Exclamation mark in CPU% bar?
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
You mention partitions. How many do you have, and how are they set up?
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 544 posts since 24 Jan, 2004 from Sweden
I have three partitions:
The first is 20 GB for programs
The second is 30 GB for data
The third is 30 GB for audio (used for Tracktion)
/Jörgen
The first is 20 GB for programs
The second is 30 GB for data
The third is 30 GB for audio (used for Tracktion)
/Jörgen
-
- KVRAF
- 3364 posts since 16 Feb, 2004 from atop a katamari
just as an aside, the earlier partitions are said to be quicker to access than the later ones; apparently it's better if you have your audio partition created first as it's going to be more speed critical.
that said, i know where you're coming from with hd issues. my computer's not slow, and my hard disk isn't either, yet i get the ! way more frequently than cpu burnout, and i don't feel i'm pushing too hard.
that said, i know where you're coming from with hd issues. my computer's not slow, and my hard disk isn't either, yet i get the ! way more frequently than cpu burnout, and i don't feel i'm pushing too hard.
Kick, punch, it's all in the mind.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 544 posts since 24 Jan, 2004 from Sweden
Well, maybe I should get a second HD. Will this make a huge difference?haydxn wrote:just as an aside, the earlier partitions are said to be quicker to access than the later ones; apparently it's better if you have your audio partition created first as it's going to be more speed critical.
But somehow I doubt that the HD is the culprit in this case. What makes me suspicious is that I have done a number of things that should affect the HD read speed, but the problem remains exactly the same. I mean, if it really was the HD speed, there should have been some difference, even if the problem would not be completely solved.
/Jörgen
-
- KVRAF
- 4644 posts since 28 Nov, 2002 from Chicago
I'm inclined to agree with you.
I think whatever is causing the bottleneck in performance is not something that should be fixed by just throwing extra hard-drives at the problem.
Out of interest, have you ran Sandra or any other benchmarking software? Most will show hard-drive throughput, and can often highlight system bottlenecks that are being caused by other, sometimes seemingly unrelated, factors.
I think whatever is causing the bottleneck in performance is not something that should be fixed by just throwing extra hard-drives at the problem.
Out of interest, have you ran Sandra or any other benchmarking software? Most will show hard-drive throughput, and can often highlight system bottlenecks that are being caused by other, sometimes seemingly unrelated, factors.
Someone shot the food. Remember: don't shoot food!
-
- KVRAF
- 2417 posts since 17 Jun, 2003
Don't want to be pushy, but what happens if you archive the project, then unarchive it somewhere else on your hard drive? Does that version run any better?
"my gosh it's a friggin hardware"
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 544 posts since 24 Jan, 2004 from Sweden
[quote="valley"]Out of interest, have you ran Sandra or any other benchmarking software?/quote]
Well, I just ran PCMark 2002 from Mad Onion Sotfware. Here are the results:
Cached write: 23.9 19.5
Uncached write: 11.4 19.7
Cached read: 30.7 28.0
Uncached read: 39.0 30.3
File copy: 13.0 12.0
The results are in megabytes per second. The first digit is for the C partition and the second ones are for the F partition that I use for audio.
As can be seen, the F partition is indeed slower, but not dramatically so.
I don't know if these are good results in general, but the number of megabytes per second seem fairly large to me.
/Jörgen
Well, I just ran PCMark 2002 from Mad Onion Sotfware. Here are the results:
Cached write: 23.9 19.5
Uncached write: 11.4 19.7
Cached read: 30.7 28.0
Uncached read: 39.0 30.3
File copy: 13.0 12.0
The results are in megabytes per second. The first digit is for the C partition and the second ones are for the F partition that I use for audio.
As can be seen, the F partition is indeed slower, but not dramatically so.
I don't know if these are good results in general, but the number of megabytes per second seem fairly large to me.
/Jörgen
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 544 posts since 24 Jan, 2004 from Sweden
Fixed at 1536 kBtitanium wrote:What about your paging files?
/Jörgen
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
Having 3 partitions will definitely impact your performance, but for 8 tracks? Shouldn't be a show-stopper.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 544 posts since 24 Jan, 2004 from Sweden
Well, three of the tracks are stereo, so that means ten times 88000 bytes per second. That's less than one megabyte per second. But according to the test, my disk can read 28 megabyte per second on the F partition! So disk read speed can hardly be the problem.Lunch Money wrote:Having 3 partitions will definitely impact your performance, but for 8 tracks? Shouldn't be a show-stopper.
/Jörgen
-
- KVRAF
- 2417 posts since 17 Jun, 2003
As an aside, sysintenals in general do some very useful tools. Great little website.
So, uh ... about that archive/unarchive idea?
"my gosh it's a friggin hardware"
-
- KVRAF
- 2750 posts since 2 Feb, 2005 from Raincoast of Grayland
No read speed problems here either, but my dedicated audio drive bumps into the ! at times too. And it appears to be when a single track has a vast number of edits. Although this occurs on 40+ 24bit tracks, if the overly tweaked track is muted, all is fine again. A coincidence? I think not. Something about random seeks in the same source file or buffers, perhaps?
Why two minutes of live performance requires 10 takes and 100 edits is another question we could answer at another time.
As a possible sidenote to this behaviour, have you noticed that Tracktion can playback more solo'd tracks than if the unwanted tracks are muted? For example with 50 tracks in an edit, if 25 are solo'd playback is fine. With 25 muted it's all !!! and stutters.
Why two minutes of live performance requires 10 takes and 100 edits is another question we could answer at another time.
As a possible sidenote to this behaviour, have you noticed that Tracktion can playback more solo'd tracks than if the unwanted tracks are muted? For example with 50 tracks in an edit, if 25 are solo'd playback is fine. With 25 muted it's all !!! and stutters.
perception: the stuff reality is made of.
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
Isn't that what I said?Stuttaton wrote:Well, three of the tracks are stereo, so that means ten times 88000 bytes per second. That's less than one megabyte per second. But according to the test, my disk can read 28 megabyte per second on the F partition! So disk read speed can hardly be the problem.Lunch Money wrote:Having 3 partitions will definitely impact your performance, but for 8 tracks? Shouldn't be a show-stopper.
