CPU Power - Large libraries

Hello
I'm in the middle of an exercise of archiving my CD collection. The iTunes library counts nearly 20,000 at the moment, and I've noticed that since approx. 12-14,000 songs, the system is having problems. When I look in the system properties, iTunes takes up to 98% of the CPU power (plus an awful lot of memory, but I have plenty of that).
The import process is pretty slow. Although the meter says something like 14-18x, it frequently stops in the middle before it continues (I guess it chokes on its own processing). Any other application running at the same time struggles and the mouse no longer moves smoothly.
Does anyone know if or why iTunes seems to go into CPU overdrive with large libraries/databases? Does the size of the library have any impact at all?
Or is it just a flaw of a recent iTunes update?
Cheeers

Indeed, I use another well known program for ripping Cds too.
On performance and large libraries, I get the impression that the more memory you have the better. A recent poster claimed that the lost library syndrome, that some people with large libraries suffer from, was cured by doubling memory.
Also some people have found that excluding the iTunes directory from virus checking helps performance.
Personally I found that earlier versions of iTunes 7 were terrible processor hogs, but the latest incarnation 7.1.1.5 doesn't seem too bad. I get 0-5% most of the time while playing with the occasional blip to 10% between tracks. But... my library is tiny compared to the OP's, only about 2000 tracks.

Similar Messages

What gives you the right to do this to people? Firefox's abuse of my time, patience and computer's resources such as: memory and CPU power!

First and foremost, I need you to understand that over the years I have not only come to heavily rely on Firefox myself, but highly recommended Firefox to literally thousands of people in the course of my work.
The reason for this is very simple... Firefox fast became the most fantastic, configurable and versatile yet highly user-friendly, internet browser in the world! All due to its great: speed and reliability, as well as, crash resistance and economical system resource usage, to name just a few factors!
This is why I'm so upset with you! You establish yourself as the best and then one day just stop being excellent, and start getting worse!
So what have you done?
Ever since version 4, Firefox has progressively regressed in performance and reliability! Firefox is now incapable of running on my computer, without hanging with the CPU power of this quad core machine maxed out! The consequence this freezing has is either: immense frustration on my part right before being forced to kill the process that is not responding from the task manager, or Firefox eventually crashing on its own!
After being so fantastic you start doing this to people? How can you justify this at all?
I am seriously thinking about moving to Google Chrome if this doesn't get resolved ASAP! What do you think about that?
Here is a full list of the latest crash reports, but just from the beginning of August! The list is so big, it didn't fit in the little box you provided below, so here is list:
1. bp-209f18a1-1fa9-43ca-9eba-db3432110824
2. bp-ff6d29a0-e8f4-47e9-b511-6c0f92110822
3. bp-ba22d04d-2afb-45a6-ab08-8ad342110821
4. bp-abafebf9-4d30-4428-87cb-c2aa72110820
5. bp-3ab74d5a-d8fc-4d73-9d88-0918f2110818
6. bp-35afcc7a-0401-42f2-af84-65f1f2110813
7. bp-e1a549f6-733b-4062-a333-879a62110813
8. bp-0d7064fd-41f9-440a-812d-54a5b2110811
9. 63b33a93-9a05-450b-9179-4b3f991a857c
10. 95069d53-be00-4657-90a0-3d127c22042e
11. bp-565c0f54-26c7-4093-804e-f8f8c2110808
12. bp-8755ee08-5530-43c9-a5cf-5eb472110807
13. bp-117aff78-e6dd-4ee5-81d7-c110e2110803
14. bp-b00341c9-7ae8-4b9a-b1bd-d6d722110802
Thank you!

How much data is being backed-up from each Mac? (see what's shown for Estimated size of full backup under the exclusions box in Time Machine Prefs > Options).
Is there any other data on your Time Capsule, besides the backups?
Most likely, there just isn't room. Time Machine may be trying to do a very large (or full) backup of one or both Macs, and can't. Since it won't ever delete the most recent backup, there has to be enough room for one full backup plus whatever it's trying to back up now, plus 20% (for workspace).
Also see #C4 in Time Machine - Troubleshooting for more details.

