I'm considering Maya 5 for Linux. Can anyone report on stability/succes of this setup, such as graphics card performance (HP XW8000, NVIDIA QFX2K, RHEL 3). Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks.
i run a pretty cool rig (not linux wise) but I got it up and running in less then a day, 3d, sound and etc, and maya 5 unlt. on SuSE 9 (which is not even supported by alias).
Shouldn't have any problems.
I've heard that Maya 5 runs faster on Linux than Windows or OSX though I'm still waiting to see some Spec.org tests to confim this. I noticed myself going from Windows to Linux with Maya that things do seem to work faster. Maybe that's due to Alias coding of Maya for Linux or Linux allowing you more control over the OS and apps. Currently using Maya 5 Ultd on SuSE Pro 9.0 and a Quadro FX 500.
I forgot to add some sites that may interest you coming from your previous platform to Linux. Also welcome to the Linux community.
http://www.linuxiso.org/forums/
Thanks very much. I appreciate all the links and I'll check them out.
......"I've heard that Maya 5 runs faster on Linux than Windows or OSX though I'm still waiting to see some Spec.org tests to confim this......"
That's just a silly mith running through "young" users. Just to make clear :
1-THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES REGARDING RENDERING TIME, MODELLING, ANIMATION...BETWEEN LINUX AND WINDOWS.Sometime in Linux the application (eg.XSI) can be even slower cause the use of emulation libs (WinAll).
2-The only reason for which major studios (ILM, WETA, ANIMAL-LOGIC..) use linux is just MONEY!!. How much you've to spend for 500-1000 XP-pro licenses ? and how much (nothing) for linux?.
3-I could get a very little improve in the performance ( opening and closing of windows, shading in the wiewports) using maya 4.5 ad slackware 9.0. But that could be achived after a week of tweking and recompiling everything from scratch (Xfree, Kernel). At the end we loose money for a week of work just for achieving little extra performance.
So if you are a serious animator, modeller composer.. and you are not working with a mega-farm I advise you to not waste your time in scripting and configuring a system (Linux) which is still turned to engineer, physicist, hacker...
Bye
It's been known for a long time by many artists and IT personnel that Linux is far better at application/memory management than Windows. Poor memory management such as that in Windows impacts the performance of apps. Stability and security are two other important factors when considering an OS which Linux has. As for emulation libs affecting performance on Linux I would have to disagree. Everyone I've talked to has seen improvement when using both XSI and Maya on Linux. After all both Maya and XSI are ported to Linux not emulated and far as I was told the "libs" were written for Linux not Win32.
ILM, Weta, AL, etc only reason for using Linux is because of money? Money is important but not the only thing to consider when setting up a studio. Linux = Freedom is not the same as a free lunch. Not everything in the Open Source community is free for Linux..most are but not all. Yes you do cut significant costs by switching to Linux but that's not the only reason to change platforms. The Open Source Model of developing is far better for studios than the closed world of Windows proprietory tools. ILM for example uses a lot of 3D and 2D software custom developed for artists on Linux. They obviously found Linux a better solution to other OS's.
I like your last comment best advising artists that unless they are working on setting up a mega-farm (I think you meant render farm) to avoid Linux. Since as you put it they would be waisting their time scripting and configuring a Linux system which is more tuned for an engineer, physicist or hacker. Okay, Mr. Gates...lol. I suggest you try several distros (RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE and the list goes on) before making such a biased statement. I've been using Windows and Apple computers since I was a kid and now in my 30's have found what I was missing since switching to Linux. I've tried several distros and fell in love with SuSE since I found it made the Windows to Linux transition the easiest. I didn't have to spend a week tweaking and recompiling my system. I don't have to use Bash and the Terminal for everything but it's there to offer increased power and speed of workflow. That's something studios want in both their software and OS. At least when I used SuSE and Mandrake they installed with perfection. If I thought tweaking was needed which it didn't, then I would have that option to do so unlike other platforms.
It's really your decision to chose what you want to use but I do hope you keep an open mind by seeing what Linux has to really offer. Whether you are an IT Admin, studio owner, artist or developer Linux far exceeds what is available when comparing other OS's. I'll include a few links for you to hopefully enlighten you more on Linux.
