Okay. So Why Aren't We Using Server 2003 or Server 2008 Again?

[epu]

We've spoken about this quite a few times, and yes I KNOW Windows 7 is on the horizon, but what I don't get are a few things.

A) Why aren't more people experimenting with it (if I had it, I would)
B) Why wait for Windows 7, when the 32 Bit Windows Server 2003 and 2008 can both address between 32GB and 128GB (Depending on the version) NOW?
C) Server 2003 and 2008 are listed as compatible with all or most programs written for XP (Server 2003) and Vista (Server 2008). So why not go?
D) Techno-Geeks told me (when I was in Graduate School) that most drivers written for XP (Server 2003) and Vista (Server 2008), can be used. So why not?
E) We won't get Tech-Support from Digi, but so what? (Have an Acronis True Image IMAGE ready incase it doesn't work).

So I'm pretty lost here. There's got to be someone with 8GB+ that could try it. I am going to see if I can get my hands on a copy of Server 2003 and some more RAM and give it a go.

Some other questions:

Would the Service Packs for the initial OSes (XP, Vista) these Server systems work on these Server OSes, or are they only useable on the consumer OS.

That said, I'm happy to see many tinkering with Win 7.

[Jason Grooms]

I'm guessing you would have driver issues. Just a guess.

[albee1952]

Dive in and try it. But have a backup plan. Acronis True Image is my friend and I always keep a clone of my last working config before trying anything new and that includes ordinary updates. I didn't do this when I tried the first cs1 update for PT8 and it went sour(and I had yet to make a cloned backup). Fortunately in that case, System Restore actually worked. Also, by having a clone of your working system drive, you could install that in a USB case and connect it so your new OS load could actually search and grab drivers(with any luck).

[epu]

I use True Image reLIGIOUSly. I have images of everything from a Clean Win XP SP3 Install down to updates, PT and more.

I am searching for a legit copy of either and then some RAM. It seems like there's been a lot of talk about this, but no one actually took the plunge and tried to both run PT AND utlilize more than 4GB of RAM. Being that PT is a 32 Bit only APP, I'd assume it would only be able to utilize 4GB Max if it could, no?

[Shan]

Originally Posted by epu

We've spoken about this quite a few times, and yes I KNOW Windows 7 is on the horizon, but what I don't get are a few things.

Click me.

A) Why aren't more people experimenting with it (if I had it, I would)

See link above.

The main reason is you get no gains from it which I've mentioned in your previous threads also.

B) Why wait for Windows 7, when the 32 Bit Windows Server 2003 and 2008 can both address between 32GB and 128GB (Depending on the version) NOW?

Since Windows 7 uses the Vista drivers at this point, you get the same massive performance hit that we see in Vista. Until Digidesign creates proper W7 drivers, XP is where most PT users will stay.

As far as RAM access goes, you're better off doing this. Server 2003 isn't the answer to the performance gains you're looking for, Ram Drives are.

You get no gains at all with Server 2003. You get a performance hit. It was revisited and tested again a few weeks ago.

C) Server 2003 and 2008 are listed as compatible with all or most programs written for XP (Server 2003) and Vista (Server 2008). So why not go?

No gains over XP.

D) Techno-Geeks told me (when I was in Graduate School) that most drivers written for XP (Server 2003) and Vista (Server 2008), can be used. So why not?

They can definitely be used, but again, no gains over XP.

E) We won't get Tech-Support from Digi, but so what? (Have an Acronis True Image IMAGE ready incase it doesn't work).

I have Server 2003 imaged and installed on it's own partition.

So I'm pretty lost here. There's got to be someone with 8GB+ that could try it. I am going to see if I can get my hands on a copy of Server 2003 and some more RAM and give it a go.

Since you'll be getting extra RAM, jump into the the Ram Drive technology that I linked to above. Cheaper and better over purchasing a Server Operating system.

Would the Service Packs for the initial OSes (XP, Vista) these Server systems work on these Server OSes, or are they only useable on the consumer OS.

No. Server 2003 has it's own Service Pack which is now SP2.

If you really want to geek out and get performance gains, read through my Ram Drive info and take a stab at that instead. Also, get into nLite as it will slim down XP enough to run your entire System Drive in RAM.

I also recommend you try Server 2003 yourself and then reply back with a few benchmark tests since you wont take my word for it. It will also give us some confirmation as things can get missed and overlooked with one individual trying it.

