network rendering

tonyatl wrote on 6/9/2010, 12:47 PM

I use vegas pro8 and to build another pc with the same set up as my main box (its a 9550 quad core) would be pretty cheap. My questions are would it speed up rendering that much that its work the effort and the money? Secondly does the second box need to have two drives or just a c drive?
Thanks

Comments

musicvid10 wrote on 6/9/2010, 3:12 PM

With Identical processors and a gigabit network, you may get a modest rendering speed increase. However it can be a pita to set up, and the overhead eats up much, if not most of the advantage. Most people don't bother with it. Use it to assign rendering to another machine and free up your main computer.

jabloomf1230 wrote on 6/9/2010, 8:25 PM

I'll second that succinct response. Starting around V7 of Vegas Pro, there were a flurry of posts about network rendering and by V8, some people claimed to have gotten it to work. But the meager improvements, don't justify all the effort to make it work. If you have a lot of free time, try network rendering.

cbrillow wrote on 6/10/2010, 7:34 AM

I'll agree with the previous posts. Network rendering could be finicky to set up. It could be useful back in the day of relatively slow, single-core CPUs, but faster processors, memory and discs, and multi-core CPUs, have made me all-but abandon it.

Another reason that I didn't use it that much after getting it working: it wouldn't stitch mpeg files, which were the ones that required the most rendering time in the first place!

I still use network rendering, but only on the local host; not distributed to other computers on the network. In this way, it's possible to queue up several render projects and continue to work in Vegas without opening up a second instance. The projects render away happily in the background without having a big impact on the performance in the current project.

Caveat: I don't work with HD or other difficult file formats...