CompuServe Thread

#Suicide as an option <g>

36 messages in this thread
#62743From: John EllisOct 21, 1993 4:05 PM
Thanks David S. for all the insight. I am a little confused by one paragraph and that is: >> My own preference is not to use non-dedicated servers. I have to approach this with the thought of reliability though. I have 47 workstations out there and if one of them is also a server the likelyhood of the application being run on it crashing and requiring a hard reset is unacceptable to me. That hard reset takes out the server as well. << It sounds like you'd rather use dedicated servers but then you state "if one of them is also a server the likelyhood of the application being run on it crashing and requiring a hard reset is unacceptable to me." Which sounds to me like if you have a dedicated server and it crashes, everything else goes down as well. Could you elaborate on this for me? Thanks for your time, and I'll check to see what the status is regarding your recommendation to ADESK. -JE
#62861From: David SomersOct 22, 1993 11:17 AM
Sorry for the confusion <G> On a non dedicated server your machine is doing double duty. It is the server, and at the same time it is someones workstation. If the application they are running crashes so badly that you have to reset the computer to recover (as opposed to just using <CTRL><ALT><DEL>) then you are rebooting your server too, much to the annoyance of your other users. With a dedicated server your machine is only doing one thing, being a file server. The likelyhood of having to reboot it is less than if it were non dedicated. In a small operation a non dedicated server may not be much of a risk. You need to look at how your users function and how critical their work is and then decide if the cost savings of using a non dedicated server (you save the price of one machine) is worth the possibility of having your non dedicated server lock up and need to be reset while there are active files open. This is not that big a disaster. Network operating systems are pretty flexible, expecially the peer to peers. If an application on a non dedicated peer to peer server hangs you can usually just walk around the office and ask folks to save their work and log off, then go reset the server. The server software and the local application are running in different virtual machines. Having one lock usually doesn't affect the other. Because of the size of our network and the type of applications I feel much safer with a dedicated server.
#62888From: John EllisOct 22, 1993 3:42 PM
Thankyou very much David, your insight has been most helpful. I think I'm going to start peer to peer and if things start getting overloaded, I'll dedicate my 368/40 as a server. I like the server idea as it would seem to eleviate some headaches in troubleshooting. This would seem to be another advantage to this approach. And thanks for taking the time. -JE
#62915From: David SomersOct 22, 1993 6:15 PM
My pleasure…As I was saying to David Taffet, I have gotten so much from this forum by hanging around the edges and listening that I was delighted to be able to be a small help for a short while and "repay" my debt a tiny bit! Have a great weekend!
#62928From: John EllisOct 22, 1993 8:13 PM
Well David S. you've helped alot, and I hope you stick around, I think you'll find that your expertise will be valuable to others as well and maybe you'll catch the 3DS bug and I can reciprocate 🙂 Hope you have a great weekend too. -JE
#62872From: David TaffetOct 22, 1993 1:05 PM
In a network with a dedicated server, the traffic is totally managed by the server, in that, if the server crashes, the network is no more.
#62885From: MARTIN G FOSTEROct 22, 1993 3:28 PM
David, I have a 3 machine lantastic 4.1 network, with a non-dedicated server. If I'm doing network rendering and the server crashes the slaves will hang-up too, and also require rebooting. So much for a non-dedicated solution. I was hoping that if my non-dedicated server crashed and I got it rebooted fast enough, the slaves wouldn't notice, or would give me some error message (server connection broken. retry?) Oh well..:-(
#62907From: David TaffetOct 22, 1993 6:04 PM
Martin – Networks are very weird beasts. While no two PCs are the same, even when all the hardware is "the same" no two networks are even on the same planet. There are some characteristics in common, tho'. Like most people have 4 limbs, etc. If a person's heart stops they die, regardless of upbringing. Similarly, if a server dies, the network goes bye-bye…
#62923From: MARTIN G FOSTEROct 22, 1993 7:57 PM
David, networks _are_ very weird beasts! A lot of us would probably love a dedicated server solution, but can't afford it. The next best thing might be to pick the _most_ stable system you have and make that the non-dedicated server. I, being very stupid at the time, picked the most unstable of my 3 systems to be the server. (pass the pointed "dunce" hat, derrrr!). This became such a problem that I started using the network just to send out projects to each rendering station, so that each rendering station had the required project and all maps locally. I then just have the 3ds network directory on the local system – this is so that no system is depending on the server if it crashes, everything it needs is on it's local drive. This was more of a desperate measure, and once I have a stable server I'll probably go the intended route.
#63243From: David TaffetOct 25, 1993 11:17 AM
Martin – As a network *professional*, I feel that, if your network configuration is working, you have a functional network! Hey, any port on a storm and all that… Your department of redundancy department of the tautological guard… <stupid g> DT
#63258From: MARTIN G FOSTEROct 25, 1993 11:44 AM
David, wow, thanks for the free advice. Probably would have cost me $100 per hour to get that kind of advice from you _if_ this wasn't CI$. I still get the occasional corrupt file written across the network.