LINUX VS. WINDOWS
http://www.michaelhorowitz.com/Linux.vs.Windows.htmlhttp://www.michaelhorowitz.com/Linux.vs.Windows.html
WINDOWS TO LINUX USER EXPERIENCE
http://www.waltercedric.com/pc/suse/myExperience.htmhttp://www.waltercedric.com/pc/suse/myExperience.htm
DEBUNKING GNU/LINUX MYTHS
http://www.thejemreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=113http://www.thejemreport.com/modules.php?op...cle&sid=113
DISTRO COMPARISON:
http://www.distrowatch.com/http://www.distrowatch.com/
I'm sorry oran68 but you are incorrect and have no idea what you are talking about.
1-THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES REGARDING RENDERING TIME, MODELLING, ANIMATION...BETWEEN LINUX AND WINDOWS.Sometime in Linux the application (eg.XSI) can be even slower cause the use of emulation libs (WinAll).
Yes there is a difference. I am comming from a Maya/Houdini professional environment, no idea about XSI on linux. My linux box is much snappier than working in XP or win2k. Particles are much faster in linux. Try creating 1 million particles on windows, it will take forever and most likely just freeze up. Try the same thing on linux, it happend in under a minute. Render time I have solid numbers that prove that linux is much faster and more memory efficient then on windows. Maya renders 15-30% faster, fur especially renders much faster(2-4x faster). Shadow maps above 2-3k can't even render on windows in maya because they use too much memory but have no problems on linux(8k shadow map, no problem). Maya on linux uses 1/2-1/4th the ram the same exact scene on windows uses.
If your all taking this from an XSI point of view, maybe it is because m$ had them port a huge amount of Visual C/Basic libraries from windows to linux in order to get it done. No concreate facts on this though because I don't personally use XSI.
2-The only reason for which major studios (ILM, WETA, ANIMAL-LOGIC..) use linux is just MONEY!!. How much you've to spend for 500-1000 XP-pro licenses ? and how much (nothing) for linux?.
Incorrect again. XP pro license is between $150(OEM) to $300 for the standard version, not $500-1000. That is the price of the server license. Most studios are using Red Hat Advanced Workstation/Server, which costs between $179 and $2000. The OEM version of XP is actually cheaper than Red Hat WS. In the general gist of things $100-$500 is nothing, your employees are much more expensive and make up 75-90% of the studios costs. Just look at weta, they spent 6-8k per machine on render boxes from IBM for ROTK. Do you think they were seriously bitching about a $150 license of XP or Red Hat?
Most studios use Linux because they came from the Irix world and they have thousands of tools all written on it. Porting those tools to linux is much easier then porting them to windows.
3-I could get a very little improve in the performance ( opening and closing of windows, shading in the wiewports) using maya 4.5 ad slackware 9.0. But that could be achived after a week of tweking and recompiling everything from scratch (Xfree, Kernel). At the end we loose money for a week of work just for achieving little extra performance.
I'm sorry that you don't understand linux, but many of us can use it just as easily as we can windows and much faster. Don't blame us for your lack of knowledge.
Please back up your information with facts, not just some lame ass information you have from reading stuff on the web and your limited inexperience in using linux.
..... Render time I have solid numbers that prove that linux is much faster and more memory efficient then on windows. Maya renders 15-30% faster, fur especially renders much faster(2-4x faster)....
WHAT!?! Even the stones know that rendering is 100% CPU-dependent and not OS-dependent. BTW, send me the links of some benchmarks which show this faster rendering time on linux os and we will see at the end which are the real FACTS.
.....If your all taking this from an XSI point of view, maybe it is because m$ had them port a huge amount of Visual C/Basic libraries from windows to linux in order to get it done.....
Again another "STRONZATA". This is not due to "the huge amount of Visual C/Basic (?!?!) libraries" but to the use of emulation libs (WinAll) which slow somewhat the app.
.... XP pro license is between $150(OEM) to $300 for the standard version, not $500-1000....
Ehi but you're really "CEREBROLESO". 500-1000 was a reference numbers of nodes and not the price for the XP-Pro.
....I'm sorry that you don't understand linux, but many of us can use it just as easily as we can windows and much faster. Don't blame us for your lack of knowledge.
