Fcpx rendering too slow

Hi i've a macbook pro (early 2011) i7 2.0Ghz with 8Gb RAM.
I use FCPX with background rendering off.
The performance of FCPX editing it's slow but when I render my clip it's extremely slow!
It takes about 6 hours to render a non very complex clip of 6 min!! I use compressor 4 without multi-pass rendering....
What's the problem?? I think my macbook has enough power... i7 2.0Ghz, 8Gb ram ddr3...

Your MBP is good for editing with FCP10, just make sure you have these things right:
1. If your MBP is early 2011 it will have two graphics processors inside, a standard Intel and a faster Radeon. Make sure that your Energy Saver settings are set to "Higher Performance" so that you use the Radeon for editing. Here's how you do this:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3256
2. Always store your FCP10 events and projects on a decent external drive, NEVER on your boot drive. Do NOT use USB drives for video editing as USB does not provide sustained data transfer, so it is not really for for feeding continuous video streams. FireWire is very good, Thunderbolt is spectacular.
3. Highly compressed formats such as MP4 (and mp3) put a lot of strain on your system resources. Although your MBP may be fit to work with such formats natively you will work much, much faster when you have such formats converted to higher quality edit-friendly formats such as ProRes for video and AIFF for audio proior to editing. You can optimize your media during the import process (Create Optimized Media) or you can do the conversion from the Events Browser after the media have been imported. You will notice an important gain in editing speed.
4. Make sure background rendering is turned off while you edit. You can always render manually whenever you wish. If you have imported a lot of media and FCP10 is still busy doing its background magic (conforming, creating thumbnails etc...) this may also slow down your editing. Check the Activity Monitor to see if you still have background processes running.
5. Do not export (Share) straight from the timeline. Export a QT movie from your project and bring this movie into Compressor for further conversions. This is a much, much faster process and in FCP10 this does not make any difference with regards to the quality of your final movie.
Best wishes,
Ronny

Similar Messages

MacPro 12c FCPX 10.1.3 rendering too slow

When I look at my activity monitor it say its only using 700-800% of cpu when doing any kind of exporting or sharing. I use a MacPro late 2013 12core.
yes it still is faster than anything else I have used but was wondering why it does not go any higher. Ive seen it spke everyonce in a while to 1200-1400%

Tim, I have no answer to your question. I have 6 cores and actually not measured the CPU usage. But here is an article that could be of interest. Your question is valid, you name rendering is slow, but that has very little to do with CPU, it is the GPU that counts.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/4

Premiere exports and rendering too slow

I’m using Premier Pro CC on a 2012 MacPro (aluminum box) with 16gigs or RAM.
I have to say that being a long time Avid Media Composer editor I am very, very pleased with the UI and overall capability of Premiere. It’s loaded with tiny nuances that Avid should have incorporated a long time ago. I am in love with this software.
Or at least I was until I went to export my files. What a slog! I’m sorry but the exports are out to lunch. A six minute 1080p 23.976fps sequence with a few titles, a basic colour effect and two tracks of audio takes…. 3 hours?!?!?? What the heck? If I was rendering an equivalent sequence in the Avid I’d be done rendering any effects and exporting a source QT by the time I finished this sentence. And if I set that QT up to encode in Sorenson I’d have my MP4 done by the end of this email. And the Avid doesn’t need to use any external hardware to ramp things up. In addition, just typing this email while Media Encoder pushes through the output (even with Premiere closed) is causing my whole system to slow down to a point that I find my computer basically unusable for anything else. 16 gigs of RAM and 2x six core processors and it’s acting like it’s 1996 running OS7.
Now wait, I hear you say, you can do so much more in Premiere. Yes, I can. But the moment I drop, for example, an After Effect link in there…I can feel the system trying to race glaciers - and losing. What I don’t get is if I were to use the the equivalent clips in After Effects doing the equivalent type of effects the render would be way faster than Premiere --- and it’s the same company! And don’t get me started on Speedgrade. I’m better off doing an oil painting of each frame than using that Dynamic Link function. And teh dynamic links are what encouraged me to try all this in the first place.
Pre-rendering everything is not only awkward but appears to have no effect on the export time - or playback for that matter. In fact I find the rendering of effects rather confusing and horribly inaccurate - both in its estimate of time to go and the number of frames to process. And what is a 'video preview’ anyway -is that the number of clips? Effects? Effects and clips? Grains of sand on a beach? And why does it’s number keep going up too? It just keeps climbing for no reason I can see. C’mon Premiere…it’s basic math- you count how many frames and then that’s the total number of frames. Why are you recalculating? And did you borrow your time estimate code from Windows 98’s progress bar? One thing it does tell you accurately is how much time you’ve been waiting. That’s handy (not). Oh and I sooooo love the fact that if I quit the rendering process it keeps NOTHING from what it did before. So i have two choices: quit this seemingly endless render to try something else only to find it didn’t help ... or stay put and watch my life drip away into nothingness. Right now, on a second sequence, it says "ETA - 13 seconds left" for, like the LAST 2 hours.
I can’t help but think Premiere is too caught up on render-free editing and it’s glorious Mercury Engine when they should be making it faster & easier to render effects for smoother playback and much faster exports. In my Media Composer I may not have as much robust real time function as I would like but it doesn't choke on the basics (title, colour crrection, dissolves) and the renders are so fast I don't care that I even have to render.
Maybe I’m doing something wrong but I’ll be damned if I know what. And no one else is talking. As I skip around the Google-sphere I’m amazed how many people are posing about speed issues (very common Google search result) and so many other editors are retorting “seems pretty normal to me”. No it ain’t. This is NOT normal. This is painfully slow and in no way reflects the current state of speed for import & exports in NLEs.
I’ve watched every tutorial I could find, picked over every preference, closed every other application, tried different media types, purged every bit of cache and even restarted with no discernible difference. At this stage I’d be thrilled to find out if I’m doing something wrong. But until then I’m afraid this software will not be a regular part of my tool set. This is very disappointing from Premiere given how everything else seems to work so well. Such a shame. This software could kick some serious butt otherwise.
Maybe Premiere will announce that they have a new render engine at NAB?…crossing fingers? Don’t think so.
><({(º>

