# VEPRO and Gigabit vs. 10GBE performance? Mac Pro to Vision DAW



## Colin O'Malley (Jan 12, 2015)

I am using a 2008 Mac Pro 3,1 with Gigabit ethernet and trying to hold out until Apple refreshes the Darth Vader trashcan Mac Pros. I have a new Vision DAW with 256 mb of RAM and 10GBE. I'll definitely be offloading most of my Kontakt template to the Vision DAW and just running synths and effects on the Mac. 

Here's my question, how many individual channels should I reasonably expect to have running over gigabit ethernet on the mac? I generally like to split things out by orch section and library. Vision DAW felt that 10GBE would easily match the performance I'm used to with RME cards. If I need to I can buy a PCIe card to get my old Mac Pro running 10GBE, but would rather hold off putting more money into this older machine. Any thoughts or experience?

Thanks!

Colin


----------



## José Herring (Jan 12, 2015)

It's not necessarily the amount of channels but rather how much audio can you pump through them.

Your PC machine is rather killer (I assume you mean 256gigs and not 256mgs), the bottle neck will be how much audio your Mac pro and logic can handle. I honesty don't think you'll get the performance you want with 1gig network. My machines aren't as powerful as yours but I do notice that VEPro once things get really busy kind of takes a dive over the network. I run at 256 with VEpro set to 1x buffer. I was thinking of switching back to hardwire either madi or adat.

I've started to look into other audio over ethernet solutions. Coupling Dante virtual soundcard with a Dante enabled hardware. But, I honestly can't see the advantage over just using RME or SSL and Madi. 

https://www.audinate.com/products/softw ... -soundcard

Jay Asher would know more. He has a setup similar to yours. Just the next level down performance wise on PC, though his mac is probably a bit more powerful as I think he upgraded from a similar machine to a rather powerful mac mini. Not exactly your setup but still close enough to give you a good estimate as to what to expect.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 12, 2015)

Colin, you know I love you but respectfully with your level of success, there is no way in hell I would be trying to squeeze more time out of that machine.

Buy the most powerful Mac you can afford and pair it with that PC and you will be a happy camper. If you come to town for NAMM, come over my place and play if you like.


----------



## wcreed51 (Jan 12, 2015)

It's the 10GBE switch that will set you back a few $$$.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 12, 2015)

"with your level of success, there is no way in hell I would be trying to squeeze more time out of that machine"

What the f?!

If gigabit ethernet is a bottleneck, okay, but these posts give me serious oy vehs.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 12, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 12 said:


> "there is no way in hell I would be trying to squeeze more time out of that machine"
> 
> What the f?!



Who drives an old Corolla if they can afford a new BMW?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 12, 2015)

Someone who doesn't want to waste money just because he can.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 12, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 12 said:


> Someone who doesn't want to waste money just because he can.



Says the guy driving the BMW SUV 

Colin is not a hobbyist or a part-timer. He has a (deservedly) good career as a composer and a developer (not to mention kids) so he deserves to have and owes it to himself to have the very best tools to make his workflow faster and easier.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jan 12, 2015)

Actually Colin is referring to 10GBE, which is *10 *Gigabit Ethernet. Much faster than 1 gigabit ethernet.

I have no experience with 10GBE. Wish I did. I bet it screams.

EDIT: Actually, maybe I misunderstood. VEPro Gigabit VS. 10GBE. Nevermind.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 12, 2015)

> Says the guy driving the BMW SUV



Ah, but I bought it - like my previous three BMWs - six years old, when it's quite a bit less expensive than an economy car. It's actually a very good choice from a consumer standpoint!

In any case, the BS about having to buy a new computer to prove you're professional is...just that: BS. I'm not saying Colin doesn't need 10GB ethernet to run as much audio as he's running, just that there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that his computer can't do it without any information whatsoever backing that up.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 12, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 12 said:


> > Says the guy driving the BMW SUV
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let's get real here. When you are running very, very large templates, more power and faster is better. There is no counter argument to that.