Well, I do not know how hold you are and for how long you are using Linux, but I'm working on unix systems from the age of 15 (now I'm 35) and maybe I know enough for making a judgment.
Bye
Enrico
from my experience, rendering times is about as fast/slow on all platforms, Alias did a good job on all implementations. What's faster on Linux is often interface updates and other interactivity. Cant speak for everyone but its my experience.
Guess this speed discussion is also often about implementation and not just what OS you are running. Speaking of UNIX/Linux, The UNIX API is very robust and has been around since the beginning and it makes it very efficient to work with, never worked on a system for win32 though.
When it comes to general speed of common applications Linux is OFTEN faster. We did a speed test with Syflex some time ago and it was a clear winner over Windows.
And when people say "UNIX is for hackers, student, technicans" they ARE SO WRONG! just because UNIX provides no general policy for Interface and Window Management (like Windows) it can still be used by "artists". Installing the new distributions is NOT harder than any Windows installation. And GNOME/KDE is excellent environments like somebody else pointed out!
UNIX has a lot of things to offer, and its OPEN, there is also a huge community!
Thats my thoughts! I hope I dont get a rain of critic now 
// joda
Joda,
Lets try to not compare Linux with UNIX. They may be similer but do not use identical code. This is one of the disputes Linux users have with SCO's attack on the community. SCO still has not provided evidence they own any copywritten code in Linux. Also Maya is only ported to Windows, OSX, Linux and IRIX systems not UNIX. With the way things are going between Alias and SGI I would say in time they will axe the IRIX platform. A lot of studios are either using Linux or slowly transistioning to Linux for the reasons I stated in my previous post.
The previous poster was disputing the performance of Maya for Windows against Maya for Linux. Hopefully studios can start sending test results to http://www.specbench.org/http://www.specbench.org/ so they can be listed in their database online for all to see. Why I say studios is because they can produce ideal conditions. I don't consider test results from users of Maya with low end hardware. It doesn't indicate what Maya is truely capable off.
As for general system performance tests with out Maya I found some links. See below.
PIPE SPEED TEST:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-rt4/http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-rt4/
BLOCK MEMORY TEST:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-rt2/index.htmlhttp://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linu...-rt2/index.html
COMPARING LINUX KERNEL 2.4 TO THE NEW 2.6:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-web26/index.htmlhttp://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linu...eb26/index.html
RELIABILITY TEST:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-rel/http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-rel/
NT VS. LINUX BENCHMARK TESTS:
http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.htmlhttp://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html
I can verify that the linux version of maya indeed renders faster in many circumstances and its capable of things the win version isnt!
....Dark_Knight those tests has nothing to do with rendering (they tests a completely diffrent part of system performance). Anyway, I think you do not need a Phd in CS for understanding that RENDERING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OS....Uhh so sloooow to catch..
Enrico
Ohh..At least on perl in this baby-level discussion forum
....it can still be used by "artists"
No that's not true. If an artists wants to work with Linux he has to be an hacker for coding most of the tools (plug-in, script or real applications) that in windows are all just coded by someone else. I do not want to say that this is bad (of course) but if time is your problem($) and you work as a freelance I think is better to have all the tools ready for you.
Cheers
Enrico
Enrico
I think you do not need a Phd in CS for understanding that RENDERING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OS.
Actualy, your statement is wrong. Se the os provides a bunch of routines and checks for the rendering eingene to use. And now the speed at wich you render is directly dependent on theese services. Things linke memory management are curical to the render eingene. This is pretty academic tough, but id asume the better performance is just a direct cause form a more direct controll form the renderers part.
The crunching speed is not different but other influencing factors are, wich do affect speed
Enrico,
I don't understand why you even are in the Linux forum? From the beginning you have set out to bash Linux in one fashion or another. Either you are a fanatical Microsoft user or member of SCO, it's clear that your mind appears closed to the advantages of Linux.
The original poster "John" asked a simple question to make his decision on purchasing Maya for Linux a wise choice. No one in the Linux community will ever force someone to use Linux. We only try to point out the advantages Linux has over other OS's.
I do have to state I don't like you continually trying to belittle the intelligence of either myself or other Highend members. We are all here to help each other with out causing grief or resorting to using caps on every single word to make our point. I noticed some new members are not fluent in English but do you see myself or other senior members belittling them? No because we are mature enough to not behave as children.
