PDA

View Full Version : MAC machines limmited at rendering??


lacluna
08-20-2009, 12:14 AM
Hi, I am working with 3 PCs and 3 macs. At render time, when a frame take more than 25 mins to render, the macs bail even though their processors are more powerful than the PCs.

Any thoughts on why this could be? Any work around this? Thank you!

cgbeige
08-20-2009, 06:42 AM
can you be more specific? is this with MR Satellite? what version of Maya

lacluna
08-20-2009, 05:17 PM
this is opening the same files in different computers and hitting "batch render". The PCs render a frame every 50mins but the macs stay at 50% of the first frame forever. I come the next morning to check and they went from 50% to 55% in 9 hours!

cgbeige
08-20-2009, 05:24 PM
what version of Maya? Make sure you have the latest one. I don't exchange files from Windows much but any I've downloaded work fine.

Also - check the render logs and see if it's getting hung on something.

lacluna
08-20-2009, 05:29 PM
Maya 2009 by the way. The logs don't say anything but the percentage. Some of them say "Render complete" after 45% of a frame was done and, of course, I don't get anything.

beaker
08-20-2009, 05:33 PM
also what is the hardware config of these boxes?

lacluna
08-20-2009, 05:45 PM
both (PCs and Macs) are 5 to 6 gigs of RAM Quad core Intel

andrewhake
08-20-2009, 08:19 PM
The real question is. Why are your renders taking 25mins per frame?

lacluna
08-20-2009, 08:45 PM
they are taking 50. Displacement maps close to camera, fast skin shader, raytraced shadows, full 1080HD, etc

cgbeige
08-20-2009, 09:13 PM
they're probably running out of RAM then. MR is 32-bit on OS X. Use the Activity Monitor in Utilities and see what the RAM use of Mayabatch is. If it's over 2.3 GB, it's crashed.

lacluna
08-21-2009, 11:57 PM
is there a way to limit it so it doesn't go over that limit? even if it takes longer to render.

fahr
08-22-2009, 03:07 AM
Grrr.... another year of 32-bit hell for the mac users. 2011 and the QT interface can't come fast enough.

cgbeige
08-23-2009, 04:21 AM
is there a way to limit it so it doesn't go over that limit? even if it takes longer to render.

not really - aside from using lower subdivision approximation settings for your displacement maps and other things that will produce visible changes.

andrewhake
08-23-2009, 05:22 AM
Well what I guess I should have said, why unless you have a farm or an incredible amount of time, or a very short sequence, have you set up your renders in a way to take 50 mins a frame?

Unless you are infact causing the render to crash, it is probably time to make some compromises.

cgbeige
08-23-2009, 05:39 AM
oh - wait. It's possible you could render as tiles with Frantic Deadline and the software would assemble the frames after the fact:

http://software.primefocusworld.com/software/products/deadline/overview/

lacluna
08-24-2009, 05:21 PM
Hello. I think I got a solution for the problem without going to third party softwares. If you limit your memory usage in the batch render options, the render will finish... it will take longer but finish.

cgbeige
08-25-2009, 10:48 PM
that Deadline software is very easy to use and won't limit render times. It's also free for single client/self serving machines. It's just a render manager - it's not a custom renderer or anything that will affect output

rBrady
08-25-2009, 11:22 PM
Unless you are infact causing the render to crash, it is probably time to make some compromises.

Like render in windows or linux. Macs are great to a point, but I have renders that go way past 2gb of ram all the time. We have a segment of the farm that has 4gb of ram and one that has 8gb of ram. We are going to need to upgrade the whole thing to 8gb because more and more of our jobs require it. Even 4gb is becoming restrictive. I know studios who's range is more like 16gb to 32gb.