#63463From: David TaffetOct 26, 1993 12:34 PM
Nah. I'm too much of a woose to charge what I'm worth. <g> For *you* it'd be $30/hr. Like I charged the lady the other evening who couldn't figure out why her MIDI card would not play through the speakers on her MIDI keyboard. (She was plugged into a line out. The keyboard had *no* line in… That'll be $75, please.)
#63512From: MARTIN G FOSTEROct 26, 1993 2:41 PM
don't you just those type of clients. You look like a hero, without even trying. Hey, $30/hr in Wisconsin is probably equivalent to $60/hr in LA – your expensive!!!
#63561From: David TaffetOct 26, 1993 6:07 PM
And, like the ride to *the future*, "well worth a dollar"…
#62955From: John TissavaryOct 23, 1993 12:18 AM
Martin, could you do me a huge favor? If you've got some time (an hour or so at the very most), could you set up a video post rescaling of some bitmaps (no mesh rendering, just FAST stuff) and put it on the network queue for all machines? I'd be very grateful, and would be exceedingly curious to hear if it works for you. At this point I'm really convinced that I've bumped into a limitation of Lantastic peer to peer. Thanks, John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
#62972From: MARTIN G FOSTEROct 23, 1993 4:33 AM
John, sure I could do that. Just to make sure I understand what you are saying: I would have a sequence of bitmaps on my server (rather than locally on each machine), then I render in video post with rescaling, send this job to each of the machines in the queue. OK, I'll give it a bash.
#63058From: John TissavaryOct 24, 1993 12:04 AM
You got it! Thanks for humoring me, I really appreciate it. Don't forget to write the rendered files to the same disk as you are reading from. John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
#63138From: MARTIN G FOSTEROct 24, 1993 5:34 PM
John, I just finished my test and here are my results. I rescaled 270 512×486 targa files on the server down to 320×200 and saved them back to the server as .gifs. Everything rendered without errors (no crashes and no missing files) BUT 2 out of 270 of the files that were saved back to the server were corrupted and could not be loaded back into 3ds. To test the integrity of the .gifs I set up an .ifl file and just rendered them as a background. I got the message the first file was corrupted and then after removing this from the .ifl I started the rendering again and on the second bad file I got the message "can't find resz0113.gif in map-path(s) or image path. This message was erroneous because the file was there, but it was corrupted. Maybe that's what was happening to you – a corrupted file giving a misleading error message. Another thing that confused me is that I can load the files that 3ds calls corrupted into animator pro. Weird! Anyway, it seems I have network problems too (I was already aware of the corrupted file problem), only they are different from yours.
#63201From: John TissavaryOct 25, 1993 2:37 AM
I think I stumbled onto the real cause of my network problems tonight, thanks to your message and that of a couple of other people. I think one of my AE-2 cards is tweeky. When I queue VP stuff like what you did on the other two machines, things seem to move fine. I'll trade the card for a new one and see what happens. I wonder why those images were corrupted? I haven't had any corrupted images out of 3DS yet. But who knows, maybe I'll get lucky <g>.
#63260From: MARTIN G FOSTEROct 25, 1993 11:49 AM
John, turns out the images weren't corrupted but 3ds reported them as such in that session. I quit 3ds, then restarted 3ds again, then 3ds had no problem with those 2 images. I don't know why it would have a problem with 2 out of 270 images in one session but not in the next. Too weird :-%
#63310From: John TissavaryOct 25, 1993 5:38 PM
I have strange things like that happen in 3DS sessions, too. I had a preview show up as corrupted, but when I exited and started 3DS again it was fine. I think there are still bugs in R3… perhaps we should post these to the Yost group as bug reports. John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
#63335From: MARTIN G FOSTEROct 25, 1993 6:53 PM
John, trouble is you need to have a reproducible case to make a bug report, and most of these things are hard to reproduce. Yet again, it's probably some memory management weirdness that's going on.
#63434From: Yost GroupOct 26, 1993 10:45 AM
They aren't bugs, John. They're spurious system problems that you're having due to a hardware problem. There is no way that we can develop a piece of software that will work perfectly in every possible DOS configuration and hardware setup. Of course, if you can come up with a reproducible problem, let me know and I'll look at it. – G
#62967From: Oct 23, 1993 12:58 AM
Martin: >> I was hoping that if my non-dedicated server crashed and I got it >> rebooted fast enough, the slaves wouldn't notice Only if you reboot while they are in the middle of a render! And pray a lot, besides! This is why a "stateless" network works so well. If the server goes down and comes back up, the clients won't notice. On some systems, however, if it goes down, everything else must be reset. We've had occasion to reboot our server and all renderings continued when it came back up, except for those dreaded "Error writing Targa file" boxes, which I agree would be great if they could give you an option to retry instead of you just giving them permission to crap out by hitting the 'continue' button. <g>
#62971From: MARTIN G FOSTEROct 23, 1993 4:31 AM
I've found that if my slaves are in the waiting mode, they always hang up if the server crashes. If they are rendering they will continue to render until and even write the file, if it's set to write locally, but get a error mesage or hang up if the server goes down. More crash testing is necessary, I feel – I sound like an auto manufacturer <g>. What's a stateless network? Is that what you have, oh netmeister? <g>. I assume I don't have one.
