Server 2003

Windows 2003 or XP?

We just got a server – 4 dual core Xeon processors with 15000 RPM disks running Windows 2003 Enterprise. nTrack runs OK on this machine but is kind of jerky when adjusting anything or muting tracks. Skips and burps.

would nTrack run better if we downgraded to Window XP SP3 instead of Server?

thanks for your thoughts

Geek Girl

Quote: (cindy15015 @ Apr. 26 2009, 10:41 PM)

We just got a server -- 4 dual core Xeon processors with 15000 RPM disks running Windows 2003 Enterprise.
nTrack runs OK on this machine but is kind of jerky when adjusting anything or muting tracks.
Skips and burps.

would nTrack run better if we downgraded to Window XP SP3 instead of Server?

thanks for your thoughts

Geek Girl

You would have to give us the machine specs, especially something like the audio subsystem. Can't recall if Xeon is both 32/64 bit. And usually a server requires more stability and security and is optimized so, not focusing on multimedia aspects. That could partly be the issue, but could be anything else at this point. I believe the latest nTrack can use multi-processors too. It wouldn't hurt installing XP on that machine (on another drive so you don't have to reinstall Server) if it's possible.
Quote:

running Windows 2003 Enterprise.

Never used it myself. Definately not optimized for audio. But if you have disk space, why not set up a dual-boot with WIN XP? Technoid is correct about audio components as well. I run n-Track on 1.5gig AMD processor using XP-sp1 with 1.5M of ram, and have no issues. There are various issues between Vista vs. XP and 64 bit vs. 32 bit, which you can search this forum using those keywords. You seem to have a high end machine, but again, the audio interface and it's drivers play a major role at this point, and I think Server is not geared toward audio production.

I had a Xeon at work for a while. While it was a screaming fast machine there was no AGP support on it for video (back then). It did PCI and SVGA only, with one PCI slot. While the actual audio did well, the graphics was so slow that anything that required a user interface was almost so slow it was undoable.

Because there was only one PCI slot when doing audio we had to pull the regular PCI graphics card and use onboard video that was REALLY slow. That machine was a true server.

All that said, the slowness was not because Windows Server was the OS.

So I loaded XP home on another partition and nTrack runs great even with all kinds of effects. i can move windows around while playing 20 tracks; no cutting out or blipping. The audio interface is a Presonus Firepod.

this is kind of a shame that nTrack doesn’t work better in Server, because XP only sees 2 CPUs and my guess is that it is using only one socket but seeing it as a dual core. Server 2003 sees the 4 sockets as 8 CPUs due to each Xeon being hyperthreading, but unfortunately nTrack just doesn’t run well under Server.

I wonder if there is any tweaking that can be done under Server?
Or should I just stick to XP and let the other processors sleep?

If you can get XP Pro, it’ll use all the CPU’s you can throw at it… well, at least 8 cores.

D

Quote: (cindy15015 @ Apr. 28 2009, 11:31 PM)

So I loaded XP home on another partition and nTrack runs great even with all kinds of effects.
i can move windows around while playing 20 tracks; no cutting out or blipping.
The audio interface is a Presonus Firepod.

this is kind of a shame that nTrack doesn't work better in Server, because XP only sees 2 CPUs and my guess is that it is using only one socket but seeing it as a dual core.
Server 2003 sees the 4 sockets as 8 CPUs due to each Xeon being hyperthreading, but unfortunately nTrack just doesn't run well under Server.

I wonder if there is any tweaking that can be done under Server?
Or should I just stick to XP and let the other processors sleep?

Yeah, server is really not meant to work for apps like n-Track... or any sort of desktop app at all really. I mean, will they run? Yes. Will they run as they were intended, not always. There is a lot of garbage that is on Server (IIS, DFS, etc) that is not on XP. Remember, Server is built as a SERVER OS... You know, serving files, processing email, serviing web pages, FTP, doing SQL... it isn't meant to do audio and is setup much differently.

XP Pro supports 2 PHYSICAL processors regardless of the number of cores.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888732

So XP Pro should run fine on this machine and utilize 2 processors and 4 cores. Yes, this isn't everything, but sort of what you are left with. You can tweak Server if you wish... In Server, make sure under My Computer > Properties > Advanced > Performance Settings > Advanced everything is set to Programs (both Memory usage and Processor scheduling). Also I would start here:

http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

This is a guide for XP, but XP and Server 2003 are the same OS practically with slight tweaks here and there. Use at your own risk etc etc.

There was a discussion on the benifit of multi-processors and quad-core in an earlier thread. Flavio was of the opinion that the results are self limiting. I’m certain I am not going to state this correctly, but I think it comes down to sound is linear, so once you are applying changes fast enough to reduce processing latency then the machine has to start waiting on the audio stream. Of course, distructive editiing would be faster, and I guess buffering would not be such a problem. But it is not a simple equation: my Intel Quad core with 4 gig memory etc. has a greater latency (almost out of acceptable range), my older AMD 64X2 with 2 gig memory (almost no latency). The quad core is great for working on video and audio mixing is fine, but I record on the AMD.
Bax

Quote:

XP Pro supports 2 PHYSICAL processors regardless of the number of cores.


Thanks for the clarification Bubba. :agree:

D
Quote: (Diogesneez @ Apr. 29 2009, 10:23 AM)

Quote:

XP Pro supports 2 PHYSICAL processors regardless of the number of cores.


Thanks for the clarification Bubba. :agree:

D

I like to get in touch with my feminine side from time ot time and be pedantically right. :)

I had a feminine side once… I beat it to death with a Strat soaked in used motor oil. :laugh:

D

The side of me I “beat” to death surely isn’t feminine.