People clearly are doing good work on macs but I don't miss the days of 32bit. The idea of having to split up my scenes is nauseating. The beauty is that you can work in maya on your mac in OSX and then boot it into windows or linux to render. Problem solved. Best of both worlds. Everyone wins.

cgbeige
08-25-2009, 11:53 PM
"Macs" have nothing to do with it - it's software vendors who are slow to get their 64-bit software out that are the problem. Maxwell, Houdini, Cinema 4D, VRay for C4D have been 64-bit for as long as a two years. Like I mentioned before, there is nothing stopping you from running 64-bit apps on OS X 10.5. It's just that 10.6 makes all the included apps 64-bit and sorts out Cocoa 64-bit, which some vendors rely on. Photoshop is going to be 64-bit hopefully sooner than later but what other vendor is the weakest link in this list from top on OS X 10.6:


282 Photoshop beige 0.8 52 2.52 GB Intel 2.63 GB
3830 Adobe After Effects 9.0 beige 0.8 108 1,008.8 MB Intel 1,013.9 MB
3429 Maya beige 0.5 53 1,008.1 MB Intel 948.4 MB
275 Maya beige 100.0 55 895.0 MB Intel 777.2 MB
0 kernel_task root 1.8 87 351.4 MB Intel 59.4 MB
87 WindowServer _windowserver 2.4 19 349.3 MB Intel (64 bit) 269.1 MB
1616 Adobe Bridge CS5 beige 0.2 56 147.3 MB Intel 226.3 MB
367 Firefox beige 7.0 30 138.9 MB Intel 169.2 MB
152 Finder beige 0.0 23 102.3 MB Intel (64 bit) 170.0 MB
278 Mail beige 0.0 7 87.2 MB Intel (64 bit) 175.9 MB
2364 iTunes beige 2.1 17 85.3 MB Intel 205.0 MB
57 mds root 0.0 3 79.2 MB Intel (64 bit) 847.7 MB
332 SpamSieve beige 0.0 7 57.7 MB Intel 191.9 MB
179 DragThing beige 0.7 2 52.7 MB Intel 193.0 MB
385 DeadlineSlave beige 1.2 26 46.3 MB Intel 144.6 MB
369 mdworker beige 0.0 19 39.6 MB Intel (64 bit) 192.9 MB
5578 mxcl beige 0.0 3 28.0 MB Intel (64 bit) 102.8 MB


Hint - it starts with Auto and ends with desk.

cgbeige
08-26-2009, 12:07 AM
shouldn't you be drinking? I stopped reading your posts a while ago.

edit: weird. It put this before your post. I guess the forum hates you too.

cheebamonkey
08-26-2009, 12:09 AM
"Macs" have nothing to do with it - it's software vendors who are slow to get their 64-bit software out that are the problem. Maxwell, Houdini, Cinema 4D, VRay for C4D have been 64-bit for as long as a two years. Like I mentioned before, there is nothing stopping you from running 64-bit apps on OS X 10.5. It's just that 10.6 makes all the included apps 64-bit and sorts out Cocoa 64-bit, which some vendors rely on. Photoshop is going to be 64-bit hopefully sooner than later but what other vendor is the weakest link in this list from top on OS X 10.6:


Hint - it starts with Auto and ends with desk.


Who cares if Autodesk is on the top of your list on your machine. There are a lot of apps that aren't 64 bit and probably never will end up being ported to 64 bit on OSX, including beloved Apple apps. There's a horrible misnomer surrounding how easy it is to covert an app over. There's no happy iWizard with candy coated buttons from Apple which automagically converts your favorite app over to 64bit. It takes development hours and people to make the conversion happen. A lot of developers figure there is better things to do with their money as, believe it or not, people will still buy a 32bit OSX version. So, developers weigh the pros and cons, "Do I spend a lot of development hours making a port right away which won't net me any more profit? Or, do I work on the next version and put it out as a 32 bit version and kind of work on the 64 bit version on the side?". Easy answer. Thank Apple for this cluster****.

Developers pick and chose their battles. For some 64 bit isn't worth the battle at the moment.

andrewhake
08-26-2009, 04:17 AM
Like render in windows or linux. Macs are great to a point, but I have renders that go way past 2gb of ram all the time. We have a segment of the farm that has 4gb of ram and one that has 8gb of ram. We are going to need to upgrade the whole thing to 8gb because more and more of our jobs require it. Even 4gb is becoming restrictive. I know studios who's range is more like 16gb to 32gb.

People clearly are doing good work on macs but I don't miss the days of 32bit. The idea of having to split up my scenes is nauseating. The beauty is that you can work in maya on your mac in OSX and then boot it into windows or linux to render. Problem solved. Best of both worlds. Everyone wins.

I am not really sure what you are saying, but I think beige covered it in his post after this one.