So if you do not buy more power when you can there are only two reasons:

1. You cannot afford it because of income and/or other financial obligations. 

A perfectly valid reason.

2. You are a cheap bastard.

A perfectly invalid reason


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 12, 2015)

3. Your 2008 8 x 2.8GHz computer has more than enough power to run the template, but your bottleneck is somewhere else. Thus you deal with the bottleneck where it exists.

4. You like your genitalia just fine and don't feel the need to compensate by wasting money on equipment that solves no problems for you just because it's new.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 12, 2015)

5. You're living in 2015, not 2003.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 12, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 12 said:


> 5. You're living in 2015, not 2003.



You are apparently stuck in 1993


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 12, 2015)

http://www.small-tree.com/Gigabit_Ethernet_cards_for_Mac_OS_X_s/30.htm (http://www.small-tree.com/Gigabit_Ether ... X_s/30.htm)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 12, 2015)

http://www.apple-history.com/800


----------



## dgburns (Jan 12, 2015)

Colin O'Malley @ Mon Jan 12 said:


> I am using a 2008 Mac Pro 3,1 with Gigabit ethernet and trying to hold out until Apple refreshes the Darth Vader trashcan Mac Pros. I have a new Vision DAW with 256 mb of RAM and 10GBE. I'll definitely be offloading most of my Kontakt template to the Vision DAW and just running synths and effects on the Mac.
> 
> Here's my question, how many individual channels should I reasonably expect to have running over gigabit ethernet on the mac? I generally like to split things out by orch section and library. Vision DAW felt that 10GBE would easily match the performance I'm used to with RME cards. If I need to I can buy a PCIe card to get my old Mac Pro running 10GBE, but would rather hold off putting more money into this older machine. Any thoughts or experience?
> 
> ...



I wrote this in another thread,sorry,not savvy enough to point a link to it.This was in question to someone asking about gigbit ethernet.You're mac pro 2008 is gigabit.I seriouly have no idea if 10gigabit is of any use to use audio guys,but maybe the associated controllers that herd the data around improve things.I think gigabit ethernet is pretty potent powerfull as is.this was my answer below-

assuming a gigabit ethernet connection-that gives you 1000 megabits/per sec ,minus maybe a bit for bounce backs and data errors,so let's say 960 megabits per sec real world ethnet rate. 

if pcm audio data rate is- 
bit rate=sample rate x bit depth x channels 

for 48k/24 bit stereo audio we get- 

bit rate = 48000x24x2= 2,304,000 or 2304 kbits/sec or 2.3 mbits/sec 

so a stereo channel of audio is 2.3 mbits/sec of data.We have 960 mbits per sec of capacity.To put in perspective,MADI has about 100 mbits/sec capacity. 

in the example above 960/2.3 mbits is 417 (rounded down),so that is 417 stereo streams.I don't think getting 1000 mbits performance is realistic.And I think heat and bounce backs might increase error rate as the channel counts increase,so I can't say for sure.I have not run more than 100 stereo streams using my older 2008 mac pro and a few pc slaves.neither on my newer 2010 mac pro .
the thing about 10gigabit,is that the number should be x10,so possibly 4170 channels of audio at a data rate of 48k/24bit also assuming similar lowering for errors in the ethernet.That's alot of audio.hopefully my math is right.


----------



## dgburns (Jan 12, 2015)

so this is more on Madi-
If the data rate is limited to 48 kHz, then 64 channels take 64×32×48 = 98304 kbit/s. Adding the minimum 8×58 kbit/s of framing produces 98688 bit/s, leaving 1.312% free for timing variation or additional channels.

basically Madi is 100mbits/sec,no where near the capability of gigabit ethernet,let alone 10gigabit.I think madi cards are good for basic in/out to converters,but ethernet wins for VEP to and from one pc to another.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 12, 2015)

I just read that again. A VisionDAW with 256GB of RAM!

Whoa!


----------



## dgburns (Jan 12, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 12 said:


> I just read that again. A VisionDAW with 256GB of RAM!
> 
> Whoa!


actually I saw 256mb,but hey....


