CompuServe Thread

#Batchfiling Investors

14 messages in this thread
#31964From: Ken Loss-CutlerJan 13, 1993 10:11 PM
I would like to explore an idea with the Forum group. A few of us have indicated that we have a need for a executeable routine that would: 1. permit remote execution of 3DS projects 2. permit "renderfarm"-type applications where multiple machines are brought to bear on a rendering project 3. permit other "sophisticated" executeable render applications of 3DS files. I would like to suggest that, if we can find a group of "investors" (which I, for one, am willing to be) and a competent 3rd party to develop the routine(s) at a reasonable cost, that we consider hiring the work out as a group. Those who participate would get the program, of course, and could also participate in potential profits from further sale of the program to other users. It seems a bit non-traditional, I know, but that's what a Forum like this is all about. Right? Comments? Ken Loss-Cutler
#31972From: Jan 13, 1993 10:52 PM
Ken: Actually, not that non-traditional! I recently followed a thread on the Internet where 50 or 60 companies got together to hire a firm to write a specialized Unix program. They raised $250,000 to hire the programmers, each become beta-testers, got a copy, and are now selling it in the Unix world. What other features for this remote-control renderer would users on the Forum like to see? Either interested or just people with good ideas? Autodesk people are allowed to contribute ideas, also! Greg Pyros
#32024From: MARTIN G FOSTERJan 14, 1993 10:15 AM
I like the idea. I've actually thought of writing some such thing since I now have a small lantastic network to test it on.
#32031From: Ken Loss-CutlerJan 14, 1993 10:38 AM
Great, Martin. Keep in touch with the group here and we'll see what develops! Ken
#32032From: Ken Loss-CutlerJan 14, 1993 10:39 AM
BTW, Martin, how about adding your wishlist of features here so we can begin to gel a sense of what it needs to do. Ken
#32137From: MARTIN G FOSTERJan 15, 1993 2:01 AM
Greg and I discussed doing this back in September and I've done some thinking on it myself since then. I'll have to consolidate my thoughts and put them in some meaningful form. Without going in to a lot of detail I think the routine would create batchfiles with a unique name for each station, bearing in mind each stations relative performance. The stations would either be checking for the existence of a particular batch file on the server's disk by means of a tsr or looping batch file; or, the stations would be told somehow remotely to execute the batch statement. It would be nice to do this all remotely via modem or at least from the server.
#32141From: Jan 15, 1993 4:58 AM
Martin / Ken: The problem with "bearing in mind each station's relative performance" is that it then requires you to do as much calculating as it does to just do it manually, with no way to take into account faster/slower groups of frames, and no way to compensate if a machine hangs. To do this right, the program needs to monitor the file output and determine the relative speed by itself, and would then distribute the frames accordingly. It's the old tradeoff of programming time (and $$) vs. usage time (and $$). And yes, it would have to be capable of being done remotely by modem or why bother? Greg Pyros
#32176From: MARTIN G FOSTERJan 15, 1993 12:28 PM
I think the monitoring of frame output on the server by the program and it's making adjustments would be too hard to implement – the onus for that is still going to be on the person monitoring the server locally or by modem. If a system hangs you would probably still need some kind of operator intervention, IMHO. I also think a station's performance is not going to vary relative to the other machines, so long as it doesn't start paging to disk. Therefore, I would propose creating a configuration file when the program is setup with a relative performance index for each station. This could be gleaned by doing a standard benchmark for each machine (100 for the fastest machine and a percentage for the slower machines – 56, 89 etc.?), *not* each time you do a rendering. Of course, if this were found to be inaccurate you could edit the config file to make adjustments to a machine's index. Just a few thoughts, ta ta! Martin
#32193From: Jan 15, 1993 3:10 PM
Martin: Naaaahhhhh! I have some ideas on how to do this rather easily! If the controller machine can monitor the progress of individual frames, (that's easy) and then feed the information back to the rendering stations, if a single station hung, the controller would then simply give it's frames to other stations and distribute the load! I don't WANT to have to go into the office at 2:00am again! The only person there would be you, anyway, trying to get the shadows right on the walls and ceiling of the ballroom! <big g> Greg
#32244From: MARTIN G FOSTERJan 16, 1993 1:46 AM
We'll see if it can be done if/when this project gets off the ground.
#32282From: Angelo Guarino [DTI Inc]Jan 16, 1993 2:28 PM
>> do the progress monitoring itself Ya, as each frame is rendered a file on the server could be incremented. As the next machine is ready to render, it would simply "check-out" ( #42 … does anybody have #42!?) the next frame. Locally, maybe some majic can be done with incrementing EnvirVar's like when rotoscoping. Ang
#32330From: Jan 16, 1993 9:56 PM
Yup, that's it. I'm just trying to decide on a language for the control program – a portable C would be nice for running on either SUNs or PCs, but Visual Basic may be faster to program…
#32071From: Noah KennedyJan 14, 1993 4:01 PM
We're interested. I've seen this in some systems integration work before, and it can be a great idea. Be forewarned that controlling the program spec will be a headache. I'd suggest that at some point – after getting far-ranging input on the forum, perhaps – a small group (2 or 3 MAX) hammer out a detailed spec, get a price for the product as spec.'ed, and let others either subscribe or not subscribe: all subscribers having equal benefits. Secondly, I'm curious as to how the program would interface with 3DS. But I guess figuring that out is half the fun. –Noah / CADP,Inc.
#32134From: Ken Loss-CutlerJan 15, 1993 1:45 AM
One of the amazing things about 3DS is how its "accessibility" encourages dialogues like these. Real hands-on personal enhancement is now a reality for the enduser. Pretty exciting, I think <g>. Thanks for your ideas. Ken Loss-Cutler