This problem has absolutely nothing to do with running Maya on the Mac operating system. I would imagine this is a limitation or issue with the scene itself more than anything. Render setup is all about compromise and optimization.

I promise you, any time you may make up running a 64bit version of Maya, you lose when it comes to actually working with the files you are producing. ^_^ I would say the amount of time I save using Quicklook alone is well worth any price I pay when it comes to rendering on a single workstation. Autodesk could have had a 64bit capable version of Maya for the Mac quite a long time ago (Apple didn't make it any huge mystery that the Carbon framework would not be 64bit capable) and I am sure they will not long from now. With the way OS X manages memory I am very very interested in seeing some benchmarks when it happens.

And if you think the type of work that you produce has ANYTHING to do with the OS you are using you should take a huge step back and really look at what you are doing.

andrewhake
08-26-2009, 04:27 AM
Who cares if Autodesk is on the top of your list on your machine. There are a lot of apps that aren't 64 bit and probably never will end up being ported to 64 bit on OSX, including beloved Apple apps. There's a horrible misnomer surrounding how easy it is to covert an app over. There's no happy iWizard with candy coated buttons from Apple which automagically converts your favorite app over to 64bit. It takes development hours and people to make the conversion happen. A lot of developers figure there is better things to do with their money as, believe it or not, people will still buy a 32bit OSX version. So, developers weigh the pros and cons, "Do I spend a lot of development hours making a port right away which won't net me any more profit? Or, do I work on the next version and put it out as a 32 bit version and kind of work on the 64 bit version on the side?". Easy answer. Thank Apple for this cluster****.

Developers pick and chose their battles. For some 64 bit isn't worth the battle at the moment.

You are just plain stupid, to put it in words you might understand. It is thinking like that that is responsible for mediocre software. Believe it or not, many developers actually use the software they create and have great motivation to improve it in any way they can.

And saying Apple is to blame for other developers not being able to easily move their Apps to 64bit brings to mind an already incapacitated horse being bludgeoned with a blunt object.

Take a look at your useful contributions to this forum and ask yourself if you are wasting your life.

cgbeige
08-26-2009, 03:30 PM
http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits/2008/04/rhapsody-and-blues.ars

Well Apple bears some responsibility - they dropped Carbon 64-bit so any app or library like Qt that's dependent on the Carbon API was left to be recoded in Cocoa. That's where PS CS5 is at.

andrewhake
08-26-2009, 09:56 PM
http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits/2008/04/rhapsody-and-blues.ars

Well Apple bears some responsibility - they dropped Carbon 64-bit so any app or library like Qt that's dependent on the Carbon API was left to be recoded in Cocoa. That's where PS CS5 is at.

Just like that article says, it wasn't as if Apple made it a mystery that Carbon wouldn't be supported. 2 years ago. Although it was a bit sudden change in plan, it should have been pretty clear to most developers that Cocoa was the future.

rBrady
08-26-2009, 11:34 PM
Yikes, didn't realize that I had kicked such a hornets nest. I know that macs are nice. I am going to buy one for my wife and I really look forward to having one around. I do prefer working with the adobe software on a mac far more than a PC. In fact, I would say that almost everything runs better on a mac.

I repeat that, "Almost everything runs better on a mac"

that does not mean "Everything runs better on a mac"

I used to have mental ray and Renderman for Maya on the same machine. I far and away preferred Renderman in almost every aspect. For the last several years Renderman for Maya was only 32bit. We have 65 projects in production right now and its just not practical to optimize all of those to run within the 32bit memory limit. Because of this we decided we could not use Renderman. It killed me at the time but it was the right decision. Now that Renderman for Maya is 64bit we are evaluating it again.

So you see, I hate 32bit, not the mac.

Macs are great.

I love macs.

Its harder to render in 32bit.

Thats not my fault.

Thats not your fault.

It just is.


I am just saying, if your trying to render something in 32bit and it crashes. Using an environment that is 64bit might solve your issue. Until Apple makes their OS different or Autodesk makes their Maya different this is the world we live in. Knowing whos fault it is doesn't help you render. Even adobe is having problems with the switch. If this was an easy fix I am sure more people would have done it by now.

If a reboot is too problematic maybe you could run parallels. Assuming it works as well as they say you could run linux64 or vista64 side by side and get all the benefits of OSX with the rendering power of 64bit.