Mail uses too much CPU power

I don't know why Mail uses something like 99% of the cpu power. It does that a few minutes after it opens. I'm running Lion on a Macbookpro3,1.
Thanks

i am having the same problem. it slows when (a) it's accessing inboxes, or junk or trash ..., (b) it slows when i start a message, (c) it slows intermittently when i am typing a message, (d) it slows when i am sending a message, (e) it slows when i close mail, (f) it slows just about every moment i do ANYTHING.
i had no problem like this in tiger prior to installing Leopard (upgrade). i am using a 2.5 GHx iMac G5. i have cleaned out all the unnecessary inboxes in ~/Library that are generated by reaccessing the IMAP accounts after the leopard upgrade. i don't have large/many-filed mailboxes at ALL either on the IMAP accounts or on the computer.
everytime it slows it the cpu is hovering between 60 and 90% on mail.app.
conversely, i didn't encounter this problem on my 2 powerbooks. one powerbook got a fresh install and i just ported over the mailboxes. the other i did an upgrade.
any advice would be greatly appreciated.

How Can I Measure the CPU Power My Flash Movie Uses?

Hi All,
I'm working on a complex job that is intended to play on low-end PCs so I'm looking at ways to reduce the processor load the movie needs to play. Obviously large screen size, high frame rate, intensive ActionScript, and complex graphics all add greatly to how much CPU power is needed to run a Flash movie, but is there a way of getting an accurate reading of the CPU power it is using? I am modifying a job that was running badly on low-spec PCs so now want to adjust it to run faster and smoother so would like to somehow be able to compare the modified job with the original. Any Idea how I could do this?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hi. I tried your suggestion and I could not get it to work well. In
fact it worked better without the running average (which suprised me).
I also played with the number of data points but still could not get it
to work well.
Do you have any other suggestions on how I could sort this problem out?
I
have attached a screen shot of the signal. To recap, I'm trying to
measure the'y' position of the flat regions of the signal. The signal
does not have a constant level, so this 'y' position varies with time
in a non-unform manner.
I am currently differentiating
the signal and selecting the y position when the differential is equal
to zero (within a tolerance band).
In the screenshot, the
signal has been zeroed using the method I have described above.
However, it occasionally has glitches which may be caused when the code
picks up a zero gradient at a peak or valley in the signal.
I therefore need some kind of algorithm that only measures the position of the flat regions.
Many thanks
John
Attachments:
screenshot.gif ‏121 KB

Not enough CPU power

Lately, my Mac has randomly been crashing. So, the first solution I tried so far, is to replace the RAM. So, I had upgraded to 16GB instead of the default 4GB, but if I still run an application (mainly videos, or a game), the CPU being consumed by the user will go up to 50% I'm not exactly sure if this normal. I had opened all the applications in the Adobe Master Collection CS5, and the CPU being consumed by the user went up to around 40%-55% and I thought this was fair, but watching a 420p video on YouTube (I'm using Google Chrome) goes ridiculously high just for a 420 pixel video, it takes up 40% to 60%
If this is normal, even with 16GB of RAM installed, how can I increase my CPU power? Also, if I keep my CPU usage under 90% then my Mac doesn't crash.

The only way to get a more powerful CPU is to sell your computer and buy a faster one. CPU power is not related to how much RAM is installed.
If what you described is correct then you might start with:
Open Activity Monitor in the Utilities folder. Select All Processes from the Processes dropdown menu. Click twice on the CPU% column header to display in descending order. If you find a process using a large amount of CPU time, then select the process and click on the Quit icon in the toolbar. Click on the Force Quit button to kill the process. See if that helps. Be sure to note the name of the runaway process so you can track down the cause of the problem.

Cannot resize the albums in album view in Itunes 11. For those of us with large libraries (160gb), this is extremely frustrating. I want to make the artwork smaller. This seems to be a serious oversight.

Cannot resize the albums in album view in Itunes 11. For those of us with large libraries (160gb), this is extremely frustrating. I want to make the artwork smaller. This seems to be a serious oversight.

I agree.
It was very useful to reduce everything to small and quickly scan down looking for missing artwork.
Particularly useful when I only connect to the machine with iTunes via screen sharing, so everything can be a bit slower to scroll through at times.
In fact, itunes 11 when used purely as a server for Apple TV etc is a downgrade in usability IMO, as they've got rid of some of the useful views that helped me manage my library remotely.

Computer won't power up if the 2x2 CPU POWER connector is plugged in

Yesterday I assembled this computer and it was working great. Played games on it and everything.
MSI K9a2 CF, ATHLON 5000+, LC POWER 550W, RADEON 3850 256MB, 2x1G SUPER TALENT 800MHZ RAM.
3 hours ago I went to the store and left 2x PRIME95 torture test running just to check for stability. After 2hours I got home only to find out the the computer has been shut down but the KEYBOARD still had a light on the NUMLOCK led.
So then I unplugged the PSU from power and started up again. But the PC only started for half a second and then the power went off.
So I pulled everything out of the board only to find out that if the CPU POWER 2x2 connector is in the board then it will not power up. Then I also took out the cpu and try to power up without the CPU and with the CPU POWER 2x2 connector in and it also doesn't power up.
Conclusion:
If the 2x2 CPU power connector is in the MB regardless if the CPU is in or not then the computer will not power on. But if the 2x2 CPU power connector is absent then the computer powers up. But that don't do me any good since without that connector the CPU can't function.
I also tried hooking it up to another PSU but it does no good. The MB, CPU, GPU, RAM, HDDS are only 2days old.
Also it couldn't have overheated since the temperatures never went higher than 50C during full load thx to Scythe Ninja Revision B cooler and also there is no smell or any indication that something could be burned. The temps were checked with BIOS as with MSI probe.
My question is is the MB the problem?? So I would know which part to send back for warranty

Quote from: BOSSKILLER on 07-February-08, 13:24:04
Do you use system stock parameters?(No OC)
Check CPU cooling system.
List PSU details(Look over PSU sticker for them)
Everything was at stock speed there was even no tweaking involved.
CPU cooling system was working great. Under load the max temperatures it had gotten was 50C. And also the CASE was opened so there was no chance of overheating. And also when I started PRIME95 I opened the window and closed the radiators which means the room temperature was about 15C celsium only.
LC POWER 550w 140MM fan.
3.3v 35a
5v 40a
12V 16a
12v 18a
It is probably the board right? I must know this quick to RMA it

Repair itunes library (damaged) file. Multiple iTunes libraries on an external harddrive. All libraries have been working fine. Do some "housecleaning" on a one of the large libraries 296GB. iTunes quit and now has damaged file. 296 GB still on HD.

How to repair itunes library (damaged) file. Multiple iTunes libraries on an external harddrive. All libraries have been working fine. Do some "housecleaning" on a one of the large libraries 296GB. iTunes quits and now has damaged file. 296 GB still on HD.

The duplication is unnecessary. Exporting creates a duplicate of the file. So now you'll have a duplicate of a duplicate. Exporting is not "working on" a file.
No it's not merging, it's exporting from one to the Finder and into another. No matter what lose something. If you export the Original you leave behind all the work you've done in iPhoto. If you export anything else, you lose the non-destructive editing and the ability to revert to the original. With merging you preserve that work. Yes, you can trash the old Library when you have completed the manoevre but no it's not the same thing as merging.
This User Tip
https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-4921
has details of the options in the Export dialogue. But in brief:
Current gets you the iPhoto Preview, used for sharing via media browsers. It's a jpg, medium quality missing metadata. Original gets the file you imported, unchanged and then you can export different version of the current version at different qualities. If you choose to export anything except the Original you do not get a Raw. There's no such thing as an "edited Raw", and you lose the connection between the original and the exported version. That means you've taken a non-destructive workflow and turned it into a destructive one.
The Tiff will certainly be higher qulaity and less likely to suffer generational loss in future editing but the file sizes are vast, often more than 10 times the size of the jpeg.
Put it this way, it would be cheaper to buy Library Manager than the disk you'll need to contain all the Tiffs. Unless you plan on a lot of editing, I'd go for a high quality jpeg as a reasonable compromise.
To be clear:
So, I guess my new question is, how can I edit the Raw image and keep it in a RAW format that IPhoto recognizes so that I can reprocess without any loss at a future time, or is it that once you edit a RAW image, then it is no longer a RAW image?
Once you edit a Raw it can no longer be a Raw. End of.

Why can't I make Lightroom use all the CPU-Power (all cores) available for generating Previews?

Dear Lightroom Team,
I've been a Lightroom user since the very first Beta, and I am truly happy with the work you deliver. It changed my way of editing forever, and you guys keep improving it.
Yet there is that one question that bothers me, and that i'm looking for an answer for.
My Workflow has the generate Previews checkbox checked by standard. I usually import between 150 and 2000 photos at once, on occaions it can be up to 5000 photos. Generating Previews always takes a significant amount of time, and Lightroom is only using 25% of my CPU Power while doing so. (using a MacBook Pro 8,2)
I understand the concept, that only using 25% CPU enables me to use the computer while waiting for the Previews. But most of the time I just grab myself a cup of coffee, do the dishes or other stuff, while waiting for the Previews. Usually I rund out of things to do, because it takes ages to Process all the photos. So I would really love to make Lightroom use ALL the cpu power possible.
I'm sure you guys have spent a lot of thoughts while coding this and have a very good answer handy. Looking forward reading it!
all the best,
Wolfgang

Wolfgang Lienbacher wrote:
I was actually hoping to get an official reply from adobe ...
This is prmarily a user-to-user forum. The Adobe staff monitored site is here:
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family
On my four-year old Windows 7 i7-860 system LR4.4.1 takes ~0.5 sec. per Canon 5D MKII 21Mp raw image to render 'Standard-Sized' previews with LR Catalog Settings 'Standard Preview Size' set to '2048' pixels. I consider that pretty fast!
I usually build 1:1 full-size previews on import, which takes ~5.0 sec. per image. Processor utilization varies between 15-50% for Standard-Sized previews and 15-65% for 1:1 previews. I consider this pretty slow, but it doesn't stop me from working on the images inside LR's Library and Develop modules.
I wait until 'Copy and import photos' has completed and can see Preview Building has started. LR doesn't slow-down much even with the 1:1 preview building going on in the background. Have you tried working in LR during the preview building (i.e. sorting, rating, keywording, and Develop adjustments)?

MSI X99 AC Power Motherboard 8pin+4pin CPU Power?

Hello, I just opened my msi x99 ac and I see it has an 8pin and 4pin cpu power near the top, now that is like what my asus extreme 1150 had, however I only have 2 8pins from my 1200w corsair ax. However right next to the 4pin is a little something, so the 8pin wont work because there is no place for the extra 4pins to hang down. How did you guys wire this up? Because before I just use 2 8pins and the 4 extra pins hanged down the side, but it wont work with this mobo
Thanks

As far as I can guess, 4 pin is for OC. How do you connect it? I don't know. But I think it will work fine without this 4 pin.
Check the manual

Java uses up WAY too much cpu power only in firefox.

I seem to have found out that firefox is using up to 60% of my cpu power(average of each core). It seems to be a problem with Java and maybe windows 7 64 bit. When I turn java off it's fine and uses maybe 10% tops. But since 2 main sites I use use only java I can't just turn it off.
== This happened ==
Every time Firefox opened
== I moved up from Win XP 32 bit up to 7 64 bit.

Ok I guess you have stumped me, but disabling java in the past did bring down my cpu usage. Cpu usage was no where near as high using that looping radar and this open, around 10 percent or less. As for extensions I only have the java console and skype. I've tried using gmail alone without my usual tabs, also tried facebook(which I thought were the culprits) but cpu usage didn't stay up, only spiked at loading. So I guess it's back to square one...I'm wondering if it's just having a somewhat good amount of tabs open. Last night though was fine when I opened firefox just to see.

Seems Firefox is suddenly using a lot of CPU power

My desktop, recently, started sounding like it was really laboring while I wander around the net. And there's a delay as I type messages like this... the letters show up a second or two behind the keystrokes.
I looked at CPU usage (Win XP with all updates) and while I'm doing this, it sometimes peaks to 35% or higher for Firefox.exe.
My laptop has recently started telling me Firefox is using a lot of memory and I should close and restart Firefox. (Also updated Win XP)
It's becoming a big PITA...

It didn't show up when i searched for the problem on Google and it didn't show up when i search here on Firefox's support site either.
And the reason it didn't because it's mostly not about my problem.
'''If' it was one of those things then i would have a high CPU usage the minute i opened my browser, but i don't.'''
'''It will use a lot of CPU power (after a couple of hours) even if i don't do anything '''
And yes hardware acceleration is on and so is submit performance data and i use Ad Block Plus, and there isn't a correctly working theme or add-on out there that could use 50-60% of a 3.2GHz quad core CPU
I don't think this is something that can be fixed that easily

Why is it that I'm lacking cpu power when I'm doing high tasking things but when i run a dinky little game it decides to use all the power possible?

why is it that im lacking cpu power when I'm doing high tasking things but when i run a dinky little game it decides to use all the power possible? its like when i need it its not there and then when i dont its there?

Check here
http://support.apple.com/kb/PH10900http://support.apple.com/kb/PH10900

Best storage set-ups for large Libraries?

