Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Anyone using Microsoft Server 2008 R2 Enterprise for CS4, CS5  (Read 4861 times)
Mondragon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« on: September 05, 2010, 03:43:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I am building a new custom PC and was curious if anyone has used x64 PS with the server editions of Windows?

Thanks



Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2010, 10:50:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Works fine for Cs5.  Unlike Vista/Server 2008, there really is no advantage to running Server 2008/R2 unless:

You are a developer (even then, the hardware VM in Win7 on supported CPU's is fantastic)
You are a student, and are able to get a free copy via MS's Dreamspark
You are running more than 2 Physical CPU's and need the custom HAL
Logged

tived
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 688


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2010, 11:11:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi John,

I thought that memory management was suppose to be better in server 2008 vs w7

Henrik
Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2010, 11:18:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Identical - the "tuning" is a bit different, Server 2008 assigns a high priority to backround process's as you would expect of a server, easily changed via

Computer Properties | Advanced Tab | Processor Scheduling
Logged

Mondragon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2010, 08:35:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes but server also allows up to 2TB of ram : ) vs 192GB for 7.
Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2010, 05:32:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, Server Datacenter and Enterprise Editions *do* support that, but only using a custom HAL (hardware abstraction layer) on specialized hardware.  You're probably *not* going to find that on Newegg..... (have you priced out 192GB of DDR3 8GB Modules?  About $12,000)

In any case the 64bit platform allows for same flat memory addressing scheme irrespective of total RAM.
Logged

Mondragon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2010, 07:07:18 PM »
ReplyReply

No the 2TB machines are not on Newegg but 8 144GB MOBO's are. The ram is much cheaper than you think. If you fully populate 18x 8GB sticks you should buy the DDR800 sticks as the chipset limits the data rate to 800 in that configuration. Should set you back about 5k or so.

There are numerous PC vendors building 512GB machines and the same MOBO's are available for the home brew guys.

I was curious if server supported DirectX 11 and 10bit video?



Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2010, 07:56:26 PM »
ReplyReply

What are you doing that requires a lot of slow memory?
Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2010, 11:44:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm a bit curious as well, what application(s) are you running that would require that large of a working set?  The memory you are pricing out is non-ECC.  *Any* memory error will cause a page fault (reloading data from disk, this is a *best case* scenario - assuming the fault is occuring in a data area).

A couple of years ago we built a 4-CPU SuperMicro box (for database use) and populated with 64gb non-ECC memory.  The machine was unusable, due to constant page faults.  Thats when I discovered this paper:

http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers/sigmetrics09.pdf

We have built a number of these for departmental database and medical imaging chores:

http://imagesbymurray.com/technology/33-gracing-the-high-end

In any case - back to your original question, Windows 7 will run just as effectively on your 144GB machine with full memory access & Directx11 support.  You'll want to search this forum for some excellent discussions regarding what 10bit video *really* entails, and the hardware needed to realize it........

edit:  change 4-Core Supermicro, to 4-CPU (actually, 16 cores)
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 11:57:45 AM by John.Murray » Logged

Mondragon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2010, 09:34:10 PM »
ReplyReply

No this IS EEC Registered Memory. If you go NON ECC the Max memory drops big time. I am not saying I would use, much less need 2TB of ram by any stretch for PS but 192GB in Win 7 would be nice : )

My choice would not be to use lots of slower ram i.e 800Mhz that is just the way the Intel chipset works. 6 sticks =1333, 12 sticks= 1066 and 18 sticks= 800. Even if you have ALL 1333 ram.

I drum scan 8x10's & 8x20 film so the base files for 8x10 are ~3.5Gb & 8x20's are ~7Gb. This is of course without any processing, layers..etc...etc. The files get large real quick and must be saved in the large document format which is a real slow pig!

More than likely I will go with 7 and put 12 sticks of 8gb ram to start. My Raid 0 should take care of the rest. If not I can add more memory.


 
Logged
tived
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 688


WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2010, 06:26:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Mondragon,

I agree with you on the Ram and the deteriorating speed as you add more memory sticks - envy you for 12x 8GB - its just out of my reach, but it sure would come in handy, with files in multi-gigabytes size into the 10-14+GB

How big is your RAID-0 ? I am looking at building for now a 8 drive RAID-0 but only formatting the outter 20-30% to further increase the speed or Read/Write. Eventually replace this with SSD's, though I haven't finalised the Raid controller yet, maybe an LSI 9260 8i or use two and spread the load over two controllers

Keep us posted with your progress - it sounds like an amazing box

Henrik
Logged
Ecolodger
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13



WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2010, 08:21:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

I'd reccomend the Server 2003 x64 which flyes!!!
Onwe thing thogh....you need to mod a setup xml file for the installer, otherwise the setup won't install.
Logged

A Proud owner of the Minolta  MD System...
Mondragon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2010, 09:24:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Its generally best to max the MB first and then a raid 0 if your still running out of ram. The raid 0 looks like 8-ssd's spanned across two Areca controllers with 4gb cache each. Should be quite speedy especially if the data is in cache. The random and sustained i/o for r/w will be impressive. I can always add more ssd's if need be??? The cost is dropping  and the performance gets much better every six months.