Thanks for the reply SAFEHARBOR11.
I agree, something isn't right. I've watched tutorials where the renders appear to happen in a "reasonable" amount of time and the numbers of frames and videos prviews never increases. So I don't know what is going on with me.
While I have researched into render/don't render workflow with Premiere I can say I tried both ways only out of desperation.
For my system, a MacPro from 2012, we got only one choice for a video card from Apple - ATI Radeon HD 5870. I tried to get a CUDA enabled card (3rd party) installed but despite tremendous research I could not find something that was authorized to work on my system. At the time I wanted the CUDA to accelerate by Sorenson encoding.
One 2011 post suggested that my issue was related to corrupt media. They had suggested that I try and isolate the timeline down by testing one section at a time with exports until the exports went from fast to excruciatingly slow. As I was working on multiple sequences without common media between them I had reasoned that the software may not have liked my Sony F5 native media (although it plays it just fine). So I took the time to transcode all my footage and use that instead— with absolutely no difference. Even if it did make a difference I’d be disappointed because working natively with my media in Premiere was a huge time saver, unlike the Avid which claims to work with native media but really it leaves the system and editing sow & unresponsive so I usually end up transcoding anyway.
My media encoder settings were the template h264 as a Youtube 720p, 23.976 file. Nothing remarkable there. (Although I did try other settings to see if that affected anything - it didn’t).
><({(º>

Adobe After Effects on Mac renders too slow

In one of the mac pro machines with 24GB RAM, Adobe after effects utilizes only 6% RAM during renders. we changed its preference settings too but still same status. Could any body suggest how to increase RAM utilization in Adobe AE 10.0 renders on Mac.

After Effects builds a frame at a time with the elements that are in that frame. Particle generators take more memory, but an HD Video Frame is only so big. You can't force the app to use more memory than is required for the frame that is being processed. CPU usage is another thing to consider. The more number crunching there is to be done the more cpu power is required. Some rendering operations don't require a lot of CPU power so not much is used. Then there's multi-processing. Only a hand full of plug-ins from third party developers are MP aware so you don't get that much help there.
Here's another thing to consider. The ram usage reported by AE is only the ram that is being utilized to process that frame. If you use up 100% of the ram rendering what is going to be left to store frames for playback?
The key to faster renders is to maximimize the data path to write the data and to minimize the unused data caused by scaling huge assets down to fit into a video frame. Until the basic way a video frame is digested and processed in AE you are not going to see full usage of all of your machine assets while processing video.

MacPro 3.1 with GTX285 freezes during playback- too slow?

I´m having issues with my MacPro 3.1 (2008, 10GB RAM, GTX 285 card) and FCPX which always freezes only during playback.
I can edit the whole day without any freezing as long as I do not play back the edit for longer than 1 minute. After about 1.15 of continuos playback the computer will freeze for 45 seconds. The audio keeps playing though but the video will freeze and I cant do anything on the computer. Then video comes back for another minute before it will freeze again. So I can never see the whole edit...
When working with Adobe Premiere CS6 or any other program I do not have the slightest issues and the MacPro is working fine the whole day. I only have this issue with FCPX (10.0.6 and 10.0.7)
I have tried the following so far:
- trashed preferences
- re-installed FCPX
- clean install of the OS (10.8.2) on a fresh HD with fresh install of FCPX (no other programs on the system)
- changed RAM
- Hardware Test with no issues showing
- dropped in my old GT8800 graphic card which seems to be too slow but does not show any real freezes only choppy video playback
- Cuda driver installed and Cuda uninstalled
Could it be that my system is too slow for FCPX? Could the 285 cause the freezing? Does anybody else have this kind of issues? I have to use Premiere Pro CS6 with Cuda for most of my projects, but for quick edits I would love to use FCPX with this machine. What can I do? Any ideas what could be wrong with my system? Any feedback would be highly appreciated.