----------



## Colin O'Malley (Jan 13, 2015)

Thanks a lot for the replies! Ironically I was hovering over the "buy" button on Apple Store and Craig Sharmat talked me out of it. His quote "with that Vision DAW you could run a Mac mini." What a buzz kill, huh?  Jay's answer is a lot more fun. I'm going to start a Kickstarter for VI to buy me a Mac Pro next!

I'm thinking that most VEPRO setups to this point have been gigabit. 10GBE seems to slowly be creeping in. It's not standard on the new Mac Pros but can be added via thunderbolt. I can get my current 2008 Mac Pro to support 10GBE for about 700$ and that will keep things working for another 6-12 months until Apple releases new Mac Pro, or abandons pro market entirely for Apple watch....  I abandoned VEPRO previously for hardware, but Vision DAW has me back on it. They are certain it will equal the performance of RME cards IF I'm at 10GBE...

I'm still undecided, but just curious to hear more about the performance guys are achieving over gigabit specifically . How many channels/stems/streams/instruments, latency etc. 

Thanks a lot!

Colin


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 13, 2015)

Colin, you are going to put $700 into a machine that not only has less CPU power but:

1. Slower RAM.
2. No USB 3 or Thunderbolt
3. Slower GPU
4. Less future OS compatibility.

You would be better off taking that $700 and buying a 2011 Mac Mini.

I am sorry, I just don't see it.


----------



## Colin O'Malley (Jan 13, 2015)

Jay, 

Can you re-write your last post using words my wife will understand? 

Good points though. This is why I'm torn. 

Thanks, 

Colin


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 13, 2015)

I'm surprised that Jay guy even listens to himself, he's so full of it!

However, I wouldn't drop $700 into my 3,1 either....unless I could take that same card and use it with the next machine I buy (in 2020).

But the other stuff is...well, you have to be from Boston or something to come up with stuff like that. GPU?! That's like a prehensile tail for what we do (and also it's on a card in our machine). No USB 3? Add a $25 card if you think one more is important.

Thunderbolt? Thunderbolt can kiss my ass.

Slower RAM? Slow THIS. Less future OS compatibility? Become compatible with THIS in the future.

Mac Mini? Go worship the Celtics. It only holds (snicker) 16GB of RAM. You can't possibly be a professional with only 16GB of RAM.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 13, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> I'm surprised that Jay guy even listens to himself, he's so full of it!
> 
> However, I wouldn't drop $700 into my 3,1 either....unless I could take that same card and use it with the next machine I buy (in 2020).
> 
> ...



Nick, apologies if I am wrong, but I don't believe you are running on a daily basis for hire what Colin needs to run. My belief is that if tomorrow you got a 6 month long composing gig with tight deadlines where a demanding director who wanted you to do the latest and greatest sounding sample based libraries, your outlook would change in a hurry.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 13, 2015)

I wonder whether it's possible to talk VE Pro into using two separate gigabit ethernet networks?

Also, I was thinking about dgburns' post (thanks for doing the maths!), and also what Jose said about the number of channels being less important than the number of active voices.

How is that actually coded? Am I right that each audio channel comes with some kind of status identifier - as opposed to there being 800-odd channels open with some of them sending a constant stream of zeroes when they're not being used?

It has to be that way, doesn't it. MIDI works that way, and a constant stream would be very inefficient.

***

...all of which leads to my point: it would take some doing to saturate an ethernet bus, even with stereo voices. Is that where the bottleneck is?


***

And my next point: if ethernet is crapping out, you have to wonder whether a mixer wouldn't be more practical. Or some submixing on the slave.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 13, 2015)

Jay, you're using the argument to penis argument instead of addressing the actual problem.


