JWL, yes the macPro board and several intel boards are almost identical - AFAIK they use the intel 5000X chipset, which has a special way of accessing memory modules - every two sticks (dual channel) at two branches, only *symmetric* placement results in best performance

i have posted this specs formerly:
http://vsl.co.at/upload/users/449/dualchanneldualbranchmemory.png">
christian

Thanks, CM.

I saw that before getting the MacPro, but at present I've not noticed a performance difference in real-world usage. That's not to say it's not real, but perhaps I've not pushed my MacPro to the point where any benefits would be apparent.

In fact, I'm only on my third cue on the MacPro using the 9GB. What I might do later this week is to remove the 2 x 512 and report back to you any differences I've seen.

It seemed essential to at least install a matched set of four RAM sticks (2GB each), so that's what I started with.

I can't find the Apple Developer document at the moment, but the issue of not mixing DIMMs of different sizes and speeds seemed to be limited to pairs and not for the entire system. Some of the information on this is not entirely clear, and some reports even from Apple appear to raise as many questions as they answer.

As mentioned, performance on my G5 2.5 Dual PPC was woefully disappointing. I have no complaints so far with the way things are running on the MacPro. I'm still not sure that any differences have yet revealed themselves on my system as being significant.

Have you done any personal testing to confirm the specs you've posted?

chris kardeis confirmed a macPro with 8 GB performed better than one currently holding also 9 GB using it with logic and *real projects* (not just with testing routines like i could), i've just been curious if someone with the same config can confirm this too or if it is just an accidental effect.
christian

Ah!

Well, better performance is always welcome. I will remove the 2 x 512 to see what happens, and will report back soon.

Thanks.

To get more out of your RAM it is possible to run the VI standalone as well as the plugins in the sequencer. This allows you to use more of your memory.

I've just been testing this and it works with Logic, I assume it should with DP.

@petethomas said:

To get more out of your RAM it is possible to run the VI standalone as well as the plugins in the sequencer. This allows you to use more of your memory.

I've just been testing this and it works with Logic, I assume it should with DP.

Yes, this is an increasingly common practice, and it is even possible to run several standalone instances concurrently.

More to the issue, one would think, however, that having 9GB of RAM available would benefit this practice. But according to cm's report, the irony is that 8GB is allegedly 'better' than 9GB.

@petethomas said:

To get more out of your RAM it is possible to run the VI standalone as well as the plugins in the sequencer. This allows you to use more of your memory.

I've just been testing this and it works with Logic, I assume it should with DP.

Yes, this is an increasingly common practice, and it is even possible to run several standalone instances concurrently.



How do you get more than one standalone?

Currently I'm routing the output to Mac digital out, then that goes back into a Logic track via my Apogee Ensemble optical in. With more than one standalone, I wonder if there is a way to get more than this without buying another interface.

Making a copy of the standalone app itself will allow you to run more than one instance.

Check this thread for more information on standalone mode:
http://community.vsl.co.at/viewtopic.php?t=9801

Let me add that going from 9 GB of RAM to 13 GB on my Mac Pro 8-core really helped (even though apps can only use up toi 4 GB). VSL uses memory apart from DP, as confirmed in Activity Monitor. WIth 9GB, I had no free memory left with my setup which was DP, 24 instances VSLs (almost all Matrix Universals), 3 Kontakts, 1 Stylus, 4 Altiverbs, 1 Ivory, 1 Absynth. DPs CPU meter would redline. Now with 13 GB, no problems. Will go to 16 GB in a weeks to avoid having the odd number of RAM modules -- if that makes a difference, I'm not sure.

Hi

Where is the best place to order vienna instruments from? (Price wise) I thought I could order them direct from here, but I can't see anywhere to do so?

Also, does anybody know where the best place is to get more RAM for my 8-core mac pro? What is the exact memory I need?

Finally, does any body make 10,000 RPM hard drives, over 100GB that fit the mac pro?


Any help would be greatfully appreciated!!!!!!!

@Another User said:

Finally, does any body make 10,000 RPM hard drives, over 100GB that fit the mac pro?