Tom,
thanks a lot for taking the time to reply. Now I´m even more puzzled knowing that it should work fine on my machine.
I also got the impression that the GTX285 should handle FCPX without any issues and it does on my machine until it freezes. Its quite snappy during editing and can play quite a few effects that need rendering in real time. Strange thing also is that I do not get a dropped frame warning after the freeze.
Regarding your questions:
1) I tried all kind of formats ranging from DV, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, XDCAM and ProRes. Even tried transcoding and proxy. No matter what format I bring in, the freezing will occur
2) tried transcoding and the original file formats
3) Cuda drivers are up to date. I also tried various older drivers and not installing Cuda at all. Same result all the time unfortunately.
I no longer know what I should do... I´m already thinking about buying a ATI 5770 but I´m also using Premiere a lot which works great with the Cuda cards and I do not want to invest into this old machine - still hoping that a new MacPro will arrive eventually later this year...
Thanks,
Gerald

Bumblebee performance is too slow

Hi everyone,
This is my second post in this forum and it has been only 2 days that I met Arch. Before, I was using Ubuntu for 3 years, but due to low performance in my PC, unfortunately, I decided to say good bye which was hard to say.
Now, I am trying to have the same setup as my previous laptop and Bumblebee was one of them. I followed the instructions here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bumblebee.
It seems that bumblebee is installed and working, however, the FPS is too slow:
$ optirun glxspheres64 -info
Polygons in scene: 62464
Visual ID of window: 0x20
Context is Direct
OpenGL Renderer: GeForce GT 520MX/PCIe/SSE2
0.023848 frames/sec - 0.021114 Mpixels/sec
Without optirun I get:
$ glxspheres64 -info
Polygons in scene: 62464
Visual ID of window: 0x20
Context is Direct
OpenGL Renderer: Mesa DRI Intel(R) Sandybridge Mobile
0.033237 frames/sec - 0.029426 Mpixels/sec
0.029968 frames/sec - 0.026533 Mpixels/sec
This is impossible as I was getting very good results before.
I am wondering if I did something wrong, or missed anything.
Just for information, system specs:
Intel i7 2670QM 2.2 GHZ
4 GB RAM
1 GB GeForce GT 520MX
512 MB Intel Graphics
I played 0ad with and without optirun and the performance was good in both of them, but not sure if it switches the video cards itself.
I also have bbswitch installed.
Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.
Last edited by wakeup12 (2014-09-27 14:29:19)

Hello,
Can you please explain in a little more detail the scenario you testing? Are you comparing a SQL Database in Europe against a SQL Database in India? Or a SQL Database with a local, on-premise SQL Server installation?
In case of the first scenario, the roundtrip latency for the connection to the datacenter might play a role.
If you are comparing to a local installation, please note that you might be running against completely different hardware specifications and without network delay, resulting in very different results.
In both cases you can use the below blog post to assess the resource utilization of the SQL Database during the operation:
http://azure.microsoft.com/blog/2014/09/11/azure-sql-database-introduces-new-near-real-time-performance-metrics/
If the DB utilizes up to 100% you might have to consider to upgrade to a higher performance level to achieve the throughput you are looking for.
Thanks,
Jan

Exporting is too slow - FCP 7

Hi,
Problem:
I don't know why rendering and exporting are too slow, even when i woke up this morning and found my video exported it couldn't open.
I'm trying to export a 10min footage.
It tells me it needs 35 - 40 min to export and after 30min. the time remaining is still the same (30min).
after a few hours of exporting, the video does not open/play.
Technical Settings:
I converted my footage to ProRess (HQ), the sequence settings are set to ProRess (HQ) too.
the material in the sequence and the sequence settings are exactly the same.
Additional Info.
I tried exporting to my machine instead of a hard drive to check if the problem is from the hard drive, but still exporting at the same speed (too slow).
I've been editing for 10yrs. and never faced this problem.
my machine is an iMac. OS X, Version 10.6.8, Processor 2.66GHz i5, Memory 4GB 1067 MHz DDR3.
Thanks,
Omar

And here are some other troubleshooting tips
https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-2591
Are you running any other programs at the same time? If so, quit them and see if that makes a difference.
Also what are your sources? Prores(HQ) may be way overkill.

Director 12 is too slow making clones from 3D models

Why is Director 12 so slow making clones from 3D models?
It takes 2 minutes to make 1200 clones from 10 very simple 3D models. And that's only part of the game initialization time.
The complete game initialization takes 3.5 minutes, including the above 1200 clones, plus other 3D cloning, and other data init.
Users won't wait that long for a game to start.
Please help me out with this.
Here's the Lingo clone initialization code:
<pre>
on initItem nameModel, numModels
-- every clone has the same shader
nameShader = "Shader"
-- init this base model
-- gObj global points to the source 3d-model cast member
iModel = gObj.model(nameModel)
iShader = gObj.shader(nameShader)
iModel.transform.rotation = vector(0,0,0)
iModel.transform.scale    = vector(1,1,1)
iModel.visibility = #none
iModel.shaderList[1] = iShader
iShader.diffuse = rgb( 0, 0, 0 )
iShader.emissive = rgb( 0, 255, 0 )
iShader.transparent = FALSE
iShader.flat = TRUE
gObj.modelResource(nameModel).lod.bias = 50.0
-- create a list of clone models -
if( numModels > 0 ) then
    cloneList = []
    repeat with i = 1 to numModels
      ranStr = getRandomString( nameModel )
      iClone = iModel.clone( ranStr )
      -- add and set available flag to clone
      iClone.userData.addProp( #available, TRUE )
      cloneList.append( iClone )
      -- make clone a child of the rendering group: gGroup
      gGroup.addChild( iClone, #preserveWorld )
    end repeat
    -- add to the model the #clones property and the clone list
    iModel.userData.addProp( #clones, cloneList )
end if
end initItem
</pre>

