Intel Xserve not using full CPU

When submitting a batch to qmaster, I notice my other g5 machines utilize almost all the processor, and on the intel xserve, all 4 CPUs usually max out at 40% tops. Is this a limitation, to be expected, etc?

Things do look clean - not familiar with all of the Processes, but some of the common "culprits" do not appear. Nice job in keeping these to a minimum. Most people have 60-80 going. Maybe someone else can look down your list and find something that can be eliminated easily for NLE work. I just don't see any potential problems, but remember I do not recognize some of those.
I like the Virtual Memory setting, with only one question: you mention a partition on the RAID 0. Why a partition? The reason that I ask is that Windows first sees your 2 HDD's as one (the RAID), then it sees your partitions as several. If accessing what it now thinks are 2, or more, physical HDD's, it's telling the controller to get the heads in a couple of places at the same time. You probably have a good reason for doing it this way, but it does throw up a yellow flag to me. Having the RAID managed by the MoBo chip is not the fastest/best, but is usually more than adequate. It does save on a US$400 RAID card with multiple channels/chips.
You have provided me, and others, with food for thought. I'll keep looking over your data, but just see nothing, except for the Page File on a partition, that might affect performance.
One test that I'd run would be a slight re-config on your Scratch Disks. I'd do a Save_As, or a Save_As_a_Copy for your Project. Leave your original totally alone. Do a test with the Scratch Disks set to "Same as Project." This will put them on the RAID 0. Then, perform the same operations and monitor the time. Unfortunately, you're investing hours into this, but you might get enough of a performance increase to justify it for future Projects. One way around the time, would be to do a "test" Project with shorter versions of similar Assets. Do all processing on that Project, as configured, and time the results. Do the Save_As, make the changes to the Scratch Disks, and process again. Any difference?
Good luck, and thanks for gathering the data,
Hunt

Similar Messages

HELP: Premiere Pro CC not using all CPU and RAM during rendering and export

Hello,
I am using Premiere Pro CC on a Windows 7. My timeline is quite simple with two videos, one with the movie (mpeg) and the other with the subtitles (avi).
When I render the sequence in PP or export, the rendering time is way too slow and it only uses around 15-20% of the CPU and 3 GB of RAM.
My hardware config is :
- CPU : i7-4770k 3.50Ghz
- RAM : 8 GB
- Disk : 2 x 3 TB SATA (no raid)
RAM is not the bottleneck, neither the disk access.
I have tried rendering and exporting the same project on an iMac (with an i5 2.7 Ghz and 4 GB RAM and only 1 disk) and the result is 4x faster !!!
The CPU usage is close to 100% as well as RAM usage.
So how come PP uses all resources availble on an iMac and not on a Windows 7 ?
Is there any known bug or software bottleneck on Windows 7 ?
My machine is brand new and nothing much installed besides Adobe products.
Any help is very much appreciated.
Thanks,

I just rendered out a a 2 minute sequence with about 100 clips in it and Colorista effects on everything to the Vimeo 1080 H264 preset. It took about 5 minutes to render straight from Premiere, it used all the recourses it could, my CPU was running at near %100, same with my ram and GPU, I was happy.
Then I did another render with Red Giant Denoiser and it now wants to take 30 mins and it is only using about %20 of the recourses available. My problem isn't that its taking longer with Denoiser but that its not using all of my computers CPU and GPU.
Im rendering at maximum render quality and bit dept to H264 (Im happy to wait the extra time), if I try to use VRB 2 it encodes 1 pass at a time and wants to take up to 40 minutes.
I would appreciate some advice on this.
Premiere Pro CC 2013
2.6 GHz Intel Core i7
NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M 2048 MB (CUDA GPU enabled in Premiere)
16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
OS X 10.9.4 (13E28)

Report output not using full page.

I have a report that does not use the full screen to display. The output display on about a 1.5 to 2 inch section of the page and the rest is white space. How do I get it to use the full page?

Hi Raymist123,
If I understand correctly, the issue which you occurred is that the report content only displayed about 1.5 to 2 inch. As per my understanding, I think this issue is caused by the report content including all the report items (table, matrix, list, chart,
gauge, text boxes etc.) is only occupied 1.5 to 2 inch on the report design surface. If in this case, we can try to expand the sizes of all the report items to fix the issue. And please make sure that the PageSize of the report have set to 8.5 x 11.
If this issue is still existed, could you please post the screenshot about the design surface and the all the size properties? Then we can make further analysis.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
Katherine Xiong
Katherine Xiong
TechNet Community Support

Video out not using full widescreen on a 23.5" monitor

I have an Asus 23.5" LCD which I use for TV and my Xbox. Both use the widescreen how it should. But when I plug my Macbook into it, I get 2" bars on the left and right. However, if I uncheck "mirror display," my desktop background fills the entire screen. I mean, the second desktop, or the extended desktop uses the full widescreen format.

