Running Multiple instances of CloneBD

[extremeps]

So I am doing a new computer build and wanted to know thew best way to run AnyDVD and CloneBD if I want to be able to run multiple instances of it. I will have 4 2TB NVME's on the computer so would I need to set up AnyDVD and CloneBD on each drive or what is the best way to do that sort of thing?

 

[DQ]

If you are referring to running multiple instances of each program on the same PC I would not recommend doing that and I am not really sure why you would want to. In the case of CloneBD it's going to use hardware resources that multiple instances (if that's even possible) would just end up fighting over and slowing each other down. With AS that ends up as a similar situation but more to do about bandwidth. Although with AS that might be a license violation also. I suspect neither application is meant to be used that way and doing so is probably just going to be a pain if it's even possible.

 

[cartman0208]

Well, if you are doing HW encodes with Nvidia, and you own the 40 generation, you could go for that ... since those feature 2 NVENC engines.
Yes, the processing speed of the first instance will drop by about 25-30% but if you really need to handle many videos, that is the way to go.

You can see when I started the second instance (reencoding an UHD).

 

[coopervid]

Well, if you are doing HW encodes with Nvidia, and you own the 40 generation, you could go for that ... since those feature 2 NVENC engines.
Yes, the processing speed of the first instance will drop by about 25-30% but if you really need to handle many videos, that is the way to go.
View attachment 73695
You can see when I started the second instance (reencoding an UHD).

Is that using CloneBD? I guess not since I was told some time ago that CBD only uses 1 NVENC engine.

 

[cartman0208]

Is that using CloneBD? I guess not since I was told some time ago that CBD only uses 1 NVENC engine.

It is ... Running one instance of CBD with 90FPS and two with 60 each

 

[coopervid]

OK. Makes sense. The info was based on one instance of CBD that it will use only 1 NVEC engine. Or does it also use both?

 

[cartman0208]

Or does it also use both?

Don't think so ... you can see in the Screenshot that the video encode utilization is flat at around half utization until I start the second instance ... that leads me to believe that CBD uses only one engine/chip

 

[coopervid]

That's what Reto told me a few years ago. There was a patch available to remove the limitations of the driver but he said that won't help.


https://github.com/keylase/nvidia-patch/tree/master/win

 

[tectpro]

So I am doing a new computer build and wanted to know thew best way to run AnyDVD and CloneBD if I want to be able to run multiple instances of it. I will have 4 2TB NVME's on the computer so would I need to set up AnyDVD and CloneBD on each drive or what is the best way to do that sort of thing?

AnyDVD HD can handle more than one disc at a time, optical drive or virtual drive via Virtual CloneDrive.
As for UHD please read here:

Unable to analyse UHD disc if another one is already processed?

I am not sure if this has been reported or not. When using AnyDVD and copying several UHD discs simultaneously everything works fine (tested with max 4 discs). However, as soon as one of the UHD discs is done and a new disc is inserted into that drive it will not analyse the disc or better say...

forum.redfox.bz

Well, if you are doing HW encodes with Nvidia, and you own the 40 generation, you could go for that ... since those feature 2 NVENC engines.
Yes, the processing speed of the first instance will drop by about 25-30% but if you really need to handle many videos, that is the way to go.
View attachment 73695
You can see when I started the second instance (reencoding an UHD).

It is ... Running one instance of CBD with 90FPS and two with 60 each

1. I have conducted tests using an alternative encoding tool, and my findings have consistently shown that when two instances are running simultaneously, the encoding speed remains near unaffected, with both instances maintaining a near-steady fps output. This empirical evidence suggests that both NVENC engines are being employed without detriment to the performance of either instance.
   
   
2. In the example you provided, the video encodes utilisation stood at 81%, which raises questions regarding the full utilisation of the available encoding engines. This under-utilization may likely stem from CloneBD's age and potential lack of optimization for the latest generation of GPUs.
   
   
3. I must also express my reservations regarding the substantial 25-30% decline in processing speed you observed. Should both NVENC engines be operating optimally, I anticipate a much smaller decrease in encoding speed. A reduction of around 2-5% may be expected; however, a drop from for example 200fps to 140-160fps (representing a 40-60fps decrease) strongly suggests that external factors could influence the encoding speed.

That's what Reto told me a few years ago. There was a patch available to remove the limitations of the driver but he said that won't help.


https://github.com/keylase/nvidia-patch/tree/master/win

To my knowledge, the patch in question only addresses software or driver limitations rather than enabling additional hardware engines. The NVENC engines are hardware components, and their number is fixed in each GPU model. Therefore, any changes made at the driver or software level would not increase the number of available encoding engines.

When using the patch, it is indeed possible to run multiple encodes concurrently. However, the total encoding capacity is still restricted by the number of available NVENC engines on the GPU. In cases where multiple encodes are run on a single engine, the engine will divide its resources to handle both tasks, which inevitably leads to a substantial reduction in encoding speed. For example, with two encodes on one engine, the engine's resources will be split between the two, resulting in a drastic drop in performance for each.

While this patch might be beneficial for real-time encodes where immediate processing is critical, I would like to note that, to the best of my knowledge, NVIDIA has already addressed this limitation in their latest drivers. This decision was likely a response to customer feedback and the evolving needs of users.

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidia-removes-encoding-limitations-on-consumer-gpus-allowing-up-to-5-simultaneous-streams.html#:~:text=NVIDIA%20has%20made%20a%20quiet,limitation%20of%20three%20NVENC%20encodes.

 

[coopervid]

Perfect summary!