@necromanthus,
I use clones for things like non-player-actor models, missiles, and bullets, all of which must be memory-resident in real-time.
When clones are needed, I pull them from the free pool, make them visible, and transform them as required.
When done with the clones, I make them invisible and return them to the free pool.
In my testing of Director 12, making clones in real-time when they are needed is much too slow for an action game, like a shooter.
The total init time I gave earlier includes many other things besides making clones, but clone making is 40% to 50% of my total init time.
Here's my cloning code after the optimizations -- Note: shader init was removed from initItem(), and the inner loop is now minimal:
on initItem nameModel, numModels
-- gObj is global pointer to 3D cast member
-- gGroup is global pointer to rendering group
iModel = gObj.model(nameModel)
iModel.transform.rotation = vector(0,0,0)
iModel.transform.scale    = vector(1,1,1)
iModel.visibility = #none
iModel.userData.addProp( #available, TRUE )
iModel.shaderList[1] = gObj.shader("ModelShader")
gObj.modelResource(nameModel).lod.auto = TRUE
gObj.modelResource(nameModel).lod.bias = 10
gGroup.addChild( iModel, #preserveWorld )
if( numModels > 0 ) then
    cloneList = []
    repeat with i = 1 to numModels
      iClone = iModel.clone( nameModel & i )
      cloneList.append( iClone )
    end repeat
    iModel.userData.addProp( #clones, cloneList )
end if
end initItem

Disk is too slow or System Overload Error on new Core i7 iMac

Well I just unboxed the new supercomputer, 27 inch iMac with Core i7 and 8gigs of ram. Spent several hours installing Logic Studio 9 and for an opening act I loaded up the demo song by Lily Allen. Too my utter dismay within seconds of playing the demo in Logic Pro I was greeted with the error "Disk is too slow or System Overload.(-10010)".
Can anyone make sense of this? Shouldn't this computer be able to handle this multitrack Logic song with relative ease? What is the problem here, I, of course, am very confused and very worried that something is very wrong.
Thanks

I am running on less of a machine than you are, so I have experienced similar problems, even when playing back 4 audio tracks while recording 2 all at once (usually with significant plug-ins on the 4 playback tracks).
The easiest solution I've found, without modifying how your plug-ins run, buying hardware, etc., is to "Freeze" the tracks that aren't being worked on at present. It "renders" all of what the plug-ins are doing so that the CPU and hard drive are not taxes nearly as much while playing back. It just takes a few seconds to render them once, and then your playback/recording drops the amount of resources it requires tremendously.
The easiest way to activate a freeze on a track is to right-click on the track name in the Arrange pane, select "Freeze" so the button that looks like a snowflake appears next to each track. You can click and drag down the contiguous tracks that can be frozen to turn the option on (or individually click to turn them on). You will then need to play the project to "render" the tracks and freeze them. Next time you play the project, it will run with many less resources and should save you from seeing that message.
As an aside, you may also want to make sure that you are not running any other applications. I found that another app in the background (Connect360) was running on my Mac and sharing my iTunes to my XBox 360, which was also making a good use of the hard drive at the same time. Any other applications running while Logic is running should be closed to ensure the best performance possible in your audio editing environment.
Hope this helps!
Frank

Logic Pro 8 - same old 'system overload' and 'disk too slow' errors

I am having serious issues with Logic Pro 8 on my macbook pro. I am running it with a Focusrite Saffire LE firewire interface.
I am only using it to playback two stereo files, as a backing track and a click for live performance. I can seem to leave it running all day at home without a problem but when I try and use it in rehearsal it trips up either straight away or half way through a track. It gives either 'disk too slow', 'system overload' or 'unable to sync audio and midi' error messages. This is obviously rendering it unusable. I have tried all the usual tweaks associated with this problem but to no avail.
I am reluctant to believe it is a hardware issue because I have Cubase 5 on the same laptop and that runs like a dream all night without the slightest hiccup. Obviously I have been using that instead.
Having done many internet searches about this it does appear to be a common problem but with no definitive fix.
Did anyone else getting these issues ever fix it?

Jazzmaniac wrote:
That has nothing to do with logic. If your had disk becomes slow in rehearsals then it's very likely the hard disk acceleration sensor kicking in to protect your drive from damage. Strong vibrations will cause the heads to park, significantly reducing the the seek times and the transfer rates. Jazz
How does that explain the OP's statement:
"I am reluctant to believe it is a hardware issue because I have Cubase 5 on the same laptop and that runs like a dream all night without the slightest hiccup. Obviously I have been using that instead."
I think it has more to do with Logic's disk access and buffering system.
It's true that vibrations can cause data mis-reads as the drive head has to re-read the data, however part of the problem lies with Logic's buffering. I don't think the sudden motion sensor (sms) is kicking in, just that the drive may be having to re-read data and Logic's buffering system can't handle the slight interrupts.
I've dealt with the exact same situation locally (for a client), we ended up using an old bass drum case to make a padded rest for the MBP, that eliminated 90% of the problem.
pancenter-

Does dual-core iPad 2 mean the next update will make iPad 1 too slow?

Having rendered my old iPhone 3G useless by updating it to iOS4, I'm really wondering if one of the next few updates to iOS will render my iPad 1 too slow to use.
One of the most appealing things about the iPad is how quick and snappy it is to respond. If that slows down it will ruin the user experience.
Spending $499 on a new iPad every April is also not sustainable -- and will not happen.
I encourage Apple to make dam sure the iPad is not obsolete in the wake of two A5 processors on iPad 2.

"There is more RAM and developers will take advantage of that, but that will just make their apps run faster on the iPad 2, but not any slower on ours."
That will make existing apps run faster on iPad 2. But those apps get updated, become more complex to take advantage of the extra ram and cpu, and then you have an updated app that runs about half as fast as it used to before you just upgraded it.
I know, you can't stop progress. But geez, I finally bought a case for this one in December!
Also, FWIW, the iPhone 4 has 512MB ram whereas iPad1 has only 256. I'm betting in two months if you don't have 512MBs RAM on whatever device you're using, it's gonna be slower than you were used to.
I guess it makes sense... At this point speed is becoming irrelevant on PCs. They're all fast enough. So the speed race moves to the mobile market to keep us buying every year. My 1.6GHz Core2Duo Dell laptop is plenty fast and it's about 5 years old. Same with the 2Ghz Core2Duo iMac. Now, the dual-core G5 I'm typing this on is having major speed issues -- for the same reason I'm discussing the iPad. When my G5 came out we were on Adobe CS2. Now it's CS5, and I'm only on CS4 -- but it's designed for the latest greatest hardware. My computer's not any slower, but my Photoshop sure as heck is. And same with everything else that's been updated over the last 5 years. And I can't even run the latest Safari. Dam IT dept! Give me a new Mac!

Zepto too slow?

I got a Zepto 6625WD laptop (core 2 duo 2,4GHz, 2gb ram, 120GB 7200rpm) and I'm trying to run lightroom 2.0 beta but it isn't workable imo because it's way too slow! Scrolling through my images is jerky and a simple thing like straightening a photo takes way too long!
This is the output of the system info window in lightroom:
Lightroom version: 2.0 Beta [439142 Beta 1]
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3, v.3264 (Build 2600)
Version: 5.1 [2600]
Application architecture: x86
System architecture: x86
Physical processor count: 2
Processor speed: 2.3 GHz
Built-in memory: 2046 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 716.8 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 183 MB (25.5%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 215.8 MB
Memory cache size: 106.6 MB
Application folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Lightroom 2 Beta
Library Path: C:\Documents and Settings\r\My Documents\My Pictures\Silvertone\Lightroom Catalog.lrcat
A friend of mine has a way older toshiba (1,5GHz single core, 2gb ram), and it runs much better on his laptop!
I have about 2200 photo's in my catalog. I optimized the catalog and rendered all 1:1 and standard sized previews. Auto write changes to xmp is ticked off...
How can this be? Any solutions?

thanks for the advice... I did the things that are described there but no luck, still the same!
I then followed the guidelines on this site: http://www.lightroomforums.net/showthread.php?t=2137
This seemed promissing but the performance didn't improve significantly, still jerky scrolling!
I tried to install different kind of drivers but they all had the same performance...
If I put my color quality to 16bit, my gpu to performance and all other quality stuff to the minimum, then lightroom is faster but still not fast enough imo (and 16bit color really sucks)!
I now deleted my catalog and imported 70photo's, still the same so the size of the catalog is not the problem.

Safari 5.1 too slow to print tab content?

Since Safari 5.1 I do have a problem with the JavaScript function window.print() in new tabs
For instance:
win = window.open();
win.blur();
self.focus();
win.document.open();
win.document.write('<html><head><meta charset="UTF-8"><title>test</title>');
win.document.write('</head><body id="print">some content here</body></html>')
win.document.close();
win.print();
win.close();
This code opens a new tab and the Safari print popup but without any content. Safari even generates multiple pages when the content requires more pages. But all pages are blank.
First I thought my print stylesheet isn't compatible with the new webkit engine or something like that.
But it turns out Safari is too slow with the .print() function and already closed the tab before the content could be rendered.
So I fixed it by setting a timeout
setTimeout(function() {win.close(); }, 1000);
Is there any chance that this problem could be fixed in general?
Thanks!

Hi everyone, first thanks for helping...
My SSD is 256GB and it still has 128GB of free space for now... So I don't think this is my issue.
Then I tried the the reset thing (good tip, I didn't know about that), but it's still the same. I didn't try the virus scanning, because I'm on a Mac and don't have one installed. I just let the OS dealing with it.
I think it's a graphic issue. Whenever I clic onto a folder, inside of Bridge, it's like nothing happens, execpt I can see that the name dispayed onto of the app window changes. So Bridge DID actually get me into that folder, but the graphic interface doesn't show it.
If I use Exposé or Space then the change does appears.
So everytime I move into another folder, I drag my mouse to one corner of my screen to activate Exposé, then come back and here I am in the new folder.
But this trick doesn't work for preview. My preview window allows me to play sound from video files, but wont display any image for it (like if it was sound only files). Still images (jpeg, psd...) wont show up as well.
So it is definitly a graphic problem. The softaware is not slow, like I though at first, it just don't reflect what's going on on the interface.
When I click "about this Mac" to get info on my graphic card it reads:
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M
NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT
Why do I have 2 of them? No idea... But I see guys online that have the same in their Mac...
I'm not sure to understand if I can or cannot update graphic card drivers for Mac... Usualy the only upgrades I need are coming from Apple, and my Snow Leopard is fully up to date...

Application running too slow on sun T5440 but run normal on sun M3000

Hi all,
I have application running on sun server T5440 4x8x1.4 GHz, 64 GB RAM, application running very slow though load average too low. when I install my application on another server SUN M3000 (One CPU 1x8x2.5GHz, 8GB RAM), application run smoothly.
Here is my server T5440 info:
Code:
bash-3.00# uname -a
SunOS 5.10 Generic_142909-17 sun4v sparc SUNW,T5440
Psrinfo -pv
Code:
bash-3.00# psrinfo -pv
The physical processor has 64 virtual processors (0-63)
UltraSPARC-T2+ (chipid 0, clock 1414 MHz)
The physical processor has 64 virtual processors (64-127)
UltraSPARC-T2+ (chipid 1, clock 1414 MHz)
The physical processor has 64 virtual processors (128-191)
UltraSPARC-T2+ (chipid 2, clock 1414 MHz)
The physical processor has 64 virtual processors (192-255)
UltraSPARC-T2+ (chipid 3, clock 1414 MHz)
/etc/system
Code:
set semsys:seminfo_semopm=10000
set semsys:seminfo_semmsl=10000
set semsys:seminfo_semmni=1024
set max_nprocs=50000
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmnb=2097152
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmni=2560
set msgsys:msginfo_msgtql=2560
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmax=1073741824
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmni=1000
set rlim_fd_cur=10000
Ipcs
Code:
bash-3.00# ipcs -a
IPC status from as of Wed Jun 13 12:31:01 ICT 2012
T ID KEY MODE OWNER GROUP CREATOR CGROUP CBYTES QNUM QBYTES LSPID LRPID STIME RTIME CTIME
Message Queues:
q 62 0x1388 --rw-rw-rw- topx topx topx topx 0 0 2097152 0 0 no-entry no-entry 8:36:22
q 61 0x1387 --rw-rw-rw- topx topx topx topx 0 0 2097152 0 0 no-entry no-entry 8:36:22
q 60 0x1318 --rw-rw-rw- topx topx topx topx 0 0 2097152 0 0 no-entry no-entry 8:36:22
q 59 0x12a9 --rw-rw-rw- topx topx topx topx 0 0 2097152 9069 9071 10:25:38 10:25:38 8:36:22
q 58 0x100f --rw-rw-rw- topx topx topx topx 0 0 2097152 9069 9070 10:06:16 10:06:16 8:36:22
q 57 0xfa0 -Rrw-rw-rw- topx topx topx topx 0 0 2097152 9071 9069 10:25:38 10:25:38 8:36:22
q 56 0xf30 --rw-rw-rw- topx topx topx topx 0 0 2097152 0 0 no-entry no-entry 8:36:20
q 55 0xc27 -Rrw-rw-rw- topx topx topx topx 0 0 2097152 0 0 no-entry no-entry 8:28:14
q 54 0xbb8 -Rrw-rw-rw- topx topx topx topx 0 0 2097152 172 9066 10:47:08 10:47:08 8:28:14
T ID KEY MODE OWNER GROUP CREATOR CGROUP NATTCH SEGSZ CPID LPID ATIME DTIME CTIME
Shared Memory:
T ID KEY MODE OWNER GROUP CREATOR CGROUP NSEMS OTIME CTIME
Semaphores:
s 104 0x9c4 --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 3 12:31:00 8:36:20
s 103 0xa8c --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 1 8:36:20 8:36:20
s 102 0xd48 --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 1 8:36:20 8:36:20
s 101 0xce4 --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 1 8:36:20 8:36:20
s 100 0x26de --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 8 10:19:34 8:28:14
s 99 0xc1c --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 1 8:36:20 8:28:14
s 98 0xbb8 --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 1 8:43:50 8:28:14
s 97 0xaf0 --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 500 8:36:20 8:28:14
s 96 0xa28 --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 500 8:36:20 8:28:14
s 95 0x7ee --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 1 8:36:20 8:28:14
s 94 0x7e4 --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 1001 8:36:20 8:28:14
s 93 0x7da --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 220 8:36:20 8:28:14
s 92 0x7d5 --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 200 12:05:15 8:28:14
s 91 0x7d0 --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 200 8:56:42 8:28:14
s 90 0xc80 --ra-ra-ra- topx topx topx topx 2 12:31:01 8:27:52 –a
Prstat
Code:
PID USERNAME SIZE RSS STATE PRI NICE TIME CPU PROCESS/NLWP
9202 topx 1460M 893M sleep 59 0 0:16:37 0.2% integrity_check/1
12455 root 3880K 3600K cpu65 59 0 0:00:00 0.0% prstat/1
9080 topx 142M 130M sleep 59 0 0:00:52 0.0% intf_resp_low/1
9125 topx 102M 78M sleep 59 0 0:00:36 0.0% interface_vsc/1
9121 topx 88M 80M sleep 59 0 0:00:32 0.0% interface_tcu/1
9120 topx 89M 80M sleep 59 0 0:00:29 0.0% interface_rcm/1
9124 topx 87M 78M sleep 59 0 0:00:29 0.0% baplie_merge_v2/1
9122 topx 86M 78M sleep 59 0 0:00:28 0.0% interface_eih/1
9115 topx 88M 77M sleep 59 0 0:00:33 0.0% intf_batch_even/1
9114 topx 88M 77M sleep 59 0 0:00:39 0.0% intf_event/1
9117 topx 87M 78M sleep 59 0 0:00:32 0.0% interface_bxy/1
9118 topx 86M 78M sleep 59 0 0:00:29 0.0% interface_ppm/1
NPROC USERNAME SWAP RSS MEMORY TIME CPU
41 topx 334M 2237M 3.4% 0:30:17 0.3%
43 root 186M 195M 0.3% 0:14:45 0.0%
1 noaccess 152M 136M 0.2% 0:04:00 0.0%
1 smmsp 3688K 11M 0.0% 0:00:04 0.0%
1 lp 1208K 3880K 0.0% 0:00:00 0.0%
6 daemon 7264K 9944K 0.0% 0:00:26 0.0%
Total: 93 processes, 259 lwps, load averages: 0.40, 0.39, 0.39
Prstat –mL
Code:
bash-3.00# prstat -mL
PID USERNAME USR SYS TRP TFL DFL LCK SLP LAT VCX ICX SCL SIG PROCESS/LWPID
9202 topx 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99 0.0 2 0 5 0 integrity_ch/1
9080 topx 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 5 0 20 0 intf_resp_lo/1
9114 topx 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 13 0 66 0 intf_event/1
17282 root 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 20 1 324 0 prstat/1
9117 topx 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 10 1 70 0 interface_bx/1
9118 topx 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 10 1 70 0 interface_pp/1
9115 topx 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 15 0 80 0 intf_batch_e/1
9121 topx 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 10 0 70 0 interface_tc/1
9125 topx 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 10 0 70 0 interface_vs/1
9120 topx 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 10 0 70 0 interface_rc/1
9123 topx 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 10 0 70 0 interface_vs/1
9124 topx 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 10 1 70 0 baplie_merge/1
9122 topx 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 8 0 56 0 interface_ei/1
9119 topx 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 8 0 56 0 interface_cp/1
9204 topx 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 15 1 1K 0 sys_check/1
259 root 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 13 2 98 7 in.mpathd/1
1 root 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 3 0 99 3 init/1
1337 noaccess 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 100 0 100 0 java/14
140 root 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 19 0 114 0 nscd/851
Total: 90 processes, 256 lwps, load averages: 0.40, 0.40, 0.39
Vmstat
Code:
bash-3.00# vmstat 1 10
kthr memory page disk faults cpu
r b w swap free re mf pi po fr de sr m0 m1 m2 m3 in sy cs us sy id
0 0 0 87720712 60562856 173 645 199 44 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 886 2819 525 0 1 99
1 0 0 87563976 59743040 73 327 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 747 2831 439 0 1 99
0 0 0 87563656 59742808 61 306 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 770 2684 427 0 1 99
1 0 0 87563656 59742824 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 886 1302 525 0 1 99
1 0 0 87563656 59742816 62 305 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 722 2652 420 3 1 96
1 0 0 87563656 59742840 554 2777 0 139 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 959 9736 749 1 1 97
0 0 0 87563456 59742672 1155 5735 0 292 292 0 0 0 0 0 0 1113 17489 1145 1 3 96
1 0 0 87563656 59742840 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 845 1613 654 0 1 99
0 0 0 87563656 59742856 62 305 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 900 2647 526 0 1 99
0 0 0 87563656 59742856 62 304 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 683 2661 396 0 1 99
Mpstat
Code:
CPU minf mjf xcal intr ithr csw icsw migr smtx srw syscl usr sys wt idl
0 0 0 130 261 1 121 0 13 1 0 0 0 1 0 99
1 0 0 35 133 2 143 0 9 6 0 64 0 0 0 100
2 0 0 5 20 2 17 0 3 0 0 29 1 0 0 99
3 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
4 0 0 3 14 0 15 0 2 2 0 13 0 0 0 100
73 0 0 474330 77 3 0 7 0 2 0 2596 67 33 0 0
73 0 0 487701 37 0 0 7 0 8 0 2670 66 34 0 0
73 0 0 476377 14 0 0 8 0 1 0 2610 66 34 0 0
78 0 0 473950 11 1 0 7 0 13 0 2593 67 33 0 0
78 0 0 480562 9 0 0 7 0 4 0 2630 66 34 0 0
79 0 0 320989 14 1 0 8 0 0 0 1766 77 23 0 0
79 0 0 479148 9 0 0 7 0 8 0 2622 66 34 0 0
79 0 0 479426 13 0 0 7 0 2 0 2622 67 33 0 0
79 0 0 488949 9 0 0 8 0 13 0 2678 66 34 0 0
64 0 0 482229 15 2 0 8 0 7 0 2638 65 35 0 0
77 0 0 475571 14 1 0 7 0 8 0 2602 67 33 0 0
69 0 0 467795 22 1 0 7 0 40 0 2563 66 34 0 0
69 0 0 318623 9 1 0 7 0 8 0 1751 77 23 0 0
66 0 0 465179 92 1 2 8 0 62 0 2545 66 34 0 0
When my application running, some of CPU have IDLE state = 0 and hold the CPU while another CPU have IDLE state 100. I think this is my bottleneck but I cannot find any solution for solve that.
Netstat
Code:
bash-3.00# netstat -i
Name Mtu Net/Dest Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Collis Queue
lo0 8232 loopback localhost 244022 0 244022 0 0 0
nxge0 1500 TOPX-01-DUMMY1 TOPX-01-DUMMY1 3594863 0 5801650 0 0 0
nxge1 1500 TOPX-01-DUMMY2 TOPX-01-DUMMY2 160954 0 151230 0 0 0
iostat
Code:
bash-3.00# iostat -xn
extended device statistics
r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
0.1 0.1 1.5 30.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 9.0 0 0 md/d0
0.0 0.1 0.8 30.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0 0 md/d1
0.0 0.1 0.8 30.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0 0 md/d2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 0 0 md/d3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 0 0 md/d4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.4 0 0 md/d5
0.0 0.0 2.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 7.4 0 0 md/d6
0.0 0.0 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0 0 md/d7
0.0 0.0 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 0 0 md/d8
0.0 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 7.6 10.0 0 0 md/d9
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0 0 md/d10
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 0 0 md/d11
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 10.4 0 0 md/d12
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0 0 md/d13
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0 0 md/d14
0.1 0.5 2.1 32.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0 0 c0t0d0
0.1 0.5 2.1 32.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0 0 c0t1d0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 c1t0d0
0.9 0.9 125.3 123.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 34.2 0 2 c4t600144F0CC00C29A00004D1E456F0003d0
0.3 0.7 20.7 53.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 8.2 0 0 c4t600144F0CC00C29A00004D1E43880001d0
0.1 0.2 50.7 111.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.1 0 1 c4t600144F0CC00C29A00004D1E453E0002d0
Please help me find the bottleneck of my T5440 server?Thanks so much for all your help.

