Compressor 5x Slower than past

I have been editing some lectures in SD for a couple of years, and sending to Compressor for H264 iPad, iPhone. Support slides, videos are edited in, shapes used to highlight different items. Encode times for 40-50 minute program range 5 to 6 hours. Got one going now that is over 19 hours in and almost 7 hours remaining. No setting changes made, so I wonder if anyone has any suggestions regarding source of the slowness. Mac Pro Quad Core OS 10.5.8.
Thanks in advance for any clues.

Thanks for your response, Micheal. In looking around for a solution I did see several posters suggesting exporting a .mov first, then importing that into Compressor. I have always gone from the FCP timeline, and always been able to get away with letting it encode overnight to find successful completion the next morning. Yesterday I learned that there are clear advantages to exporting QT first so will start doing that.
I need to find a simple fools guide to setting up a render cluster for just the one Mac Pro.
Use Disk Warrior regularly. Drives have at least 25% free capacity, thanks for mentioning that.
I did use Disk Utility to repair permissions - there were several that needed it. Also 'Reset Background Processing' in Compressor, and downloaded and ran the free utlilty Compressor Repair. As a result, encoding the same lecture for DVD at best quality 90-minute took a much more normal 5 hours and 43 minutes.
Glad not to be looking at possible drive failure, even though I do keep drives backed up.
Once again, thanks for your suggestions. Much appreciated.

Similar Messages

Compressor 3 slower than Compressor 2?

Both myself and an editor I work with have found that Compressor 3 is 40% to 50% slower than Compressor 2.
As an example, I encoded a large (640x360) anamorphic H.264 from a DV film in Compressor 2, and it took a little less than 40 minutes. In Compressor 3, using the same DV film and the same preset, the encode took 56 minutes.
Both myself and the editor I mentioned before are using G5 based machines. Is that the issue?

Well, I have heard this lament before with the G5s, and all I can say is that I guess Apple is slowly starting to drop support for the PowerPC generation (it was inevitable). I assume you've upgraded to 3.0.1?
As for Motion 3 (and someone correct me here if I am wrong), I believe it's slower because of the full 3D integration. Whether or not you have a lot of 3D aspects, I think it still calculates for it, causing your response and render time to decrease.

Long rendertimes with FCPX/Compressor, much slower than ffmpeg

I got my first HD only project and wanted to export my 1h timeline to a 1080p H264 file. I used the "Apple Devices 1080p" Settings from Compressor.
It took more than 24h to render the project
In comparsion I exported a ProRes Master from FCPX and used the latest ffmpeg encoder with similar H264 settings:
It took just about 2h to render the project
Qualitiy is about the same, maybe slighty better for FCPX but definetly not worth the slow render process. I conclude from this that FCPX (at least for H264) is far from being optimised and I am not sure whether the GPU (a Radeon 7870) is actually used. CPU load on my 8 cores was always only 60-70% while with ffmpeg all cores worked at 100%
Is there anything to optimise (other than the usual "get more power/RAM" hints) or is this simply normal: a day rendertime for a 1h HD (1080) project?

Russ H wrote:
What Ben said…FCPX exports do take advantage of the GPU.
Do you know any way to check this? There is a tool called "atMonitor" which gives some information about GPU load but its always 0% on my Mac..
2. Do an undo to bring back the render bars. Now export the unrendered sequence as a Pro Res Master file.
Is this actually possible? I though when pressing Apple-E any pending rendering is done before export..?
On my 3 year old iMac, I would expect a single pass encode from Pro Res to h.264 to be between 2X and 2.5X real time, using Compressor. Choosing multi pass settings would double that. And scaling would extend it quite a lot further.
Thanks for your estimate. That gives me an idea that something must be wrong with my settings. A factor of 2-3 seems reasonable and comparable to other tools like MPEG Streamclip or Handbrake.
Maybe the "1080p 10Mb/sec" Preset is an overkill and I should use lower bitrates. I will try your "experiment" because so far I was just looking at the last step: ProRes -> H264.
Thanks, Emilia

Compressor 2 Slow....