Believe me, if Server 2003 worked and we had performance gains with it, I'd be the first to use it, and a post regarding how to set it up would have been created years ago.

As it stands with PT 8 on my rig:

XP benchmarks 273 Dverbs.

Server 2003 R2 with SP2 benchmarks 220 Dverbs. It does see all 4G of RAM though as apposed to XP which sees 3.25G of RAM on my system.

Shane

[epu]

INTERESTING. In this case, who would then care about Performance Gains? Running 1000 D-Verbs doesn't impress me. Being able to run Pro Tools AND Run a VI using lots of LARGE samples does. The idea that each VI loaded could use its own 4GB of RAM and that the OS can see more memory seems more practical.

I'd run for the faster processor, the ability to run with more RAM and let Windows 7 take its course. Based on previous occurrences, it would probably be 2010 or 2011 before Digidesign certifies W7 (maybe sooner with all the testing going on here).


Since in practicality, Server 2003 IS essentially XP, why not go with it? I'm glad to hear that you've tried it. I will try to access a copy and also run tests. I DO love my XP

[Shan]

Originally Posted by epu

INTERESTING. In this case, who would then care about Performance Gains? Running 1000 D-Verbs doesn't impress me.

It should, because it means running more VI's at a buffer of 64 with the rest of Pro Tools. The whole catch 22 in the equation is running PT at low buffer settings. The more Dverbs you benchmark, the more VI's you can run at a buffer of 64 which is unrelated to streaming the samples from RAM.

Being able to run Pro Tools AND Run a VI using lots of LARGE samples does. The idea that each VI loaded could use its own 4GB of RAM and that the OS can see more memory seems more practical.

The ideal solution is to run the VI in RAM from a Ram Drive which is what I'm currently doing. Xpand, Mini Grand, Boom, etc have no means to run in RAM at all. The plug-in itself has to be able to load the samples it uses in RAM and this is very rare for most plug-ins out there. To bypass this, run the plug-in from a Ram Drive. BFD for example runs better for me from a Ram Drive than it does from loading the samples into RAM from within the plug-in itself. Doing it in the plug-in has always been hit and miss and flaky for me. Running it in a Ram Drive has given me no issues. I can also use all the RAM outside of the 3.25G-4G limit in XP 32-bit.

So you finally get access to more than 4G of ram, cool, but...how many RTAS plug-ins out there do we have that can actually load their samples into RAM? At this point, I think we can count all of them on one hand. The best solution for what you are trying to achieve is to run your sample based VI's from a Ram Drive using your extra RAM. It bypasses that barrier that most people forget about.

I'd run for the faster processor, the ability to run with more RAM and let Windows 7 take its course. Based on previous occurrences, it would probably be 2010 or 2011 before Digidesign certifies W7 (maybe sooner with all the testing going on here).

That wont be a solution for running lots of VI's at a buffer of 64 though as mentioned above. New drivers will have to be written for W7 with PT. As it stands, using the Vista drivers in W7 gives us the same pathetic performance hit we see in Vista. As a side note, the problem isn't Vista, it's the Digidesign driver used for Vista. It needs a big overhaul. Pro Tools for PC was developed mostly on XP over any other Windows OS. It started it's life very briefly on Windows 98 but the rest of it's development was on XP. This has given it years of maturity which is why it just runs better on XP at this point.

Since in practicality, Server 2003 IS essentially XP,

It's a different kernel.

why not go with it?

Because you get no gains from it at all over XP unfortunately. I went with it 3 years ago and I revisited it again 3 weeks ago. You get no gains.

I'm glad to hear that you've tried it. I will try to access a copy and also run tests.

Do it so you'll see first hand that you'll get no gains.

Shane

[x9blade]

" loading the samples into RAM from within the plug-in itself. Doing it in the plug-in has always been hit and miss and flaky for me "
me too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[epu]

Shan!!!!!! Thanks for taking the time to answer each of my questions. I see now why Server 2003 isn't as great as it seems in theory. While we discussed this before, there were just a lot of things I didn't understand.

[Shan]

Originally Posted by epu

Shan!!!!!! Thanks for taking the time to answer each of my questions. I see now why Server 2003 isn't as great as it seems in theory. While we discussed this before, there were just a lot of things I didn't understand.

Well, there is some good news for you now. PT is running fine in XP 64!!

Looks like guitardom has his rig using 4G of RAM...just for sample based VI's alone. Check out his screen shot.

Shane