Artists do not need a Phd in programming from CalTech or MIT to understand how to use both our artist tools or Linux. If a user did wish to install drivers, compile code or recompile the kernel, etc most distros come with helpful information on doing this. Otherwise he or she could find the info online or at a forum such as this.
I posted those links for not only the original poster but also you to see how Linux benchmark tests compared with NT. I clearly stated they excluded Maya. Maya's performance is not just impacted by a users hardware but also the OS. You can argue this point until you are blue in the face but since I myself have used Maya on Win2000, WinXP and Linux I have seen differances. You don't have to believe me and I really don't care. No one is forcing you to use Linux like I stated in my previous post.
John,
Go to the "benchmark" link for Maya/Mental Ray tests (see lower right side of web page) at http://www.zoorender.com/. There are several test result on differant workstations and OS. On newer systems Linux is ahead of Windows and OSX is left even farther behind. I thought the G5 is supposed to be the fastest desktop in the world...lol. I suggest also using the one at http://www.specbench.org/. Look for the Maya test which has a downloadable test file. If you are also considering upgrading your graphics hardware this link http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030916/index.html has a review of pro graphics cards with Maya as one of the tests.
"....it can still be used by "artists"
No that's not true. If an artists wants to work with Linux he has to be an hacker for coding most of the tools (plug-in, script or real applications) that in windows are all just coded by someone else. I do not want to say that this is bad (of course) but if time is your problem($) and you work as a freelance I think is better to have all the tools ready for you.
"
I make ALL my art in Linux, and I use Maya and Gimp.
After I changed from Windows to Linux it took me 3 hours to get Red Hat, Maya 5 and Gimp to work perfectly, I can't see why I have to be a hacker to make that work.
The plugins is another thing. Free plugins often don't come in .so format, but the proffesional plugins often has a version for Linux.
And all the scripts for Maya I've tried works for Linux because the mel-scripts often doesn't have anything to do with the os at all (except rendering scripts etc).
I find it easier to install Maya on linux than windows.
Now If I would need a window app I just emulate it thorugh wine.
I can't see why you say that Linux is not for artists, and honestly, you speak as you don't have any experience of it...
I can't see why you say that Linux is not for artists, and honestly, you speak as you don't have any experience of it...
You took the words out of my mouth.
Exactly why I decided to not respond to his posts because it will be like arguing with a frickin uneducated wall who is talking out of his ass.
Hi.
Apparently your computer science degree has conveniently left out that the OS has everything to do with how quickly data is passed from memory to CPU and back again.
It also handles how its done and in what size chunks.
its responsible for memory management and much much more.
if you don't think this can affect performance then you should probably go and read a few benchmark sites and see for yourself. I see your more than happy to discount any results posted though since they don't 'jive' with your opinion.
Might be worth taking note the performance benefits gained on the desktop by just switching from kernel version 2.4 to 2.6.
Also; I notice that theres now windows API emulation with the maya bins. I'm not sure where you got that from. Maybe you just felt like flexin the ole e-pecker a bit.
You cite OS licensing as the number one reason though also leaving out things like flexibility and performance. Think about it. If a studio can afford 2500 licenses of a renderer at 1000+ a CPU then I think they can afford a couple XP Pro licenses at 200.
And sure I haven't been working on unix systems for 20 years but damn the man if your judgement sucks. What did you do with unix systems? Were you just an operator? Have you ever done support for them? Have you ever actually run any conclusive tests to back up your statements? Or are you the type of guy that say "well this dual xeon 3.2 with 2gb of RAM seems faster than that pII 450 with linux and 384mb of RAM so linux obviously sucks"
Man o man. Maybe I should go to your school and learn how things don't work so I can troll a thread and sound really cool while doing it.
edit:
So as not to be completely off topic after mister "I HAVE A COMPUTAR SYANCE DEGREE AND I NO HOW 2 MAEK CUMPUTAR GO"'s untimely derail;
The stability should be just fine. Red Hat's enterprise linux is a finely tuned and very stable distribution that is rock solid. Maya is equally solid on the platform as well and I notice that some of the odd graphics glitches that occur on windows don't seem to crop up as much on the linux side of things.