Let's say "large Library" means 500 GB and/or 500,000 Images, and above.
What set-ups for storage, on a Mac maximized with RAM, will provide the best Aperture performance? The best bang-for-the-buck? Assume Thunderbolt is available. I don't know much about hardware: RAID, hybrid drives, etc.
What sensible considerations should one make for backup and data-redundancy?
How can I determine if the storage media is a bottleneck in the performance of Aperture on my system?
I run most libraries off of external USB-3 drives mounted (sometimes directly, often via powered USB-3 hubs) to my
MacBook Pro
Retina, 15-inch, Early 2013
Processor 2.7 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 1024 MB
System Drive APPLE SSD SD512E
This works well for small and medium-size Libraries, but for large Libraries, I'm spending costly time waiting for the system to catch up.
Some of that, demonstrably, comes when I run a three-monitor set-up. (But this provides some welcome advantages to me.)
Additionally, some back-ups and database repairs now take 12 hr. or longer.
Thanks.

Thanks William,
I kept my c. 2011 MPB and use it for making back-ups, which is done automatically after I leave for the day. My early-2013 MPB is so much faster (and has such a higher-resolution screen) that I don't use the older computer at all.
William Lloyd wrote:
Probably the fastest storage you can get is the La Cie "little big disk" which is a pair of 512 GB SSDs with a Thunderbolt 2 connection. The issue is, only the newest Mac Pro, and the newest retina MacBook Pros, have Thunderbolt 2 right now.
OWC tech explained to me that TBolt2 allows 2x the throughput, but that the drives have to be able to provide it. TBolt1 should provide 1,000 MB/s (do I have the units correct?), which is faster than most drives can provide. So the bottleneck, for me, isn't likely to be the port, but rather the drives. USB-3 can move 500 MB/s, which is still faster than -- afaict -- what my WD Passport drives can provide.
As I currently see it, I need faster throughput, and I need to either trim my large Libraries or find a way to manage them so that the regularly used files are more speedily available.
Regarding faster throughput, an external SSD comes to mind.
The problem, for me, is that the large Libraries are close to 1TB (with Previews). While I don't expect them to grow (the data acquisition phase is, for now, done), it would be short-sighted to assume they won't. That brings up the second consideration, which is how to best use spanned drives that contain an Aperture Library.
As I see it (with my limited understanding of hardware), what I really want is _a lot more RAM_, or, barring that, a huge SSD scratch disk. I have 200 GB free on my system drive, which is an Apple-supplied SSD, but it doesn't seen to be used as effectively as I'd like.
WD is now selling a new portable TBolt SSD, the "My Passport Pro", available with 4 GB of storage, and with a throughput of 230 MB/s. My current largest Library is on WB Passport drives, whose throughput is not faster than 480 Mb/s (Max) (I assume BITS, not BYTES, so 40 MB/s). That's a huge difference, while still only 1/4 of the speed possible with TBolt1, and 1/8 the throughput possible with TBolt2 (which my early-2013 MBP does not have, afaict).
These are the questions I am trying to answer:
- How can I measure my current throughput?
- Can I determine the bottleneck in my use of large Libraries in Aperture?
- Will new storage give me faster performance?
- Which storage will give me the best "bang-for-my-bucks"? (The La Cie "little big disk" seems to have it's bang limited by my computer, which greatly lowers its quotient value.)
In short: how can I get 900-1000 MB/s throughput on my machine, and is there any way to set up my Library so that, even though it is close to 1 TB, I can use a smaller very fast drive for the most read/written files?
--Kirby.

Working With Large Libraries

I use a portable hard drive for music storage (no music is stored in the Macbook). My library is 14,000+ and until 8.1 I have never had issues of any kind. Today I downloaded 8.1.1 and I still have the same problems. Beach ball spinning forever, HUGE delays in starting of songs, and delays in dragging songs to playlists. Does anyone have any suggestions to fix the problem? Kind of frustrating when 8.1 was supposed to be better for large libraries.

Hold down the option key while you launch iTunes. This presents you with an option to choose a Library (or create a new one). Navigate to your current Library, & with a bit of luck iTunes will stop looking in the wrong place.
Usually these problems are caused by the User moving something or other… not that I'm accusing you of anything!
If that doesn't work, go to +Preferences > Advanced+ & make sure that the folder iTunes uses for storing your music is the right one.

CPU Power - Large libraries

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for