#62998From: Oct 23, 1993 1:24 PM
Martin: >> What's a stateless network? Is that what you have, oh netmeister? Yes, PC-NFS is a stateless network. The easiest way to see if yours is also would be to 'mount' a drive on the server, copy a file from the client to the server, reboot the server, and see if you can copy it back without doing anything else on the client. It basically means that the server doesn't keep track of what is mounted on it, so everything can continue just where it left off.
#63018From: MARTIN G FOSTEROct 23, 1993 5:12 PM
Greg, oh exalted net-highness of the Sun, the moon, and the PC-NFS, I think I like stateless! But mine isn't, aargh! I will always get the message: "Server connection to network node xxxx broken reading drive G Abort, Retry, Fail?" Retry will always get the connection back, if you have brought the server back on line, but 3ds doesn't seem to perform retries <sob>. Anybody, how can I get a stateless network???
#63043From: Oct 23, 1993 11:11 PM
Martin: >> Anybody, how can I get a stateless network??? Well, the lower priced Suns are below $4,500 now, which includes 16" flatscreen color monitor, NFS networking software, internal hard disk, modem software, windowing operating system, ethernet card, 16 megs of memory, etc., etc., etc. The only other things you would want would be a big SCSI hard disk and SCSI tape backup (Exabyte preferred), and maybe a CD-ROM player. At least with everything being SCSI, you can usually get identical hardware to what you would get on your PC, most can just be moved right over. If you just use it as a file server, you could easily add 25 to 35 PC's to it, probably much more, but I haven't verified that myself yet! Once it is up and running, keeping it going is rather painless. Anyone who understands getting 3DS hardware installed could easily learn enough keep it going – it is as easy as Novell, and, from what I see here, definately easier than Lantastic! If you have to learn a network, why not make it a good one?
#63139From: MARTIN G FOSTEROct 24, 1993 5:48 PM
that sounds like a slick solution for the non-financially challenged. As you know I'm so poor right now that I'm lucky to have 2 pennies to rub together. When I came over to have those prints done the other day, it caused major wallet anxiety. Fortunately, the prints had the desired effect on the prospective client 🙂
#63057From: John TissavaryOct 24, 1993 12:04 AM
I am able to do just what Greg stated with Lantastic 5.0. Only if I push part of the network software into different segments of upper memory do the other nodes complain. Regards, John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
#63140From: MARTIN G FOSTEROct 24, 1993 5:51 PM
so, you are saying that if a server goes down while slaves are rendering and you reboot the server quick enough you won't get the dreaded disconnection message? If that's true I may just need an upgrade from Lantastic 4.1 to 5.0 which would be a bit more fiscally feasible than buying a Sun server.
#63202From: John TissavaryOct 25, 1993 2:38 AM
I think you'll be pleased. I've rebooted on several occasions and there was no interruption in the slave renderers, as long as they were busy thinking, and not trying to write a file to disk.
#63255From: MARTIN G FOSTEROct 25, 1993 11:34 AM
John, sounds like time for an upgrade! 🙂
#62889From: John EllisOct 22, 1993 3:56 PM
So David T. it appears there are trade-offs to each approach :-), but I think the consensus is that for speed and overall reliability the dedicated server approach is the best, and fastest. I think for the time being however I will be happy to get three systems linked "peer to peer" and try that first. If I have trouble with that there are trouble-shooting advantages to the server approach as well. I think that ultimately I will end up with a dedicated server. (I see the little beasts grinning at me <G>) Thanks for the thought. -JE
#62908From: David TaffetOct 22, 1993 6:04 PM
No question, in my mind, that the dedicated server approach is most stable. If there are enough things going on, even breaking functions off to different servers is a *very* good idea. We have 4 servers. #1 acts as a bridge to a little LocalTalk network, a staging area for files and supports SCSI DAT backup and optical archiving. #2 does double duty as a gateway to an AS/400 and as our Postscript print server (7 printers). #3 is a another file server, for our image library and art dept. archive staging area. #4 is dedicated to database and word processing functions only. The whole thing is working quite well, too.
#62926From: John EllisOct 22, 1993 8:13 PM
David – Sounds like where you work there's alot going on, and that you've got a good network administrator. Thanks again 🙂 -JE