----------



## dgburns (Jan 13, 2015)

Colin O'Malley @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> Thanks a lot for the replies! Ironically I was hovering over the "buy" button on Apple Store and Craig Sharmat talked me out of it. His quote "with that Vision DAW you could run a Mac mini." What a buzz kill, huh?  Jay's answer is a lot more fun. I'm going to start a Kickstarter for VI to buy me a Mac Pro next!
> 
> I'm thinking that most VEPRO setups to this point have been gigabit. 10GBE seems to slowly be creeping in. It's not standard on the new Mac Pros but can be added via thunderbolt. I can get my current 2008 Mac Pro to support 10GBE for about 700$ and that will keep things working for another 6-12 months until Apple releases new Mac Pro, or abandons pro market entirely for Apple watch....  I abandoned VEPRO previously for hardware, but Vision DAW has me back on it. They are certain it will equal the performance of RME cards IF I'm at 10GBE...
> 
> ...



I guess others can chime in,but honestly,I'm not sure how much more clear my math above was....

taken another way 96k 24 bit audio,with 6 channel surround only channel would be-

96000x 24 x 6 = 13824000 or 13.824 mbits/sec -

so assuming 10 gigabit ethernet running at 90 percent capacity successfully = 9000 mbits/sec so you get

9000/13.824 and get= 651 surround channels at 96 k 24 bit.

that is 10 gigabit performance.What else is there to say? 

audio is sent down the pipe in packets,and the system is clocked by the hardware and the software runs it's own latency buffers as you set -so the audio gets there in time based on the daw's latency compensation.

as far as LPX goes,I watched the meters on my slaves,and because LPX does not run the engine when stopped,the whole ethernet network volume drops to nil.There is only traffic when there is stuff to shove down the pipe.Pretty alarmingly efficient I must say.

VEP with 10 gigabit ethernet is just so far advanced over madi it's not even funny.

ok,I'm out,gotta get back to work.


----------



## FriFlo (Jan 13, 2015)

Hmm ... makes me think ... if I buy a 10 gbe switch with one 10 gbe port and 1gb ports for slaves, this would probably be more than enough, if there are many slaves. Not sure, wether a switch like this would exist, but if it does, it could be less expensive and you wouldn't have to buy network cards for existing slaves.
Regarding Colin's setup - it has been said very often (notably by rGames): does one mega slave with 256gb ram really provide many more voices? Modern libraries with legato, multiple RR and recorded release tails many times create so many voices, that - regardless of the CPU, SSD speed or ram - one computer simply cannot play back complex orchestral pieces. Do the latest and greatest machines really play back way more than 1500 voices per machine? If I were to switch to one slave instead of two ones, I would at least want it to play back 3000 voices in, otherwise it would be worse (and probably more expensive) than two ones with 64 gb ram. I have yet to see someone demonstrate those 3000 voices, so I doubt it ...


----------



## azeteg (Jan 13, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> I wonder whether it's possible to talk VE Pro into using two separate gigabit ethernet networks?



Yes. Just put them in separate subnets, and make sure to interleave your connections between the two subnets.



> How is that actually coded? Am I right that each audio channel comes with some kind of status identifier - as opposed to there being 800-odd channels open with some of them sending a constant stream of zeroes when they're not being used?



Audio is transmitted as 32-bit float data. If there is silence on a VEPro output channel, there will be no data sent.



> ...all of which leads to my point: it would take some doing to saturate an ethernet bus, even with stereo voices. Is that where the bottleneck is?



There is some further protocol overhead on top of the audio data itself, then you have the overhead of the network stack in the OS and so on. Rarely a 1Gb-E connection will really throughput 1000MBit, you will likely see a value around 7-800MBit, depending on system and NIC.

For all of you thinking about jumping on the 10Gb-E bandwagon I would recommend you to do your due diligence. As an example, ASRock just released an X99 motherboard with built-in 10GB-E, but enabling these ports in BIOS causes a massive jump in DPC latency (from 86 to 772us), which would be absolutely devastating for a low-latency audio setup:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8781/...herboard-review-dual-10gbaset-for-prosumers/6


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 13, 2015)

Thanks Martin, very interesting.

So that's the answer, isn't it: run multiple gigabit ethernet subnets...although don't tell anyone, but I wouldn't have the first idea how to set up interleaved connections. 

Is there a limit to two subnets, while we're on the subject? Gb-E cards are a few dollars, not $700 for one!

Also, if you were going to go 10Gb-E, FriFlo, why would you need a switch as opposed to a direct connection? I'm asking seriously, not saying you wouldn't!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 13, 2015)

While I'm off the subject, does gigabit wi-fi - which I think is coming fast - have more latency than copper-wired gigabit ethernet?


----------



## FriFlo (Jan 13, 2015)

Because I want to connect at least two slaves. But it is also good to know, I could use a sub net! Didn't know about that. Does that mean doubling the channels? If so, more than enough for me. I have Madi cards on my slaves, but that was from the time, when I was using a Mac pro 2008 as my main daw and VEpro never worked with bigger template. With my current all PC setup, I might give it another try!


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 18, 2015)

@Marc Lawson- I hope you're following this thread closely so you can 'splain it to me later, good buddy :wink: 

That Martin definitely laid down some serious buzzkill on the 10GBe, huh?


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jan 18, 2015)

Hah! I jumped off this thread a while back when Jay and Nick were smack-talking  I just happened to see this today.

My interpretation of Martin's comment is not that 10GBe is a bad thing... just that it might be a bad thing _right now_. I am not surprised to hear about issues with newer mobos adopting newer tech standards. This is why I am not an early adopter.

Martin, the comment on interleaved network connections is an interesting one. I imagine that 'interleaving' is achieved by alternating connections to VEPro instances on different subnets? (Assuming each slave is on it's own subnet). However, wouldn't traffic still bottleneck on its way back to the master computer? If so, it would seem the only way around that is to have multiple NICs in the master computer - which would effectively double bandwidth. To me, that would be the safest way to guarantee isolation and dedicated throughput. And, it's expandable too... if you run into bandwidth issues on your single NIC, just add another and you have double throughput. Bam. Winning. Charlie Sheen.

The great thing about VEPro is that it can handle these kinds of scenarios right out of the box. I certainly understand the attraction of dedicated hardware and physical connections, but as bandwidth continues to increase (and it will), I think networked audio will eventually emerge as the right standard for our application. There are a lot of other factors (beyond audio) pushing bandwidth into new territory - people will eventually want full 4K streaming to these new 4K TVs and you can bet new standards will evolve to meet those needs. In the meantime, we audio folks will be able to ride the wave and benefit from those advances.

Cool thread. We live in interesting times.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 18, 2015)

Gee Marc, was I that bad?

Jay and I are friends, you know. It's pretty lighthearted.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 18, 2015)

Yeah, I was never really sold on 10GB-E as any alternative. But, I've never tried it so I don't know. I would love to test it. But, it just seems to me that the problem is audio over ethernet in the amount that we want to put through it and not the speed. 

I had a product called FX teleport back in the day. I use to use it on 1gigbit and it was flaky back then, I accidentally one day ran it through 100mbd internet connection, ran it for a while before I noticed and there was hardly any difference. I mean I did eventually notice that something was up but not for a while.

The thing that I can't understand, is that there are now ethernet networks running all sorts of audio over ethernet, but for some reason VEPro and other apps intended for VST hosting will crap out under intense loads. Makes no sense to me. In other words, I could hook up a Focusrite audio over Ethernet or Dante network hardwired just fine, but as soon as I use VEPro in server mode I'll get drop outs sooner or later. The other network audio would never drop out. Baffling.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jan 18, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> Jay and I are friends, you know. It's pretty lighthearted.


My comment was meant to be lighthearted too, Nick


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 18, 2015)

Whew. I thought I'd scared you off here too!


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 18, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> Whew. I thought I'd scared you off here too!



It's those thunderbolts from the top of Olympus....


----------



## azeteg (Jan 19, 2015)

marclawsonmusic @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> Martin, the comment on interleaved network connections is an interesting one. I imagine that 'interleaving' is achieved by alternating connections to VEPro instances on different subnets? (Assuming each slave is on it's own subnet). However, wouldn't traffic still bottleneck on its way back to the master computer? If so, it would seem the only way around that is to have multiple NICs in the master computer - which would effectively double bandwidth.



Multiple NIC's is the solution. Example:

Master:
NIC1: 10.0.1.100 / 255.255.255.0
NIC2: 10.0.2.100 / 255.255.255.0

Slave:
NIC1: 10.0.1.101 / 255.255.255.0
NIC2: 10.0.2.101 / 255.255.255.0


When setting up your connections in your master, make sure to evenly distribute your VEP instances by alternating connections between slave IP's 10.0.1.101 and 10.0.2.101.

What could make sense for larger setups is to run a multiheaded (quad-port) NIC on the master, and one NIC per slave - keeping each slave connection in a separate subnet.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jan 19, 2015)

Thank you, Martin.

This opens up a lot of possibilities for more demanding VEPro setups. Very cool.


----------



## FriFlo (Jan 19, 2015)

azeteg @ Mon Jan 19 said:


> marclawsonmusic @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Martin, the comment on interleaved network connections is an interesting one. I imagine that 'interleaving' is achieved by alternating connections to VEPro instances on different subnets? (Assuming each slave is on it's own subnet). However, wouldn't traffic still bottleneck on its way back to the master computer? If so, it would seem the only way around that is to have multiple NICs in the master computer - which would effectively double bandwidth.
> ...


Wow! That is a very good idea! So, if I were to buy additional 2 Gb Lan Ethernet ports for my main DAW (there are 2 installed on the motherboard), I could hook up to 4 slaves to the main DAW and each one would have the full bandwidth for incoming audio? This would probably almost quadruple the bandwidth! No need for 10GbE then, indeed!


----------



## Rob Elliott (Jan 19, 2015)

Thanks Martin for your contribution here. Making me really think through this as I am considering a new main daw build (I currently have and will continue with 3 PC slaves) - your solution seems quite beneficial and non 'bleeding-edge'. :wink:


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jan 19, 2015)

@FriFlo - The only limitation in this kind of setup would be the router. At some point, you could conceivably max out your router's capabilities. To get around that, you could direct-connect the cables to each of the slaves... or maybe just use a switch instead of a router.

Beyond that, it's down to the internal bus inside the main DAW - which will also max out at a certain point... But yeah, certainly a lot more possibilities with this setup. Very cool.


----------



## FriFlo (Jan 20, 2015)

marclawsonmusic @ Mon Jan 19 said:


> @FriFlo - The only limitation in this kind of setup would be the router. At some point, you could conceivably max out your router's capabilities. To get around that, you could direct-connect the cables to each of the slaves... or maybe just use a switch instead of a router.
> 
> Beyond that, it's down to the internal bus inside the main DAW - which will also max out at a certain point... But yeah, certainly a lot more possibilities with this setup. Very cool.


What do you mean by router? The router in the PCIe card with multiple ethernet ports? If I understand your setup correctly, there is no external router, like switch, right?


----------



## wcreed51 (Jan 20, 2015)

Because consumer grade network devices are frequently combined into one box, there is often confusion about what's what. A router shares your internet connection and gives out ip addresses. A switch is the junction box that everything plugs into. They're often combined in one box, but they're not the same thing.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jan 20, 2015)

FriFlo @ Tue Jan 20 said:


> What do you mean by router? The router in the PCIe card with multiple ethernet ports? If I understand your setup correctly, there is no external router, like switch, right?


In most network setups, there is a device the computers connect to called a router. It's job is to be 'traffic cop' for your network.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Router_%28computing%29

Routers often do other tasks such as assigning IP addresses, port forwarding, firewall, logging, etc... which is why I said it has the potential to become a bottleneck under certain conditions.

If you are cabling the computers directly to each other, you do not need this.


----------



## FriFlo (Jan 20, 2015)

Alright! I just confused switch with router.  So, if all slaves are connected to the main DAW directly and connected to the router with the second ethernet port (different subnets, as you described), such bottleneck would not exist?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 20, 2015)

Can you access separate subnets from the same switcher?

My PC slaves are ancient, so I'm not running a lot over the network even when I do bother turning them on. But at some point I'll add a PC slave from this decade, plus I should know more about this.