Hi and welcome to Discussions,
in 'Mirror Mode' both the internal and the external display use the same resolution, which with the MacBook is 1280 x 800.
Only in 'Extended Mode' the internal and the external can use different resolutions.
You might wanna check if the Asus LCD has an option to 'remove' the black borders, when using a resolution that is not the native (full) resolution of it.
If this is possible, you might experience however a less sharper image on the Asus since it is not using its native resolution.
Regards
Stefan

Shared photo streams not using full resolution

I was very excited about this feature but after testing it I realised it's not using the full res pictures on the shared photostream. Which for me is kind of a silly.
Am I doing something wrong or is that how it's working?
Thanks in advance for your answers.

Larry,
Having a similar issue as the one described by kmacd... I'm trying to set up Shared Photo Streams between my MacBook Pro (Late 2009 13") and my iPhone 4, to essentially use them as streaming albums. Both devices are set up with iCloud with the same account, and both have all settings enabled for Shared Photo Streams, as I can create and modify streams in both. The problem is that when I create a new stream on one, it never shows up on the other! I never receive an invite, which I assume I wouldn't since it's all the same account. Just not sure why the Shared Streams don't sync over multiple devices when the normal My Photo Stream works perfectly fine. Any thoughts?? Thanks!
Hardware/Software Specs:
MacBook Pro 5,5 (Late 2009 13")
OS X Mavericks 10.9.1
iPhoto v9.5.1 (902.17)
Aperture 3.5.1
iPhone 4iOS 7.0.4
Note: I am currently in the process of downloading iPhoto 2.0 for iOS to see if there's any way to access the streams through that. Figured it's worth a shot!!

Viewsonic 2431wm does not use full width in 1920x1080 mode

HI Folks,
I've recently replaced a failed Viewsonic 2433wm monitor with a 2431wm. My Mac Pro 5,1 has the 1GB Radeon HD5770 video HBA and is a 2 monitor configuration. The previous pair of 2433wm's functioned wonderfully at the 1920x1080@60Hz settings.
However, with the new 2431wm attached, the displayed image does not use the full width of the screen. I've tried manually adjusting the horizontal settings and using the monitor's Auto Image Adjust with no change. I've also installed the latest drivers from the Viewsonic site.
For grins, I borrowed a colleague's 2433wm and it immediately worked as expected with no changes on the monitor or my Mac Pro. Also, setting the 2431wm's resolution to 1680x1024 uses the entire screen width.
Does anyone have tips about the 2431wm or manual OS X settings that could resolve this?
Thanks,
Tim

When using a CRT, the phosphor is painted on the display much more widely. The maximum resolutions used are always far less than the maximum the display could produce IF we were to tune it to absolutely perfectly hit every Phosphor dot. But if you did this, you would have to adjust your display ever time a new picture went up on it.
An LCD display does not wave an electron gun around and light up some phosphor dots. The dots are addressed directly. Optimum resolution is EXACTLY every dot that the manufacturer placed on the glass -- no more, no less.
If you chose any resolution other than the optimum resolution, the display may try to approximate what you asked for and fill the display -- or may not. If it does fill the screen, it will be a poor imitation of the best picture you can possibly get from the display.
My recommendation: Find out what is the optimum or recommended resolution is for your specific display, set your display to that resolution, and do not change it.

Time Capsule Not Using Full Capacity

Good morning. I have a 1tb Time Capsule and use Time Machine to backup my iMac and my son's MBP.
The Time Machine backup is reporting that 235gb of 998gb is available. But it's been "stuck" at about 235gb for weeks. It seems as if the system is not using all available capacity. Is this normal?
I should note that at one time I had miscellaneous folders and files on the Time Capsule (from a PC). Would those miscellaneous files have somehow "blocked" access to the rest of the free space? I have removed those misc files, but still not seeing the system use my full drive capacity.
Any ideas how to get the system to use the rest of the drive?
Thanks in advance, John

The Time Capsule is reporting on the space that backups are using on the drive. Backups are stored in a special container called a sparsebundle file.
Sparsebundles behave differently than normal files. The sparsefundle expands as more data is added.But, it behaves differently when files are deleted.
So, lets say that the sparsebundle is up to 100 GB. Now, you delete 10 GB from your backups beasue you don't need the files any longer. So, you think you should see 90 GB now.
The sparsebundlw will still show as a 100 GB. It will begin to "grow" again when more than 100 GB is present.

