Thanks DG.

Looking forward to some *good* news... fingers crossed! [;)]

J.

@jbm said:

Thanks DG.

Looking forward to some *good* news... fingers crossed! [;)]

J.

OK, well the system was stable with no problems up to 7.5GB. I did manage to load more, but the OS was struggling.

I have an 8GB machine and I used FXT for 3.5GB, and 4 Standalone Chainer instances for the rest.

I hope that this is good news for you.

DG

Ah, yes! This is very good news, and thanks for the update!

Any reason for the 4 Chainer instances (since you could presumably fill the 4GB with only a couple)? Was this just to keep instruments divided cleanly? ...maybe Chainer is somehow particular, I don't really know that program...

I'm thinking I'll probably use 2 instances of Bidule, provided there are no big problems with doing that. This should allow me to access around 7-ish GB, which will cut my "farm" to a single Master-Slave pair - just what the doctor ordered.

cheers,

J.

@jbm said:

Ah, yes! This is very good news, and thanks for the update!

Any reason for the 4 Chainer instances (since you could presumably fill the 4GB with only a couple)? Was this just to keep instruments divided cleanly? ...maybe Chainer is somehow particular, I don't really know that program...

I'm thinking I'll probably use 2 instances of Bidule, provided there are no big problems with doing that. This should allow me to access around 7-ish GB, which will cut my "farm" to a single Master-Slave pair - just what the doctor ordered.

cheers,

J.

I couldn't be bothered to make Chainer LAA, so each instance will only hold 1.8GB or so.

DG

Got it. I'm pretty sure Bidule is LAA, so I should be good to go! [;)]

Thanks again.

J.

DG, which Windows version and machine are you using?

So I'd like further clarification on an earlier point: On a Mac there's a VSL Server that manages the VI plug-ins. On the PC there is no such thing? If not, then is the memory for VI instances handled by the host on a PC, unlike on a Mac?

If that's true, I'd be curious to know why Macs require such a structure to handle VIs and PCs don't.

Thanks,
PL

@Nick Batzdorf said:

DG, which Windows version and machine are you using?

2.66GHz Core 2 Duo
8GB RAM
250GB System
500GB Samples drive
500GB Audio drive
DVDRW
256MB Nvidia GForce
XP x64

DG

@plurye said:

If that's true, I'd be curious to know why Macs require such a structure to handle VIs and PCs don't.

because OS X is based on MACH is based on BSD is based on UNIX which is a server operating system and connections to the GUI (aqua, which is just a hood) tend to use too much ressources. another reason is that VI can so access its own memory space (4 GB) besides from any host application (another 4 GB) which makes sense on OS X and machines with more than 4 GB RAM installed.
christian

@cm said:

because OS X is based on MACH is based on BSD is based on UNIX which is a server operating system and connections to the GUI (aqua, which is just a hood) tend to use too much ressources. another reason is that VI can so access its own memory space (4 GB) besides from any host application (another 4 GB) which makes sense on OS X and machines with more than 4 GB RAM installed.
christian

Thanks - makes sense. Although wouldn't the "VI can access its own memory space" argument apply to PCs as well? Presumably at 32-bit, each PC app can only use 4 GB too, right?

PL

whereas some parts of OS X is 64bit (and the GUI framework is not) a *normal* XP is 32bit so the limit is 4 GB in total here from start (up to 3GB can be loaded anyway) 64bit XP versions can access more RAM but need *native* 64bit applications and drivers to configure a system which makes sense.
christian

Coolio. Thanks DG. Time to have at least one of my Windows machines upgraded.