My current set-up is:

Cable modem -> router (Airport Extreme Base Station):

-> wi-fi and an access point (Airport Express) -> family computers, iCraps, DVR TV stuff, Belkin Wemo;

-> wired GbE to VOIP modem;

-> wired GbE to highest-numbered port in switcher -> 7 computers + ethernet printers/fax.

So how would I set it up if I were going to use the second port in my main Mac directly to a future PC slave? I believe the two ports are bridged by default anyway?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 20, 2015)

Actually, I have one switcher going into a second one for more ports.

It's ludicrous, because I use one computer 99% of the time, and I only use a wired connection to my laptop when I'm running music software on it.


----------



## FriFlo (May 17, 2016)

azeteg said:


> Multiple NIC's is the solution. Example:
> 
> Master:
> NIC1: 10.0.1.100 / 255.255.255.0
> ...


I am currently trying to set up my network like this. I have a Mac pro and a PC slave, both with 2 Ethernet ports. Both the Mac and the PC are directly connected to a router (Fritz Box 7390) for internet access and file sharing between them. All with a static IP:
Rauter/Standard Gateway: 192.168.178.1
Mask: 255.255.255.0
DNS-Server: 192.168.178.1
Mac: 192.168.178.16
PC: 192.168.178.17
This works without problems, also with VEpro.

Then I connected the second ethernet port of the mac and PC directly with a different subnet:
Mac-IP: 10.0.1.100
PC-IP: 10.0.1.101
Mask: 255.255.255.0
(I left standard gateway and DNS blank here)
I tested the network with a ping from PC to Mac and that went well! However, where I am stuck now is how to tell VEpro to connect via this second subnet!? Inside Cubase the plugin only promotes instances with the first IP address and manually typing in the corresponding IP addresses, VEpro could not connect ... what am I doing wrong?


----------



## garyhiebner (May 17, 2016)

When you guys set up the network between your slave and master, do you leave the gateway setting blank. I've seen a tutorial doing this but just wanted to check what others are doing?


----------



## reddognoyz (May 18, 2016)

I agree re: getting a new computer. We just bought a refurbed 2011 or 2012 cheesegrater mac with the fastest processer for... around 3k? I think. It'll work with all the hardware for the older mac and is a huge upgrade from Colin's older one.
I have a 10gigabit ethernet card in my slightly older cheesegrater mac( as recommended by Visiondaw), and I have yet to hit the wall with my Visiondaw pc slave. That is a boss bitchin' machine. If you a re running a big EW Hollywoods string template, you may need a dedicated slave, but otherwise... damn.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (May 18, 2016)

FriFlo said:


> Then I connected the second ethernet port of the mac and PC directly with a different subnet:
> Mac-IP: 10.0.1.100
> PC-IP: 10.0.1.101
> Mask: 255.255.255.0
> ...



I am not sure why you are trying to setup two networks, but if you are going down this path, you need the subnet mask to be 255.0.0.0 for the 10.x.x.x network.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network

I don't see any issue putting all these devices on the same network (the 192.x.x.x), but hey it's your setup.
Marc


----------



## FriFlo (May 18, 2016)

marclawsonmusic said:


> I am not sure why you are trying to setup two networks, but if you are going down this path, you need the subnet mask to be 255.0.0.0 for the 10.x.x.x network.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network
> 
> ...


I missed to mention, that there is another slave PC that I will add to the network, that will be using the connection via the router. So, that is why I want to have a dedicated network connection for the first slave to the master.
Actually, I am not sure your comment about the subnet mask is correct, as I used the very same numbers as in Martins example. Why would the subnet mask have to be a different one in this case?


----------



## marclawsonmusic (May 18, 2016)

I am not sure why Martin mentioned the other sequence of numbers in his example, and I am not disagreeing with him, I just know 255.0.0.0 works on my network and it is typically what is used with the 10.x.x.x private network. 

It's been 25 years since I was a LAN engineer so I can't remember the exact reasons and whether the subnet masks are interchangeable (it's IP math). I wish I had a better explanation. Sorry.


----------