Formatting the outer regions of the drive will help for sure and is cost effective as well compared to ssd. If you use some v-raptors even better.
Logged
tived
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 688


WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2010, 02:21:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Mondragon,

Sometimes we have to compromise ;-)

half ram and a good RAID 0

Henrik
Logged
tived
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 688


WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2010, 05:25:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Its generally best to max the MB first and then a raid 0 if your still running out of ram. The raid 0 looks like 8-ssd's spanned across two Areca controllers with 4gb cache each. Should be quite speedy especially if the data is in cache. The random and sustained i/o for r/w will be impressive. I can always add more ssd's if need be??? The cost is dropping  and the performance gets much better every six months.

Formatting the outer regions of the drive will help for sure and is cost effective as well compared to ssd. If you use some v-raptors even better.

Mondragon,

Having your board full of ram is all very fine, which means you have a very large playground/working area, however, not having fast hard-drives to off load your work to, makes the large amount of ram almost worthless. Your system is only as good as your weakest link, to me, the weakest link in our current computer systems is the hard-drives, even though SSD's have come a long way, they are still the slowest in our systems.

Its like building the fastest airplane and not building a landing strip to land on or just not long enough :-) I am sure you get my point. Or Nascar with training tires on!

If you are working on 8x10" scan's at very high res 6400/8000dpi and work on it in photoshop, with several layers, you will end up with one very large file. Now if you want to keep those layers you will need to save it, and that will take time with one or two hard drives in your system only. Make it two SSD's in RAID-0 and it will help.

So with that in mind I think there are two things to bear in mind when working in Photoshop and similar applications, one is you need a large amount of ram to play in, where you can juggle your files around, but you also need fast Disk storages, to off-load these as quick as possible, a) to keep it saved while working b) to be able to quickly move to the next file.

Maybe your experience is different, if so I would love to hear about.

Just my $.02 again :-)

Henrik

Logged
Mondragon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2010, 12:26:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Henrik,

Yes I agree of course disk speed is very important. I will raid 5 4x2Tb HD and split those across my two raid controllers. I wish that the large document format was better in every way it is a snail!

My weak link is not hardware my weak link is and will always be software. Fat bloated C++ that is not optimized properly for CPU cores and GPU stream processors or cores. I would love to see a complete rewrite of PS using only hand coded optimized assembly language. That would be worth the upgrade not these little patches Adobe calls new versions.

Just for comparison sakes when the space shuttle was developed the entire navigation computer code  fit in a whopping 256k of ram!  Yes thats is "K" and yes it was 100% assembly.

Well we can all only hope.

 
Logged
tived
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 688


WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2010, 09:39:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry I have been away,

256k that is amazing!

Though not that I think Adobe is efficient in their coding and not that I am qualified to make this judgment (given I failed Comp Sci 101), but if you were only given one tool in Photoshop, given the flexibility you have with some of these tools, would equal, if not be more advanced then navigating the shuttle, and it would probably also fit in 256k of ram, if you squeeze really hard :-) but photoshop is more like Kennedy Space Center, running shuttles, Intl. space center and a multitude of satellites.

It would be interesting if someone could do a new Photoshop, but if they did, I would want Photoshop be merged with Illustrator and be more vector driven, instead of pixel driven. There was a Mac program, and i can't remember its name, Picture something which was an image application but vector driven, a much more efficient way to drive the image application. However that was then, today we want bells and whistles, little animations and what not.

Photoshop is catering to such a broad variate of usages, and we are all asking for more and better (whatever that better is, is questionable!) likewise is Windows and OSX, what would be nice would perhaps be the ability to customise it more, or minimise it to a stage that suited ones particular needs. Other then having to buy more and bigger, faster hardware but then again are we not all chasing bigger more and better?

Henrik   



Henrik,

Yes I agree of course disk speed is very important. I will raid 5 4x2Tb HD and split those across my two raid controllers. I wish that the large document format was better in every way it is a snail!

My weak link is not hardware my weak link is and will always be software. Fat bloated C++ that is not optimized properly for CPU cores and GPU stream processors or cores. I would love to see a complete rewrite of PS using only hand coded optimized assembly language. That would be worth the upgrade not these little patches Adobe calls new versions.

Just for comparison sakes when the space shuttle was developed the entire navigation computer code  fit in a whopping 256k of ram!  Yes thats is "K" and yes it was 100% assembly.

Well we can all only hope.

 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad