Warp spake:

> Stefan Viljoen <spamnot@ <removethis>polard.com> wrote:
>> Tsk tsk Warp... he did ask, didn't he? And, as far as I know, 3.7 is not
>> yet available for Linux?
> 
>   But what I am thinking is that the "manual parallelization" of pov3.6 is
> not only a real memory hog (rendering takes as much memory as many
> instances of POV-Ray you run) but is also quite cumbersome and difficult,
> requiring third-party tools and whatnot.

You are absolutely correct, of course.

> I was thinking that instead of 
> teaching him the really hard way of doing it, the better way would be to
> wait for pov3.7 which automatically uses all the available processors in
> the computer without the user having to do anything special to achieve
> that, and additionally POV-Ray will not take basically any extra memory
> because of that.

Which now is his choice - he is not forced to wait for 3.7 to utilise his
hardware / prospective hardware for parallel rendering, and can start
fiddling with it immediately, with a current Linux / Unix version of POV. 

Of course 3.7 will be the ideal! Any idea when the Linux version will be
released?

Kind regards,
-- 
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stefan Viljoen <spamnot@ wrote:
> Of course 3.7 will be the ideal! Any idea when the Linux version will be
> released?
> 
	Except that from all I've heard it won't be able to take advantage
of multiple computers in a network, only multiple cores or CPUs in
the same computer. However, it would probably be easier to create a
patch for distributed rendering than it is right now.

		Jerome

PS: Note that it might be simpler to use pvmpov rather than the
manual splitting approach (at least once you've got it running). Not
having used it myself, I can't say how hard it is or what kind of
quality issues there are (eg with radiosity and media), but it might
be worth a try.
http://pvmpov.sourceforge.net/

- --
******************************
*      Jerome M. Berger      *
*  mailto:jeb### [at] freefr   *
*  http://jeberger.free.fr/  *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD/3MGd0kWM4JG3k8RArSUAJ9G2UPXEqCbVRhjyUGpdjiRaeB5TwCfZSY9
eTb6Mzjz/p2oGzqVJsY+Mww=
=96hB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

>         Except that from all I've heard it won't be able to take advantage
> of multiple computers in a network, only multiple cores or CPUs in
> the same computer. However, it would probably be easier to create a
> patch for distributed rendering than it is right now.

  The source has not only been heavily reworked for SMP but there has
naturally been a strong attention to rendering distributed over a
network. It doesn't necessarily mean that the final 3.7 will have
network rendering support, but it will make it easy to add such a
support afterwards.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Kenneth <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> > >   Just use POV-Ray 3.7 (when it comes out; if you are using Windows, you
> > > can try the beta).
> > >
> >  I'm still trying to understand v3.6.1 ALPHA!  ;-)
>
>   I didn't understand that.
>

My feeble attempt at humor.  beta... alpha...??  Gee, tough crowd! (as they
say in the comedian biz.)

What I meant by my hilariously funny (??) rejoinder was, I'm still valiantly
working through the learning curve of v3.6.1, and don't yet feel confident
enough to tackle the beta version of 3.7 ( or the beta version of anything,
for that matter.)  If I ran into a problem, I really wouldn't know if it was
just me, or if it was some still-in-development part of the software. A bit
of paranoia there, I suppose. Best for me to play it safe, and wait until
3.7 matures.

Ken

Post a reply to this message

Kenneth <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> What I meant by my hilariously funny (??) rejoinder was, I'm still valiantly
> working through the learning curve of v3.6.1, and don't yet feel confident
> enough to tackle the beta version of 3.7

  There's no difference between the two, from a user point of view.
It's not like you would have to learn new things in order to use 3.7.
Whatever makes you think that?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Kenneth <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > What I meant by my hilariously funny (??) rejoinder was, I'm still valiantly
> > working through the learning curve of v3.6.1, and don't yet feel confident
> > enough to tackle the beta version of 3.7
>
>   There's no difference between the two, from a user point of view.
> It's not like you would have to learn new things in order to use 3.7.
> Whatever makes you think that?
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

Actually, I didn't realize that!  (I thought new *experimental* things might
have been added into v3.7) My confidence is RESTORED! ;-)  I'll give 3.7
beta a try.

Ken

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen <spamnot@<removethis>polard.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Kenneth
>
> For a detailed explanation, take a look at the image I submitted to Paul
> Bourke at Swinburne univ, which was rendered on a "farm" of Alpha CPU based
> systems, and the article he wrote about it:
>
> http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/raytracing/parallel/
>
> Basically, you use PovRay INI file statemens to restrict a certain instance
> of PovRay to only rendering a part of the scene. With any multi-core or
> multi-processor system you can make this as complicated as you want, I just
> usually use horisontal segments, for simplicity. The idea is like any
> co-operative effort - one core / CPU does one part of the image, another
> does the next, etc. If one finishes before the other, the work assigned to
> the remaining CPUs is redivided, and the "free" CPU again gets part of the
> remaining work.
>

Thanks, Stefan, that's a very lucid, understandable description of the
process.

All three of my current POV-loaded computers use single-core processors, so
this whole idea of dual-core processing (and multi-processor rendering) is
new to me.  I DO see it's advantages!! I'll have to do a bit of research to
fully understand the process.

From all that I've read here, so I understand that POV v3.7 will
simultaneously allow multi-core rendering of an image, in chunks, AND
combine those separate segments into the final image without having to use
some third-party software to do so?

Ken

Post a reply to this message

Kenneth spake:


> From all that I've read here, so I understand that POV v3.7 will
> simultaneously allow multi-core rendering of an image, in chunks, AND
> combine those separate segments into the final image without having to use
> some third-party software to do so?

I don't know. Warp will probably be able to correct me here, but I'm
guessing that you'll need a "SMP capable" operating system as well. As far
as I'm aware you'll need an SMP version of XP / Vista in order to get SMP
capabilities in the POV 3.7 running on that system. Same with Linux -
you'll need to run an SMP kernel to be able to run POV 3.7 in SMP mode.

For example, my dual-core Linux system runs a non-SMP kernel during office
hours (because I can't get my Linux Nvidia graphics drivers to work in the
SMP kernel). During the night it runs the Linux SMP kernel (2.6.14.3) in
SMP mode, which means I can render dual-core, but the system stands there
in text-only (80x25) mode while rendering.

IMHO this factor (i. e. the underlying operating system) will need to be
considered when wanting to use the SMP facilities available in 3.7...

This of course does not limit the utility or "coolness" value of having
"auto-SMP" in POV v3.7...

Warp?
-- 
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen <spamnot@ <removethis>polard.com> wrote:
> I don't know. Warp will probably be able to correct me here, but I'm
> guessing that you'll need a "SMP capable" operating system as well. As far
> as I'm aware you'll need an SMP version of XP / Vista in order to get SMP
> capabilities in the POV 3.7 running on that system. Same with Linux -
> you'll need to run an SMP kernel to be able to run POV 3.7 in SMP mode.

  If you don't know, then don't spread dubious information, please.

  There's no "SMP version of XP". All XPs are capable of using multiple
processors.

  As for linux, most distros will automatically use multiple processors
when you install linux.

  There isn't a separate "SMP mode" in pov3.7. It just detects how many
processors you have (either physical or virtual) and runs twice as many
threads. In a way you could say that it's "always" in "SMP mode"; it just
selects the number of threads according to the number of processors
(if I'm not mistaken, always at least two threads unless specifically
one is specified).

> IMHO this factor (i. e. the underlying operating system) will need to be
> considered when wanting to use the SMP facilities available in 3.7...

> This of course does not limit the utility or "coolness" value of having
> "auto-SMP" in POV v3.7...

  It wouldn't make much sense to run an OS which does not support
multiple processors in a system with multiple processors. I don't
think there's even anything "to be considered" here.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp spake:

> Stefan Viljoen <spamnot@ <removethis>polard.com> wrote:
>> I don't know. Warp will probably be able to correct me here, but I'm
>> guessing that you'll need a "SMP capable" operating system as well. As
>> far as I'm aware you'll need an SMP version of XP / Vista in order to get
>> SMP capabilities in the POV 3.7 running on that system. Same with Linux -
>> you'll need to run an SMP kernel to be able to run POV 3.7 in SMP mode.
> 
>   If you don't know, then don't spread dubious information, please.

Yikes! No offence - next time I'll just shut up then, instead of given ANY
information. I did mean to spread dubious information - what's dubious
about saying "I guess you'll need an SMP capable operating system?" Please?

Really, if you don't volunteer something, until you're "sure" what the
heck's the point of discussion? Nobody would ever say a word about...
anything..!
 
>   There's no "SMP version of XP". All XPs are capable of using multiple
> processors.

So I stand corrected. I did say "I don't know". You have corrected me - so
what?

>> IMHO this factor (i. e. the underlying operating system) will need to be
>> considered when wanting to use the SMP facilities available in 3.7...
> 
>> This of course does not limit the utility or "coolness" value of having
>> "auto-SMP" in POV v3.7...
> 
>   It wouldn't make much sense to run an OS which does not support
> multiple processors in a system with multiple processors. I don't
> think there's even anything "to be considered" here.

Again, you seem VERY touchy about my why of phrasing things. If I offend
you, I apologise. What I was referring to is the fact that (maybe due to me
simply being stupid / inexperienced / inadquate) I cannot get the binary
Nvidia driver to work in my SMP kernel - which means I must "consider" (as
may any other user in the same situation) WHICH kernel to run when
raytracing, and factor this into my workflow etc.

And did the original poster not say that he now has a better idea of what is
going on?

Nobody knows absolutely EVERYTHING all the time, except you, it seems, and
you seem to have a problem with people who are not already at your very
high levels of experience and omnipotence as regards raytracing and
computers in general.

Really - this is an open forum. No need to snipe.

Regards,
-- 
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions

Post a reply to this message