Yes. Western Digital 'Raptor' 150GB. That's about as large as 10k drives come at the moment.
LINK: WESTERN DIGITAL RAPTOR 10K 150GB

@garylionelli said:

Let me add that going from 9 GB of RAM to 13 GB on my Mac Pro 8-core really helped (even though apps can only use up toi 4 GB). VSL uses memory apart from DP, as confirmed in Activity Monitor. WIth 9GB, I had no free memory left with my setup which was DP, 24 instances VSLs (almost all Matrix Universals), 3 Kontakts, 1 Stylus, 4 Altiverbs, 1 Ivory, 1 Absynth. DPs CPU meter would redline. Now with 13 GB, no problems. Will go to 16 GB in a weeks to avoid having the odd number of RAM modules -- if that makes a difference, I'm not sure.

Gary:

This is good information. I plan to go to 16GB in preparation for Leopard and certain other plugins from East West, who appear will be *among* the first to release 64-bit virtual instruments.

I'm glad to finally hear someone else report that VSL uses memory apart from that which is used inside DP.

I've never had a single CPU spike, although in DP I often get a solid red line on the playback engine during the first run down after booting up. After that, things have been okay.

Curious-- I removed 1GB of RAM (2 x 512) this morning. I've been working for several hours and have not noticed any difference when using 8GB or 9GB. Still, I'll pack up the 2 x 512s because I have someone who wants to buy it. I figured that it would be incentive to move ahead with 4 more 2GB sticks.

Hi

I looked at the raptor and it isn't a 3GB transfer, it is only 1.5 GB. Is there any that have the 3 GB transfer?

i currently don't know any drives at 10.000 rpm except the raptors - but be assured: it is enough ... 1,5 Gb/s = ~200MB/s, nothing the drive will ever give you ...
there are some SAS drives (serial attached SCSI, which basically is compatible to sATA2) at 15.000 rpm, but i doubt they are compatible with the sATA2 ports on the motherboard and AFAIK the largest available are 73 GB
christian

So what has a better performance 7,200 rpm with 3 GB transfer or 10,000 with 1.5 GB transfer?

i prefer the raptors wherever 150 GB are sufficient enough (especially for system drives) - they are noticeably more performant
christian

Hi

Is it better to put each section Strings, woodwinds, brass, percussion on different drives so when they are all playing there are less samples trying to be accessed from each drive? Or as it says in the videos it is better to have less drives?

Simsy:

Perhaps at the time the video was made, there were only ten volumes of the VI Cube. At the time, 2 x 300GB was recommended as being sufficient.

However, some have found benefits to putting different instruments on different drives as the library grew. They have also opted for other hard drive configurations to accommodate the extra data flow. Some of the solutions have been multiple eSATA drives or multiple firewire drives running from a PCIe host card. Some are using various RAIDs in addition to various FW and internal SATA options.

The more important issue here is bus speed and bus independence. More drives of a smaller size will help with seek times, but having additional data paths is the motivation here where having just two drives would compete for bus bandwidth. If the entire library were stored on two hard drives, the same data path clog potential would remain with multiple drives unless additional busses were created for that data.

How the library is split among hard drives is largely up to the way the user feels is best according to the needs of their projects. For example, some people write very busy string parts and have opted to put all of their violins and violas on one drive with their cellos and basses on another. Others prefer keeping all instruments in the same 'family' together.

At the end of the day, it all comes together inside your VSL Directory Manager and your DAW-- it all looks the same on the surface no matter how the library is split. As you work with your projects, you can always move various instruments to different hard drives (on the same machine) that are less active if it improves data flow. It will take some trial and error.

The one area where this gets tricky is when more than one computer is being used. For those who'd like to have all of their violins and violas on one machine, they are prevented from doing so simply because Solo Strings and Chamber Strings are each one complete bundle and cannot be split across two machines; different hard drives on one machine is doable. Different hard drives on different machines is not doable for a single volume/license.

My HDs:

MacPro: 10k 150GB SATA, 7200 300GB SATA

G5 2.5: 2 x 10k 150GB with eSATA II enclosure, internal 300GB SATA, 1.2TB eSATA II RAID (this drive contains other instruments that are never used with VSL concurrently)

As the VSL Team releases addition instruments, I will be adding an eSATA II host to the MacPro. Eventually, a third machine will be added with additional drives as well.

For data backup, all samples are archived onto several FW drives which are connected only when needed.

Hey JWL,

Thanks for all your help!!! I am new to VI and want to get it right and I know so much more now than I even did a couple of days ago thanks to you and cw!!! Your help is most appreciated.