MuTools

fluffy_little_something · Fri May 27, 2016 12:08 pm

mutools wrote:
fluffy_little_something wrote:So it would be nice to be able to reliably check any time how far I still am from reaching my computer's limits...
What's wrong with MuLab's CPU meter? It gives you a good indication of where you are, CPU usage wise. You don't even need to switch to task manager.

Because I can't trust it. For instance when I work on a given song Mulab's meter shows, say, 50% regardless of how many cores I tell Mulab to use. Nor do Mulab's CPU meter and Task manager meters agree on the CPU usage. I have already described how oddly Mulab's supposed CPU load scales in the task manager depending on the number of cores used.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Fri May 27, 2016 12:23 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:Because I can't trust it. For instance when I work on a given song Mulab's meter shows, say, 50% regardless of how many cores I tell Mulab to use.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. If you add/remove cores, MuLab's CPU meter will definitely show a lower/higher value. I'm talking about real music projects here, not abstract empty test cases. The reason for that last sentence has already been explained.

Nor do Mulab's CPU meter and Task manager meters agree on the CPU usage.

They measure different things. Pls reread this topic.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Fri May 27, 2016 12:25 pm

EvilDragon wrote:Isn't task manager's CPU meter supposed to be the most accurate one there is?

Most possibly. Everyone can use the meter he feels most comfortable with / finds the most relevant. MuLab's CPU meter measures the actual audio CPU load and is available immediately from the musical workspace, handy info.

fluffy_little_something · Fri May 27, 2016 12:33 pm

mutools wrote:
fluffy_little_something wrote:Because I can't trust it. For instance when I work on a given song Mulab's meter shows, say, 50% regardless of how many cores I tell Mulab to use.
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. If you add/remove cores, MuLab's CPU meter will definitely show a lower/higher value. I'm talking about real music projects here, not abstract empty test cases. The reason for that last sentence has already been explained.

Nor do Mulab's CPU meter and Task manager meters agree on the CPU usage.
They measure different things. Pls reread this topic.

Mulab's meter hardly moved when I changed the number of cores on a NOT EMPTY project. Which makes me wonder, what exactly Mulab's CPU meter shows. What is the CPU to Mulab? The sum or average of all cores? That would make little sense as the limit is what the most occupied core can take. And that I can't check in Task Manager because it shows the same load for all cores, which is certainly not correct.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Fri May 27, 2016 12:39 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:Which makes me wonder, what exactly Mulab's CPU meter shows.

http://www.mutools.com/info/docs/mulab/transport.html

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Fri May 27, 2016 1:07 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:Mulab's meter hardly moved when I changed the number of cores on a NOT EMPTY project.

Repeatable with a pure MuLab project eg one of the demo projects? If yes please make a screen video demonstrating this ie. CPU meter hardly moves when changing number of processor cores. (i assume you're not talking about changing it from 11 to 12 cores, are you?)

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Fri May 27, 2016 1:13 pm

I also assumed you read the docs about hyperthreading at http://www.mutools.com/info/docs/mulab/audio-setup.html
So i assume you're not talking about hyperthreaded cores.

fluffy_little_something · Fri May 27, 2016 3:55 pm

Tried one of those demo tunes.

Mulab meter values:
1 core: 27% avg, 45% max
6 cores: 15% avg, 23% max

Task Manager values:
1 core: CPU 8%, about 20% on one core, the rest 0 to 5%
6 cores: CPU 20%, 10-20% on all six cores

I don't think there is any hyperthreading, my processor has 6 physical cores.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Fri May 27, 2016 3:57 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:Tried one of those demo tunes.

Which one?

fluffy_little_something · Fri May 27, 2016 4:03 pm

Dream of the piano

solipsvs · Post by **solipsvs** » Fri May 27, 2016 4:15 pm

wait maybe jo intends to mask whats actually happening in the core of the audio engine by being ambiguous when providing an explanation or a working solution to your spec. ok in this case perhaps it is a decent excuse for inaccurate info. jo doesnt wanna be hacked and my guess is this is a window into how mulab operates. much like uh-e masked processor usage in the latest pro-one demo thingy recently. someone might be able to tell something about the algorithms used by closely watching the processor load. am i way off here?

pljones · Post by **pljones** » Fri May 27, 2016 4:17 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:I don't think there is any hyperthreading, my processor has 6 physical cores.

If that's not the case, then you've only three and upping from 1 to 6 is essentially going from 1 to 3; that gives 2 cores to audio and one to the UI, which would give about the numbers you're seeing in MuLab. It also ties in with the numbers in Task Manager - from 20% on one core to 10% upwards (no longer tied up with UI work, so getting more audio work done) across all core (with hyperthreading spreading the load).

solipsvs wrote:wait maybe jo intends to mask whats actually happening in the core of the audio engine by being ambiguous when providing an explanation or a working solution to your spec. ok in this case perhaps it is a decent excuse for inaccurate info. jo doesnt wanna be hacked and my guess is this is a window into how mulab operates. much like uh-e masked processor usage in the latest pro-one demo thingy recently. someone might be able to tell something about the algorithms used by closely watching the processor load. am i way off here?

Jo has consistently stated what the CPU indicator in MuLab shows ever since it was introduced. There's nothing been mentioned in this thread or elsewhere that, for me, in anyway raises a question over that it shows what it's intended to show.

fluffy_little_something · Fri May 27, 2016 4:26 pm

Nope, 6 cores and 6 threads

No Hyperthreading...

Maybe it is a Task Manager bug. The more cores I use, the less the load should be per core. At least that is my fluffy logic

fluffy_little_something · Fri May 27, 2016 4:29 pm

solipsvs wrote:wait maybe jo intends to mask whats actually happening in the core of the audio engine by being ambiguous when providing an explanation or a working solution to your spec. ok in this case perhaps it is a decent excuse for inaccurate info. jo doesnt wanna be hacked and my guess is this is a window into how mulab operates. much like uh-e masked processor usage in the latest pro-one demo thingy recently. someone might be able to tell something about the algorithms used by closely watching the processor load. am i way off here?

Nah, there is nothing for Jo to deliberately hide. If anything there is some unknown issue...

U-he only did that with their synth in order to keep people from thinking that the most demanding filter model must also sound the best.

solipsvs · Post by **solipsvs** » Fri May 27, 2016 4:33 pm

pljones wrote:Jo has consistently stated what the CPU indicator in MuLab shows ever since it was introduced. There's nothing been mentioned in this thread or elsewhere that, for me, in anyway raises a question over that it shows what it's intended to show.

you sir are a master of ambiguity. you are also the one who introduced muzys to me back in the day. respect.

MuTools

KVR Audio

Mulab's CPU efficiency ...