I need make a full CS6 or CS5 AE install,
Is there any option for "render only" on linux boxes (renderFarm)?
There is no Linux version of AE, not even AE render. At best, you could handle it through WINE or otehr emulators, but that is building problems on top of problems. so unless you have a Windows based or Mac render farm, forget that plan.
Moving this discussion to the After Effects forum.
thanks for your reply
Our small renderfarm is running Centos64 - (for Maya and MRSatellite setups), CS5 workstation is running on Win7 64, the other ones are WinXP64, so I will need some OS upgrades to test it... Need to think about it...
Sorry! I new to this forum...
No worries Antonio just getting your discussion to the correct location. Looks like Mylenium may have already answered your inquiry though.
I would like to bump this discussion - it is now 2015 and Linux is not going away, in fact Unix & Linux are heavily used in pro rendering houses.
It is only going to get bigger market share as Steam drive the console market with their Linux variant SteamOS. (don't make the mistake of underestimating how much gamers drive the computing market)
When, oh when, will Adobe finally port render farm capability to Linux?
There are some fantastic opportunities for rendering on non-Intel based devices with CUDA graphics capability embedded, returning 29 GFLOPS per watt.
This really should not be overlooked any longer.
Can anybody at Adobe tell me when you are going to take Linux seriously as a platform?
Commercial Linux distributions have been available for 20 years now (Caldera Linux 1995).
Any inside answers? I'm uninterested in opinions from outsiders but would like to see an Adobe rep answer this question.
"We're not going to develop for Linux" is not an acceptable answer.
Just as in the old days Adobe development was MAC first, MS Windows a very slow second and now this has changed due to OS market share changes, so now Linux needs to be put on the development timeline.
> Can anybody at Adobe tell me when you are going to take Linux seriously as a platform?
We do take it seriously. We take it seriously enough to frequently revisit the question of whether a Linux port would be cost-effective. And every time so far, the answer is the same: Our best models show that we would not make the money back that we would spend on the port.
(BTW, this is coming from someone with a computer at home running Linux... as well as one running Windows and one running Mac OS.)
Cost Effective? Wouldn't make the money back? It's not that simple. There would be a lot of support from the community for a platform independent software development. The problem is the EXTENSIBILITY ARCHITECTURE. What? In short, PLUGINS and ADDONS. While code of the JAVA type can run on almost any environment, and adobe JSX or Jscript run the same in each program when coded with the standard adobe object libraries, there's a lot more under the hood with Linux to get the same stuff to run the same way. The basic instruction sets are different, the file locations, and much more. I don't know what the Software was coded in, but if main underlying functions were coded in a cross platform code that had at least similar interface element libraries across the different systems, that would be different. Linux really doesn't have much of an interface element set, it's mostly programmer selected based on the hardware. Adobe is a highly visually interactive environment.
That said... ...If you really are into farming, it's not a great leap to build a virtualization server with multi-virtual terminal support, install cheap windows software (some places sell old copies really cheap or in bulk) or Download the mac software, run it in a VM with dedicated cores and ram, then farm that. Since they'd be on a server machine anyway, you could dedicate cores for the server, and some ram, and run all or part of your network from it, turning it into your primary hub. Give it enough ram and core to handle all of the motion of the data, and you can connect NAS, ESATA, etc to build your storage locations and provide the access speeds necessary to render as fast as possible.
I'm sorry but this is utter rubbish. This i feel is a classic example of every big company with it's head up it's backside. there are massive render farms all over the world with large scale enterprise linux deployments, and you're saying that Adobe won't consider simply porting/compiling the software to run on such systems "because there is no demand".
How can there be demand for a product that is not available because the people responsible for it are living with their heads in the creative cloud instead of back down on earth where people are asking for it to happen?
I think you will find there is plenty of demand, you're (the company) just being too stubborn and lazy to put a foot forward on the issue.
You're basically asking everyone to ditch everything they have working on their well tuned Linux environments, to drop and run towards a much less favourable and optimised solution, for the sake of your software.
Please, Adobe.. get over yourselves! it's 2015
I'd love a linux variant, but I know enough to build my own with existing Base-runningCore-APP setup. I walked a guy through this over the phone; Remember those 3 i7Quads I told you about? He does 4k at just under an hour per hour. Compressing back to playable in editors takes even less time on a win tower that's dedicated with an NVIDIA Radeon card with 2gb of on-card ram, 16gb on the motherboard and a Quad core. The heat is the problem he deals with. But a few liquid cooling fans and, according to him, smooth sailing, hot machines that have a non-motherboard fan constantly on, they render 4 hours at a time, and are scripted to shutdown when they finish. The compression step is scripted into a Powershell message that gets sent when the last image is rendered. It opens AME with a watch folder already set, and renders the folder as a compressed video proxy for editing. The multicore renderers all use linux as the base system, the guest renderers are all win, and use AE, and he's got 3 full licenses. I think he's running CS6. He didn't want to run anything higher. Win7 installs. Pro, not home. Bought cheap.