Which processor choice?

[shane123]

Thanks for any help to my issue.....

My job entails uploading video to our website. This video is shot from a camcorder, put onto our hard drive, then uploaded to the site. Just like most sites, the video is encoded while being uploaded. At this point the encoding/uploading software only allows one instance to run at a time, which means i have to wait for one video to get done before i can start the next. I would like to be able to upload 4 videos at a time.

My question is.... what is the best combination of performance to number of computers? 4 average computers taking a long time or 2 dual core processors taking little time. Or any other suggestions.

What set-up would allow me to upload/encode 4 videos the fastest?

[poisondeathray]

It depends if you can run 2 or more instances of your particular software on 1 OS - which you said you can't.

It also depends if your software is multithreaded. If not, it won't be able to take advantage of extra physical cores - then it would seem your only option is 4 separate computers

If it is multithreaded, it depends how performance scales with more cores.

[jagabo]

If your software isn't multithreaded you could run four virtual machines and convert/upload four files at the same time on a quad core computer.

[shane123]

Thanks for the quick reply. I am trying to find out if it is multithreaded or not. It is called videoegg if maybe you have heard of it? Maybe you know if it is threadable. You download the application, then it is embedded into your browser, so nothing is required by the user once it is installed, only drag and drop the video into the window.

[shane123]

How do i use virtual machines. I have tried the right click---run as option to try and use other login names on my machine but didn't work.

[jagabo]

There are many virtual machines:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/virtualpc/default.mspx

http://www.vmware.com/

http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/pc.shtml

You might also be able to hack the software to run multiple instances. It might be as simple as making copies of the main EXE with different names (though usually not).

[lordsmurf]

Virtual machines are too slow for video encoding. Just batch process instead. Or get multiple computers.

[jagabo]

Virtual machines are too slow for video encoding. Just batch process instead. Or get multiple computers.

This is only true of fully emulated machines. When running on the native processor with modern processors (with virtual machine support) programs can run almost as fast as on the native OS. I use Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 and single threaded video conversion programs (it only emulates a single threaded CPU) run almost as fast as running them natively.

I did run into an issue with MS Virtual PC 2007 though. Although it will let you run multiple virtual machines at the same time, the VM itself doesn't seem to be multithreaded. Running VirtualDub in one VM took 50 percent of the native CPU (on a dual core system running XP Pro) as expected (because the VM emulates a single core CPU). But running two VMs, both running VirtualDub, still only took up 50 percent of the native CPU. Maybe some of the other VMs will do better.

And, of course, not all programs will run in a VM.

[shane123]

Looking at some benchmarks of the time it takes some processors to encode, it seemed to me that a dual core processor would encode a 5-10 minute video much faster. If you add up total time to encode, could i get the same amount of work done if using one dual core vs. 2 average computers?

I am kind of basing this off of benchmarks i found here.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/cpu_charts_2007/page24.html

I compared the time it took the slowest core 2 vs. the fastest pentium 4.

Using the time to encode/per second, i figured for a five minute video it would take 31:00 vs. 45:00 respectively. This made me think that having 2x core 2 would take 1 hour to upload 4 videos. 4x Pentium 4 would take 45 minutes to upload 4 videos.

4 computers are faster but should i prepare for the future in case I am able to run multiple instances? Then wouldn't a core duo be faster?

Thanks for all the help and suggestions so far.


Note: None of the machines are bought yet, and would only like to spend 1,200 dollars. On ebay an average machine is 250. 4 of those is $1,000. A dual core is about 500, which is also $1,000.

Which option makes sense based on the time to encode and the amount of money?

[jagabo]

You need to find out if your encoder is multithreaded, and how well multithreaded. The MainConcept H.264 encoder is very well multithreaded. If your app isn't multithreaded and you can't run multiple instances it won't run any faster on a quad core compared to a single core of the same speed. Obviously different CPU architectures (eg, P4 vs C2D) will still have different encoding speeds.

If your application is uploading as it encodes you may be bandwidth limited rather than CPU limited. Check CPU usage while you encode/upload. If you're CPU limited you should see nearly 100 percent CPU usage.

[shane123]

Yes my processor is running at 100%
I have a 1.6ghz processor, 2gb ram. I know its not fast, but if we buy 4 cheap ones they will work just about the same as mine since that is all 250 dollars will buy you on ebay.

I cannot find any documentation on the videoeggpublisher to find out if it is threadable, so sorry i can't answer that question.

[aedipuss]

can you have multiple tabs open all running different videoegg jobs?

[shane123]

No that will not work either. Have tried multiple tabs, different windows, different browsers. Made a copy of the file and tried to run it as a different user on my computer but didn't work either. I guess the virtual machine is the next option for me to try out. I have not looked yet but if the ones that are linked in the above post are paid versions, does anyone know of a good free version of virtual machines?

[shane123]

Ok i see that microsoft virtual pc is free, but in the system requirements it says.....You can run Virtual PC on a multi-processor computer, but it utilizes one processor only. So i may be able to use virtual pc but when my 1.6 centrino processor is already running at 100% during encoding, i don't see how i would even be able to access the virtual pc to work on it. Presently during encoding i have to sit and wait until the video is done because there is not any processing power left over.

[Soopafresh]

VideoEgg is a browser plugin, so it's almost certainly a single threaded app. I'd use a different encoder if you want to use multi core processors. That, or buy 4 physical machines as you mentioned.

[jagabo]

Ok i see that microsoft virtual pc is free, but in the system requirements it says.....You can run Virtual PC on a multi-processor computer, but it utilizes one processor only. So i may be able to use virtual pc but when my 1.6 centrino processor is already running at 100% during encoding, i don't see how i would even be able to access the virtual pc to work on it. Presently during encoding i have to sit and wait until the video is done because there is not any processing power left over.

I originally recommended running four virtual machines on a quad core CPU. As it turns out, MS Virtual PC itself is single threaded so there's no point it running multiple virtual machines with it. On a dual core CPU you could still run one instance of your program on the virtual pc and one native to nearly double your throughput (assuming a single threaded app and no I/O bottlenecks).

VMWare supports multiple cores/CPUs.

[Webster]

when my 1.6 centrino processor is already running at 100% during encoding, i don't see how i would even be able to access the virtual pc to work on it. Presently during encoding i have to sit and wait until the video is done because there is not any processing power left over.

Like Soopafresh said, you are better of buy and run 4 individual machines than using virtual machine.
If your machine maxed out 100% when you encoding one task. Adding more encoding task with virtual machine will robbed the computation power from the first task and slow it down anyway..............

[shane123]

Ok, thanks for everyone's help and suggestions. I guess now my next task is to find some cheap laptop computers that will handle a work load without taking 30 min. to encode a 5 minute video like mine does.

[kenmo]

I like VirtualBox and it's free. There are Linux and Windows versions available...

http://www.virtualbox.org/