Ooops... Posted this in the DVD Studio Pro discussion, got no response... now I know why. LOL
Hey All,
I don't know if this has been addressed here already... so forgive me if I'm repeating something....
Is it just me or is Compressor 2 slower than 1.xx? I'm compressing the same type of content at a much slower rate than I was able to with previous versions of Compressor.
I have recently upgraded to DVDSP 4 from ver. 2. It really seems that the new compressor takes much longer to compress the same material. Am I missing something here?
Thanks!

Thanks Mikey!
I'll check out the Optibase.
Man... It really is slow. 15 hours to encode what used to take me 5. Same content, same length of video, same VBR 2 Pass Settings.... and according to what I've read here, I'm not the only one.
Real bummer... Hopefully Apple will address the issue at some point. I'm going to install Compressor 1 on another machine and use that in the interim
Again, thanks for your help.
Cheers!
G5 Dual 1.8 Mac OS X (10.4.4)

Cut and paste operation in Hyperion Planning is slower than normal web page

We understand the web form under Hyperion Planning has many useful functions built-in but we also encountered some user complains that the operation inside the web form is relatively slower than normal web page. When user cut and paste 20 to 50 cells content, they need to wait 1 to 5 seconds on the "copy" function.
Any workaround can be implemented to improved the user experience? We have asked Oracle whether we can disable the SQL statement behind but no firm reply yet.
Thanks a lot for your help!

JohnGoodwin wrote:
Hi,
It has always been a bit of an issue, they supposely resolved in it earlier releases though I am not sure how much there really did resolve it.
It is down to the amount of Javascript that is used in the web forms and how much rendering and validation it has to go through.
The spec of client machines sometimes can have performance impact.
One route is to use smart view to enter data into forms, as it is excel based it should be much quicker to cut/copy and paste.
Cheers
John
http://john-goodwin.blogspot.com/
John, thanks for your advice.
Yes SmartView should improve the operational speed. However as not all of our users are using SmartView we are looking for some ways to improve the web form speed.

Flash player 10.1 slower than 10

At least, that's how it is on my secondary computers. On my Dell Inspiron B120, flash 10.1 latest is like a train wreck when it comes to playing Youtube videos in full screen. Disabling hardware acceleration helped a little, but this shouldn't be happening as I uninstalled 10.1 and installed an archived version of Flash 10 with much better playback AND with h/w acceleration enabled. The laptop uses XP SP3 and Firefox.
Simply put, Flash 10.1 feels a lot slower than 10 on my Dell laptop (1.4 GHz celeron-M, intel 915g video, 512 mb ram)
And there's another odd but minor problem I seem to be having with is flash animations on my main computer and any other computer/laptop I have using Flash 10.1. I get this alternating 'lag' every few seconds; it's like the computer is dropping frames because the CPU can't keep up. I could completely understand this, but this is happening on practically any flash animation I throw at the computer. I just tested a flash movie (SWF format) on my main computer (2.8 GHz AMD Athlon x2 240; 2 gb ram, Windows 7 x64, Firefox) and I get this irritating choppy lag here and there. Again, with the previous Flash version 10, I did NOT have this problem AT ALL. Everything was silky smooth; the only benefit I'm getting from Flash 10.1 is x264 hardware acceleration for my ATI Radeon 4200 HD. Before anyone asks, all of my computers were using the latest flash version AND video drivers prior to these tests.
I am VERY frustrated with these problems as I've posted a similar thread twice now in the past. No one seems to be answering or helping me with this; Those that do reply simply claim that they're having the same problem.
Adobe, please look into this problem. Eventually Youtube and several other sites will force me to upgrade my laptop to Flash 10.1.

Has Adobe fixed the problems with version 10,1,82,76 of flash player ?
I compared it and found nothing but problems.
I then uninstalled 10,1,82,76 and rolled back to 10,0,12,36 which works fine on Firefox and Opera but I can't install 10,0,12,36 on Exploer or Chrome
it keeps telling me there is a new version even when I try to install it from local drive with a archived version.
With all the complaints about 10,1,82,76 and the lack of response from Adobe on any fixes I will not be using Adobe auto updates until I let some
other poor guinea pigs suffer all the bugs and problems first.
You would expect a large company to have better development and testing before imposing buggy upgardes on us.

24" iMac running slower than when I bought it.

24" iMac running slower than when I bought it.

It would help us to help you if we could have some more technical info about your iMac.
If you so choose, Please download, install and run Etrecheck.
Etrecheck was developed as a simple Mac diagnostic reporting tool by a regular Apple Support forum user and technical support contributor named Etresoft.
Etrecheck is a small, unobstrusive app that compiles a static snapshot of your entire Mac hardware system and installed software.
This is a free app that has been honestly created to provided help in diagnosing issues with Macs running the new OS X 10.9 Mavericks.
It is not malware and can be safely downloaded and installed onto your Mac.
http://www.etresoft.com/etrecheck
Copy/paste and post its report here in another reply thread so that we have a complete profile of your Mac's hardware and installed software so we can all help with your Mac performance issues.
Thank You.

Zimbra 8.0.3_GA_5664.FOSS mail in and out become slow than usual.

Hi,
I am using zcs 8.0.3_GA_5664.FOSS. Few days back i observe that my server working slow than usual. I found that zmconfigd not runnig or sometime running but mail input and output is slow. I google the issue and some people said to change/disable the line /etc/hosts ipv6 line ":: 1     localhost.localdomain........". I did that but still slow.
Can anyone suggest to speed it up like before.
This topic first appeared in the Spiceworks Community

Launch the Console application in any of the following ways:
☞ Enter the first few letters of its name into a Spotlight search. Select it in the results (it should be at the top.)
☞ In the Finder, select Go ▹ Utilities from the menu bar, or press the key combination shift-command-U. The application is in the folder that opens.
☞ Open LaunchPad. Click Utilities, then Console in the icon grid.
The title of the Console window should be All Messages. If it isn't, select
          SYSTEM LOG QUERIES ▹ All Messages
from the log list on the left. If you don't see that list, select
          View ▹ Show Log List
from the menu bar at the top of the screen. Click the Clear Display icon in the toolbar. Then take one of the actions that you're having trouble with. Select any messages that appear in the Console window. Copy them to the Clipboard by pressing the key combination command-C. Paste into a reply to this message by pressing command-V.
The log contains a vast amount of information, almost all of which is irrelevant to solving any particular problem. When posting a log extract, be selective. A few dozen lines are almost always more than enough.
Please don't indiscriminately dump thousands of lines from the log into this discussion.
Please don't post screenshots of log messages—post the text.
Some private information, such as your name, may appear in the log. Anonymize before posting.

Safari MUCH slower than Explorer on same computer. Why?

I have Comcast cable internet and I've noticed that my Safari (1.3.2) has been getting increasingly slow, very slow over the past several weeks. So I've been using Explorer (5.2.3) which is blazing fast comparatively. Why is this and is there anything I can do to Safari to get the same performance I'm getting from IE?
Safari has all my bookmarks. I've done the import bookmarks thing into IE but it just creates a "Bookmarks.plist" which, as far as I can tell, does nothing. Also my email application automatically launches Safari for links in email and I can't figure out how to get it to launch IE instead.
So if I can get these latter two issues resolved I'm fine using IE. So I'll take advice on that as well.
iMac Mac OS X (10.3.9) Safari 1.3.2

Internet Explorer has not been supported by Microsoft for some time. It is not as secure as current browsers. Firefox, Camino, Mozilla, Opera would be viable free alternatives to Safari.
Safari
If you are experiencing slower than usual operation, there are some steps you can take to perhaps improve the speed:
General - System Maintenance is important. Have a look at this MacWorld article for guidance.
Safari - Safari menu>Empty Cache is a good start.
Unplug your cable box, wait 30 seconds, plug-in to reset your ISP's address.
Go to your Network>TCP panel. Select "configure IPv6". Set to "off". Select "apply".
Go to your User Library>Safari folder. Move the Icon folder to the trash. This folder holds the small image files appearing next to the web address in the address bar. This file can become corrupt slowing things down. When you move it to the trash, Safari creates a new folder on the restart. Over time, the icon file rebuilds itself based on sites you access.
You can also move the Safari preference file .com.apple.safari.plist to the trash. When you restart Safari you'll need to reset your custom preferences, so mark them down for reference before moving the file. This file is accessed by a number of applications including Mail. Each time the file is accessed it is susceptible to corruption. Trashing the old gives you a fresh version. The file can be found at User>Library>Preferences
Restart Safari after completing the above.
There are other steps, however, I think this is a good start. Post back with results.

Snow Leopard slower than Leopard??

Hi
On 5 year old macbook with 1GB ram leopard was upgraded to snow.
Since the upgrade the macbook is going slower... What can be the reason for this?

Under some circumstances it's may be possible that Snow Leopard appears slower than Leopard. One technique to boost power in Snow Leopard is to transfer compressed data from the hard drive in to the RAM, Cache and CPU environment. Apples ulterior motive behind this idea was, that in the past the CPU performance grow bigger than the transfer performance from hard drives. In other words Apple thought that the additional benefit of transfer data quicker from a hard drive yield more profit than the cost the CPU have to "pay" to decompress the data. In an old system, e.g. with a single core CPU, this benefit maybe isn't present and the result maybe turns in the opposite direction and you notice a decrease of system performance.
Bye Tom

My four year old iMac is running much slower than when it was new. Any suggestions on cleaning out the cob webs?

My four year old iMac is running much slower than when it was new. Does anyone have any suggestions on what I can do to "clean it up" and get it running like it used to?

What year, screen size, CPU speed and amount of RAM installed?
To find out info about your system,
Click on the Apple symbol in the upper left of the OS X main menu bar. A drop down menu appears.
Click About this Mac. A smaller popup window appears. This gives you basic info like what version of OS X your iMac is running, the speed of your iMac's CPU and how much RAM is installed.
Click on the button that says More Info. A larger window appears giving you a complete overview of your iMac's hardware specs.
Highlight all of this info and copy/paste all of this into another reply to this post, editing out your iMac's serial number before actually posting the reply.
This will tell us everything about your iMac so we may begin to help with your iMac issues.
How full is your Mac's hard drive?
Locate your iMac's hard drive icon on the OS X desktop. Click the icon once, then use the keyboard key combination Command-I. This will give you additonal info about your iMac's internal hard drive.
Post this info in your reply here, also.
Here are some general tips to keep your Mac's hard drive trim and slim as possible
You should never, EVER let a conputer hard drive get completely full, EVER!
With Macs and OS X, you shouldn't let the hard drive get below 15 GBs or less of free data space.
If it does, it's time for some hard drive housecleaning.
Follow some of my tips for cleaning out, deleting and archiving data from your Mac's internal hard drive.
Have you emptied your Mac's Trash icon in the Dock?
If you use iPhoto, iPhoto has its own trash that needs to be emptied, also.
If you store images in other locations other than iPhoto, then you will have to weed through these to determine what to archive and what to delete.
If you use Apple Mail app, Apple Mail also has its own trash area that needs to be emptied, too!
Delete any old or no longer needed emails and/or archive to disc, flash drives or external hard drive, older emails you want to save.
Look through your other Mailboxes and other Mail categories to see If there is other mail you can archive and/or delete.
STAY AWAY FROM DELETING ANY FILES FROM OS X SYSTEM FOLDER!
Look through your Documents folder and delete any type of old useless type files like "Read Me" type files.
Again, archive to disc, flash drives, ext. hard drives or delete any old documents you no longer use or immediately need.
Look in your Applications folder, if you have applications you haven't used in a long time, if the app doesn't have a dedicated uninstaller, then you can simply drag it into the OS X Trash icon. IF the application has an uninstaller app, then use it to completely delete the app from your Mac.
To find other large files, download an app called Omni Disk Sweeper.
Download an app called OnyX for your version of OS X.
When you install and launch it, let it do its initial automatic tests, then go to the cleaning and maintenance tabs and run the maintenance tabs that let OnyX clean out all web browser cache files, web browser histories, system cache files, delete old error log files.
Typically, iTunes and iPhoto libraries are the biggest users of HD space.
move these files/data off of your internal drive to the external hard drive and deleted off of the internal hard drive.
If you have any other large folders of personal data or projects, these should be archived or moved, also, to the optical discs, flash drives or external hard drive and then either archived to disc and/or deleted off your internal hard drive.
Good Luck!

Is Safari really slower than Firefox?!

Hello,
I'm trying to migrate to Safari, after years of using Firefox. One unsettling thing I've discovered is that for some reason when I click a bookmark in Safari very often there is a pregnant pause before it takes my to the requested page. Sometimes it freezes up all together & never takes me to the page so I have to retry getting to the page. This never happended with Firefox.
Are my Safari settings somehow off or is Safari really that much slower than Firefox?
Thanks.
Jim

Something's not right. Safari and Firefox should load pages the same.
From your Safari menu bar click Safari > Reset Safari
Select: Clear History / Remove all website data / Clear the Downloads list
Click Reset. Quit and relaunch Safari to test.
If that didn't help, open a Finder window. From the Finder menu bar click Go > Go to Folder
Type or copy paste the following:
~/Library/Caches/com.apple.Safari/Cache.db
Click Go then move the Cache.db file to the Trash.
Quit and relaunch Safari to test.
If that didn't help, try troubleshooting extensions and third party plug-ins.
From the Safari menu bar click Safari > Preferences then select the Extensions tab. Turn that OFF, quit and relaunch Safari to test. If that helped, turn one extension on then quit and relaunch Safari to test until you find the incompatible extension then click uninstall.
If it's not an extensions issue, try troubleshooting third party plug-ins.
Back to Safari > Preferences. This time select the Security tab. Deselect: Allow all other plug-ins. Quit and relaunch Safari to test.
If that made a difference, instructions for troubleshooting plugins here.

Why is firefox slower than before the reset?

The past 8 weeks Firefox has been extremely slow. I've tried safe mode and all the other web suggestions and finally did the 'Reset'. Now Firefox is slower than it was before the reset. Google, Duck Duck Go and IE. I've also tried Safari, which I didn't like, but all of them were faster than Firefox. Can anybody help me? I'm not that computer savvy to do a clean install and don't the $$ to have it done. Any suggestion would be greatly appreciated.

Maybe you can do a clean install by following these instructions:
'''Note:''' You might want to print these steps or view them in another browser.
#Download the latest Desktop version of Firefox from [https://www.mozilla.org mozilla.org] (or choose the download for your operating system and language from [https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/all/ this page]) and save the setup file to your computer.
#After the download finishes, close all Firefox windows (or open the Firefox menu [[Image:New Fx Menu]] and click the close button [[Image:Close 29]]).
#Delete the Firefox installation folder, which is located in one of these locations, by default:
#*'''Windows:'''
#**C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox
#**C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox
#*'''Mac:''' Delete Firefox from the Applications folder.
#*'''Linux:''' If you installed Firefox with the distro-based package manager, you should use the same way to uninstall it - see [[Installing Firefox on Linux]]. If you downloaded and installed the binary package from the [http://www.mozilla.org/firefox#desktop Firefox download page], simply remove the folder ''firefox'' in your home directory.
#Now, go ahead and reinstall Firefox:
##Double-click the downloaded installation file and go through the steps of the installation wizard.
##Once the wizard is finished, choose to directly open Firefox after clicking the Finish button.
More information about reinstalling Firefox can be found [[Troubleshoot and diagnose Firefox problems#w_5-reinstall-firefox|here]].
<b>WARNING:</b> Do not use a third party uninstaller as part of this process. Doing so could permanently delete your [[Profiles|Firefox profile]] data, including but not limited to, extensions, cache, cookies, bookmarks, personal settings and saved passwords. <u>These cannot be easily recovered unless they have been backed up to an external device!</u> See [[Back up and restore information in Firefox profiles]]. 
Please report back to say if this helped you!
Thank you.

