I'm looking at Bidule at the moment for a low-profile second host on one computer, having given up on standalone altogether for the moment.

thanks, Nick.

You know, I have no idea what I'm talking about. It is possible to run the plug-in and stand-alone at the same time. Sorry about that.

@Nick Batzdorf said:

You know, I have no idea what I'm talking about. It is possible to run the plug-in and stand-alone at the same time. Sorry about that.

No, Nick. What you said made sense.

If others can get Bidule to work on multiple computers, there's no reason (that I've yet discovered) that would not allow one to have it running as a second host on a single computer. Given that multiple instances could feasibly be run inside Bidule as well as Logic or DP, there's really no reason to get into the Standalone version unless both hosts are max'd out and there remains unused RAM for just one more instance.

But if just one more instance is the deal breaker, then it really is time to add a second computer.

Of course, like everyone else-- I'm wondering about this mighty new Intel Quad and what glitter it might sprinkle on the state of VI art...

After buying VSL VI I changed my composing workflow.
I use Overture 4 as notation program & the internal VST rack of it or brainspawns forte as VST host.
For the draft design of the work I use K2 & VSL or GS3 & VSL.
Than later the instrumantion I do track by track with VSL VI. If a track is finished I use the "learn" & "optimize" buttons. So it never happened that I run out of memory, and I only have 2 GByte on my PC.

[:)] Jovan

Nick and JWL,

I'm trying to follow here. Is there any advantage to running the standalone version along side DP? Is the advantage that the standalone becomes a seperate app running and therefore gets it's own ram use? So then the issue is that standalone allows only one instance therefore Polgue would host and allow more?

Seems our brains are always musing on this issue, which explains the leap of the heart at Mac Pro (the money will leap out of the wallet even if the heart only murmers a bit.)

@dpcon said:

Nick and JWL,

I'm trying to follow here. Is there any advantage to running the standalone version along side DP? Is the advantage that the standalone becomes a seperate app running and therefore gets it's own ram use? So then the issue is that standalone allows only one instance therefore Polgue would host and allow more?

Seems our brains are always musing on this issue, which explains the leap of the heart at Mac Pro (the money will leap out of the wallet even if the heart only murmers a bit.)

Yep.

Let's say your're running DP with, oh, 12 instances of VI inside DP's RAM limit of 2 or 4 GB-- depending on who you talk to. For the sake of this discussion, it doesn't matter if you have more than 6 GB RAM in your computer.

Plogue will run "x" number more instances outside of DP's RAM limit. How many instances can be run inside Plogue-- and how much RAM such instances with Plogue are used remains to be seen. Let's say for the sake of idealism, it's another 2GB.

Vi Standalone runs outside of what is used by either Plogue or DP, allowing one additional instance of VI. I think I got it to appear as VI-1 in DP with plugins appearing as VI-2, VI-3, etc. It's been a few days.

Now, my numbers may be way off, and probably modest (since VSL said that one could get 24 instances going on a 2.5 Dual inside a DAW)

Given that the tests used 2GB RAM or less, one can only guess what is possible with the extra 6GB (given that 8GB is available).

However, there are major considerations for the CPU conking out way before the RAM is totally used up.

But even if I sound as though I've totally bumped my head, I'd rather sort it out on one machine first before running out to spend $4k+ on second tower (including RAM) or a deck of Minis.

I may even experiment with my old G4 if necessary-- not for better performance, but just to figure out how all of this stuff is supposed to work.

Thanks JWL - I get it.

It seems that other performance issues will arise if one can run tons of instances. For example I stream from a single FW800 on my G5 2.7. One would think this is not ideal in the least and that another drive should be added. Better yet, the Mac Pro with 4 SATA's accessing lots of RAM with the above scenario (until 64 bit OS and apps are fully functional) still could be a very nice way to go.

@dpcon said:

Thanks JWL - I get it.

It seems that other performance issues will arise if one can run tons of instances. For example I stream from a single FW800 on my G5 2.7. One would think this is not ideal in the least and that another drive should be added. Better yet, the Mac Pro with 4 SATA's accessing lots of RAM with the above scenario (until 64 bit OS and apps are fully functional) still could be a very nice way to go.

Agreed-- the Mac Pro looks sweet in that regard-- solves a lot of issues with the FW octopus setup I have.

Thing is, the new Barracuda 750GB 10k rpm won't work on the MacPros because they top out at 500GB, according to Apple. When I saw that Barracuda, I started salivating. Woe, betide, and icky-poo.

Yes, two drives for the entire VI Cube are better than one, regardless of FW or SATA. I've got all strings currently on my internal second SATA, and it seems to be working well. The rest of the Cube is a tad piece meal for me as to how it's running. I'd love to have the entire Cube on SATAs if for no other reason than to believe that all instruments are getting an even shake. Internal is a real plus!

Once I get a template up and running reliably, I'll give you the whole rundown.

@JWL said:

Thing is, the new Barracuda 750GB 10k rpm won't work on the MacPros because they top out at 500GB, according to Apple.

You mean that the Mac Pro cannot host a drive with more than 500 gigs storage space? Also didn't realize that's a 10,000 rpm drive which makes it extremely attractive.

10.000 rpm? AFAIK the raptor's are the only ones with 10k, the barracuda ES 750 is 7.200 - but i don't see a reason why thy can't reside in a macPro - sATA is sATA. possibly apple has not specified them for thermal or sonic reasons? regarding GBs there is no limit (possibly beyond 2 TB with the filesystem)
christian

@cm said:

10.000 rpm? AFAIK the raptor's are the only ones with 10k, the barracuda ES 750 is 7.200 - but i don't see a reason why thy can't reside in a macPro - sATA is sATA. possibly apple has not specified them for thermal or sonic reasons? regarding GBs there is no limit (possibly beyond 2 TB with the filesystem)
christian

cm:

I had a list of links with 10k rpm as the search criteria and got this page:
http://www.seagate.com/products/enterprise/barracuda_es.html

You are right-- a little more investigation would have kept me from making a fool of myself. The Barracuda is indeed 7200.

However, this is from Apple:

Up to 2TB of internal storage (2) using hard drives in the following capacities:

Hard drive bay 1
160GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s, 7200-rpm, 8MB cache
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s, 7200-rpm, 8MB cache
500GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s, 7200-rpm, 8MB cache

Hard drive bay 2
500GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s, 7200-rpm, 8MB cache

Hard drive bay 3
500GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s, 7200-rpm, 8MB cache

Hard drive bay 4
500GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s, 7200-rpm, 8MB cache

Why would Apple suggest such drives topping out at 500GB with a 2 TB capacity? One would think it were possible to have a set of drives such as 250, 500, 500, and 750 to also equal 2TB. Maybe I was confused by the specs, but it seems strange that Apple did not mention a 750 of any sort. The data was so recently updated.

If it were due to heat specs, etc., I wish that Apple had included this with the other data.

Clearly, the specs indicate a 2TB limit, however that is to be configured.

Again, sorry about the 10k mixup.

not at all, JWL - possibly someone was reading the label 7200.10 as a sign for 10k rpm. i'd guess it is more probable that apple has a deal with another harddrive manufacturer than seagate and therefore doesn't list 750 GB drives ....
however, i found this on info.apple.com:

@Another User said:

For Mac OS X 10.3, 10.4 or later, the maximum volume size is 16 TB

so this is not the reason ...
christian

@Another User said:

For Mac OS X 10.3, 10.4 or later, the maximum volume size is 16 TB

so this is not the reason ...
christian

Thanks, cm:

My head hurst picking through all the exceptions and possibilities.

I really appreciate the insights.