Moderator Comment and Action:
@ O.P.,
You cross-posted this to at least two other forum web sites:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/solaris-opensolaris-20/application-running-too-slow-on-sun-sparc-t5440-but-run-normal-on-sun-m3000-4175411155/
http://www.unix.com/solaris/189945-application-running-too-slow-sun-sparc-t5440-but-run-normal-sun-m3000.html
... and didn't think that was important enough to simply mention the fact.
Timestamps suggest that OTN was the last place you posted to.
Poor forum etiquette.
Why would anyone spend the time to try to give help that you have already received elsewhere? That's a waste of their time.
(Yes, you already received the suggestion to use Dtrace in one of those other sites.)
This thread is locked as irrelevant.

Java web start application runs too slow...

Hello,
I am new to Java Web Start. I have created a java web start application and when i enable web start from local Execution, then it works perfectly well. But when i upload it on server and then download the application, then it is too too slow...i mean it takes minutes to get the output on clicking some button....my jnlp file is as under:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<jnlp codebase="http://(web server code base)" href="launch.jnlp" spec="1.0+">
<information>
<title>ERD</title>
<vendor>Deepika Gohil</vendor>
<homepage href="http://appframework.dev.java.net"/>
<description>A simple java desktop application based on Swing Application Framework</description>
<description kind="short">ER Deign Tools</description>
</information>
<update check="always"/>
<security>
<all-permissions/>
</security>
<resources>
<j2se version="1.5+"/>
<jar href="ERD_1_2.jar" main="true"/>
<jar href="lib/appframework-1.0.3.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/swing-worker-1.1.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/jaxb-impl.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/jaxb-xjc.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/jaxb1-impl.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/activation.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/jaxb-api.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/jsr173_api.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/ant-contrib-1.0b3.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/jaxb-impl.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/jaxb-xjc.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/FastInfoset.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/gmbal-api-only.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/http.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/jaxws-rt.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/jaxws-tools.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/management-api.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/mimepull.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/policy.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/saaj-impl.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/stax-ex.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/streambuffer.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/woodstox.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/jaxws-api.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/jsr181-api.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/jsr250-api.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/saaj-api.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/activation.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/jaxb-api.jar"/>
<jar href="lib/jsr173_api.jar"/>
</resources>
<application-desc main-class="erd.screen1">
</application-desc>
</jnlp>
I dont understand the reason. Could you please help me out.
Thank you,
Deepika Gohil.

Check your web server's access logs to see how many requests web start is sending for each jar. After you've loaded the application the first time, for each subsequent launch, if you've got everything configured right, you should only see requests for the JNLP file and maybe some gifs because web start should load everything else out of the cache (if you're using the version-based download protocol). Or if you're using the basic download protocol, then you might see requests for each jar file, but even in this case, if your web server is prepared to evaluate the last-updated attribute for each jar request and for jars that have not changed, respond with no actual payload and a header value of Not-Modified, then that should run almost as fast.
You might also want to consider changing the "check" attribute of the "update" element from "always" to "background" for a couple of reasons. It should allow your app to start sooner (but this means that you might have to launch once or twice after an update is applied to the web server before the update shows up on the workstation). Also, my impression is that "always" is broken and prevents web start from ever checking to see if your jnlp file has been updated if you launch your app from a web start shortcut - launching from a browser is less likely to have this problem, depending on how often your browser is configured to check for updated resources.

Fcpx rendering too slow

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for