for control over your FX. # Overall stability: in case your FX plug-in crashes the machine, the host machine with your song will remain stable and you won't lose your work. Wonder if it works on wifi.. since i have wifi at home.. only 54mb/s though :\

That's it!!!! Thanks!!!! I used a trial version many months ago and it worked great. I just couldn't remember the name.

With regards to Wi-Fi, it's not listed in the system requirements. It doesn't mean you can't try it - go download the 14 day demo.

quote:

System requirements: # 2 or more computers networked via 100 MBit or 1GBit TCP/IP LAN # Windows 98/ME/2000/XP # VST 2.0 compatible host (Nuendo, Cubase, Logic or SONAR, Project 5 (via VST adapter) etc.) # VST instruments and/or FX Hardware requirements depend on versions of Windows and host applications, but not lower than 300 MHz CPU, 64 MB RAM, 2 MB HD.

Thanks again!

Adam

That's hot. I'll have to look into that. Thanks.

that shit looks good. i didnt know that was possible when hooking 2 or more comps up together. ill be trying that.

No probs dude.. i think i will look into it at the end of the year when i build my dual core monster.. ive got a 3ghz single core machine that my mrs will end up using for browsing and shit.. can definately use it for this.

also you guys might wanna check out their parent page:

http://fx-max.com/

i used to use their freeze thing in fruity and it worked.. they've got some other products for cpu saving

quote:

Originally posted by Aesthetic No probs dude.. i think i will look into it at the end of the year when i build my dual core monster.. ive got a 3ghz single core machine that my mrs will end up using for browsing and shit.. can definately use it for this. also you guys might wanna check out their parent page: http://fx-max.com/ i used to use their freeze thing in fruity and it worked.. they've got some other products for cpu saving

I use Sonar and it has an option to freeze the tracks/instruments, but when you are trying to expand on something that requires you to unfreeze things, it doesn't present a very dynamic environment in which is easy to work. It's better to have the raw horsepower to do everything you need to do instead of freezing things. FX Teleport gives me that option to offload it to my wife's PC. As a matter of fact, I just bought it.

Adam

i knew wives came in handy for some thing

How much latency are you guys getting? I tried it once, and I found it to be un-useable (half a second delay), but I get the feeling it was some setting I had messed with.

No more latency than any other VST - either local or remote. I can't tell any difference.

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm How much latency are you guys getting? I tried it once, and I found it to be un-useable (half a second delay), but I get the feeling it was some setting I had messed with.

Doesn't seem right - latency on a private LAN should be < 1 ms. Were you getting ping times of half a second?

I've used FX teleport with minimal latency - at worst maybe 10 ms.

I had dedicated LAN cards with crossover cables!
Ping times were low, so it didn't make sense to me. I must have buggered something up.

A ping response determines latency at the network layer, not the application layer. The latency between the the FX-Teleport server and client may be entirely different. There is much more data that has to flow between the FX-Teleport client and server than that which has to flow between a simple ping.

I just wanted to set that record straight. Regardless, I don't see much latency at all with FX-Teleport across my 100Mbps LAN network - a little less than 10 msec.

wonder if any advantage is gained by using teaming and port trunking on a gig switch =)

Also, I bet if you did some MTU + TCP/IP stack tuning you'd squeeze out even better performance out of it

quote:

Originally posted by emc^2 wonder if any advantage is gained by using teaming and port trunking on a gig switch =) Also, I bet if you did some MTU + TCP/IP stack tuning you'd squeeze out even better performance out of it

The performance gain would probably be negligible. It is already indistinguishable from a locally hosted VST.

What would port trunking do? That just takes different Vlans and puts them on the same physical port i.e. dot1q or isl (Cisco proprietary) trunking. Do you mean etherchannel?

Over a LAN, I'm not sure what MTU modification would do for you since the response time between end nodes is already low (usually <1 msec). MTU modification can make the world of difference over high speed, high latency circuits like big WAN pipes e.g. DS3/E3 or OC3/STM-1, etc. When I say high latency, I mean as compared to what is seen on a LAN. WAN communications can usually always benefit from some sort of MTU modification. I'm a network engineer for a large company and have had several instances where customers are paying for OC-3 WAN circuits, but a single FTP can only squeeze about 5 Mbps out of it. Once I tell them about MTU modification, their FTP transfer speeds can go way up. There's actually a formula out there - perhaps I can still find it if anyone is interested.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.