Preview takes forever to open, much slower than on my old MacBook. It has been like this since I bought the computer last January. Why is Lion so much slower?

Preview takes forever to open, much slower than on my old MacBook running Snow Leopard. It has been like this since I bought the computer last January. Any ideas?

Take it to an Apple Store for testing. If you don't get immediate satisfaction, exchange it for another one, which you can do at no cost, no questions asked, within 14 days of delivery.

Why is Thunderbolt so much slower than USB3?

I'm considering two different drives for Time Machine purposes. Both are LaCie. Either of these:
- Two Porsche 9233 drives, 4 TB each
OR
- A 2Big Thunderbolt drive, 8 TB, which I would configure as RAID 1 (a mirrored 4 TB volume)
My question is this: I've viewed both of these product pages via the Apple Store, and I noticed that LaCie's information for the Thunderbolt drive makes it a lot slower than the USB drives. Meaning: They say that the 2Big Thunderbolt drive maxes out at like 427 MB/s, whereas the Porsche USB drives max out at 5 GB/s. Why is this? Isn't Thunderbolt supposed to be a lot faster than USB (any iteration)?

Not an easy question, short of a whole lot more detail on the construction of those two devices.   You're likely going to need to look at the details of the drives and probably at some actual data.   You're really looking for some real benchmark data that you can compare, in other words.    Particularly which (likely Seagate) drives are used in those (IIRC, Seagate bought LaCie a while back), and what the specs are.
The hard disk drives themselves are a central factor, where the drive transfer rate is a key metric for big transfers (and that can be based on drive RPM as much as anything, faster drives can stream more data, but they tend to need more power and run hotter), and access (seek) time for lots of smaller transfers (faster seeks mean faster access, so good for lots of small files scattered around). Finding the details of the drives can be interesting, though. I've seen lots of cheaper disks that spin very slowly, which means that they can have nice-looking transfer times out of any cache, but then... you... wait... for... the... disk... to... spin.
The device bus interfaces can also vary (wildly) in quality.   I've seen some decent ones, and I've seen some USB adapters that were absolute garbage.   Some devices have decent quantities of cache, too. Others have dinky caches, and end up doing synchronous transfers to hard disks, and that's glacial compared with memory speeds.
One of your example configurations also features RAID 1 mirroring, which means that each write is hitting both disks.   The writes have to pass through a controller that can do RAID 0 mirroring, and that can write the I/O requests to both drives, and that can read the data back from (if it's clever) whichever of the two drives is best positioned in related to the sectors you're after.   If it's dumb, it won't account for the head positions and drive rotation and sector target.   Hopefully the controller is smart enough to correctly deal with a disk failure; I've met a few RAID controllers that weren't as effective when disks had failed and the array was running in a degrated mode. In short, RAID 1 mirroring is a reliability-targeted configuration and not a performance configuration. It'll be slower. Lose a disk in RAID 1 mirroring, and you have a second disk with a second copy.    If the controller works right.
If you want I/O performance without reliability, then configure for RAID 0 striping.   With that configuration, you're reading data from both disks. But lose a disk in a RAID 0 striping configuration and you're dealing with data recovery, at best. If the failure is catastrophic, you've lost half your data.
But nobody's going to make this choice for you, and I'd be skeptical of any specs outside of actual benchmarks, and preferably benchmarks approximating your use. Reliability is another factor, and that's largely down to reputation in the market; how well the vendor supports the devices, should something go wrong. One of the few ways to sort-of compare that beyond the reviews is the relative length of the warranty, and what the warranty covers; vendors generally try to design and build their devices to last at least the length of the warranty.
Yeah. Lots of factors to consider. No good answers, either. Given it's a backup disk, I'd personally tend to favor eliability and warranty and less about brute speed.
Full disclosure: no experience with either of these two devices. I am working with Promise Pegasus Thunderbolt disk arrays configured RAID 6 on various Mac Mini configurations, and those support four parallel HD DTV video streams with no effort. The Pegasus boxes are plenty fast. They're also much more expensive than what you're looking at.

Compressor 5x Slower than past

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for