I am sorry if my post got miss-construed as antagonizing. I don't mean for the tone of my posts to be frustrating to anyone. Just trying to help.

cgbeige
08-27-2009, 01:29 AM
right - well the way you had worded it sounded like you were saying "Macs are nice but not for 3D." I agree that 64-bit is needed if you're working on big projects - MR is a memory hog and thankfully VRay and RfM is much less so (it helps when instances just work) and Maxwell is 64-bit. It's a drag that it's taking this long to get a 64-bit port of Maya since all the renderers other than Maxwell run inside of Maya so they have to be 32-bit and I have 24GB of RAM - not being used by Maya :p. Anyway, I'm getting my VRay (VfM - not to be confused with Vagina for Men) dongle any day now so I'm confident that they'll be on 64-bit as soon as possible.

tharrell
08-27-2009, 01:42 AM
Just a side note, Renderman Pro Server 14 is 64-bit on the Mac currently, and runs on both 10.5 and 10.6 (although unsupported on 10.6).

I'll throw my 2 cents in here... I do as much of my work as humanly possible on the Mac, but if I'm rendering with Mental Ray... well, it's not much of an exaggeration to say a gray lambert sphere has a 50/50 chance of wanting more than 3.75gb of RAM 3 hours from deadline. I'll almost always render MR scenes on Win 64 or Linux 64 (I dual boot all PCs in here depending on what needs to get done).

That said, 10.6 is making a pretty huge 64-bit push and you'll likely see the next round of pro apps start making their way over in the next year.

Keep in mind that Apple's approach to 64 bit is much more user-friendly than the Win or Linux version. 32/64 apps and drivers can co-exist seamlessly on the same system. I'm almost positive that we'll have to recompile all those damned mental ray shaders again once we get a 64-bit Maya/MR, though. An interesting note is that the devkit folder in Maya 2009 has 64-bit Mac buildfiles for all of the stock MR shaders.

Random asige @cgbiege: now that we're allowed to talk about it... Apple's making an effort to keep folks from cruddying up the menubar... but I *NEED* my menumeters/istats. You know one that works under the new 10.6 restrictions?

--T

mcscher
08-29-2009, 01:27 PM
I just found this thread and I hope you guys don't mind if I join in with some questions.

Is anyone using custom shaders or plugins for maya on mac?

I'm new to maya and used to working with mentalray in XSI (windows) wich comes with a built-in 8-layer mixer node. I found severals custom shaders of that sort for maya (30layer, 8layer mix node and JS Mulilayers) but I'm having trouble installing them on my mac. I really miss that shader node and want to get it to work. Am I wrong with the assumption that these custom shaders are coded for maya on pc and won't work on mac eventhough some have a "how to install on mac" notice? considering plugins and so on, would you recommend working with maya on pc or on mac? Please don't take this as the starting point of a pc-mac war, I just want to hear your opinion.

And please don't get me wrong, I love my mac and if I could I'd only use it, but I can't get rid of the feeling that working solely on mac you restrict yourself when it comes to support from the community (e.g. custom shaders written for pc only, etc...). Thats why I still have a pc around.


living in both worlds ;)

cgbeige
08-29-2009, 03:48 PM
Random asige @cgbiege: now that we're allowed to talk about it... Apple's making an effort to keep folks from cruddying up the menubar... but I *NEED* my menumeters/istats. You know one that works under the new 10.6 restrictions?

--T

I have a late beta of iStat and it's running on SL - should be out any day. If you need something similar right now though, get atMonitor - it's very good and even has a badass activity monitor with process pausing built in. It's funny how some menu bar stuff works and others don't - I think that some use an old hack and that's why they don't load on SL.

mcscher - get mix20layer. It works fine on OS X - it's what I use for shader mixing:

http://www.pixero.com/files/mix20layer.zip

But Mental Ray shaders are definitely the sore spot for Mac support and Maya. I have a bunch that serve me well though. Grab puppet's awesome shader set here:

http://www.puppet.tfdv.com/download/shaders_p_3.3b9_maya2009_macosx.zip

The migration to 64-bit combined with Mental Ray's crap momentum is partly what motivated me to go to VRay for Maya.

CGTalk Moderation
08-29-2009, 03:48 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.