Audio out of sync with presentation (not using full motion)

When I preview or publish a project using Captivate 5, the audio is out of sync with the presentation. I am not using any full motion recording, which I know has caused audio/video sync issues in previous versions of Captivate. The audio is slide specific, with a separate audio file for each slide. (In other words, I'm not trying to break a large audio file over many slides.) When each slide is viewed individually -- in the workstation, in the preview window, or in the published version -- the audio is synced just fine. The problem arises only when I try to watch the entire presentation (approx. 10 minutes in length). The audio gradually lags behind the visual. By about half way through the project, the visual presentation is noticably ahead of the audio. By the end, the audio is nearly 4 seconds behind the video. I cannot detect a noticeable change in pitch or speed of the audio, so if the audio is being altered in any way, the alteration is slight.
However, if I use the playback controls to advance to a single slide, the audio is fine for that slide and those immediately after, although it does gradually get off again as the project progresses. (So, for example, if I start the playback in the middle of the project, the audio will only be off by about 2 seconds by the end, rather than 4.)
I have tried various publishing options (although I don't think publishing is the problem, since this happens when I preview the project as well). I have used 2 different computers and also tried viewing the published version locally and streaming. None of these alterations seem to make a difference. By the end of the presentation, regardless of how the project is published or viewed, the audio is several seconds behind the video.
My specs:
Captivate 5
Microsoft XP OS
2 GB RAM
Publishing to .swf
Suggestions?

Hi Mukul,
Thank you very much for your careful responses. Here are the answers to the questions.
First of all, the "slow video" behavior does appear only after adding the slides mentioned in previous post.
1.    I created a “software simulation” project. It IS a capture+audio recording.
2.    Since I recorded the audio while doing screen capture, almost every slide has audio, which is not convenient to edit at all. Is there any other better way that I missed so that we can keep the audio and video at the same step while editing them? As I know so far, either insert silence or delete a little audio to one slide, the audio becomes short, but the slide duration time is still the same as before unless we change that manually which normally is not precise enough to match the audio.
3.    I tried to add the blank slides at where there is a pause of speaking and where they are close to the problem slides. Otherwise, the speaking would sound weird.
4.    Published SWF file size is 20.6 MB.
5.    I do have two externalized video files for title and end.
6.    Unfortunately, it is still slow even if it played on a different system.
And another problem comes up these days. After publication, the screen resolution is not good (like some grey ink left on screen) wherever click or type something. It did not happen before even if worked on the same computer.
I am very sorry that there are so many problems. I have been working on this for long time. The project totally drove me nuts. Hopefully you have more ideas about that.
I really appreciate your help.
Sincerely,
Linda

Intel Xserve not contactable via Server Monitor

I simply cannot get our new Intel Xserve to show up in Server Monitor. The app just sits there saying "waiting for a response". Our old G5 Xserve shows up, in 10.4 Server Admin and 10.5 Server admin, on either box. Apart from this, the server is functioning normally, no errors, Open Directory, Home Directories, Apache etc. But it's really annoying as in their current environment I need to keep an eye on the core temp etc. Can anyone suggest a way to find out what is wrong?
Thanks for your time - it's much appreciated.

Connect onto the Xserve box (on the console or ARD or such) and follow the instructions to set up the LOM port with a unique IP address, and ensure you're on the same LAN and subnet as the LOM port.
[Here's the basic LOM configuration sequence|http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2773].
The initial configuration is (often) via Server Monitor invoked directly on the local box and connected directly to the local host.
Use a unique IP for the LOM on each NIC it is active on.
And remember to power-cycle (and unplug) the box when you make significant changes to the LOM.
It's possible to do this via ipmitool if you don't have graphics console access to the box, but (for the sake of brevity) that access is being assumed here.

Portege 7200 does not use full display

Have loaded windows 98SE onto portege 7200 (model number PP720E-6390W-EN) and cannot get the display to use full screen.
I have downloaded display-win9x-650554022icd driver but there is no '.exe' file to initiate the installation. Any ideas?
cheers

Hi,
what a kind of file was there? Maybe an *.inf file? If a such and *.inf file is existent then everything is alright. Just go to the device manager and to the graphics device,
go to install new driver and then when windows is asking for an driver, just define the folder where the drivers are as the driver destination.
Windows should take the driver and install it.
Greets

Media Encoder CS6 Not using all CPU Cores or RAM

I'm currently exporting a 90 second video (using the Vimeo HD 1080p preset), and it is taking about 30 minutes. This is extremely strange as I have an i7-990x OC'ed @4.5, 12GB RAM, SSD, etc.
I looked at Performance tab in Windows Task Manager, and saw 4 threads were not being used at all, only 20-25% of the CPU was in use, and only 6GB out of the 9GB I specified was being used.
Why isn't Media Encoder making full use of my CPU and RAM?

I'm having the same problem. But even worst.
For the test, I take a 10 min .mov or mp4 file, simply modify the "scale", and hit the export.
a 10 min file is taking 4 hours to render.
This is on a:
2012 MacBookPro i7 2.3Ghz, 16 GB 1600 DDR3, SSD disk. - Mac OSX 10.7.5
and a:
2011 iMac i7 3.7Ghz, 16 GB 1333 Mhz, 7200 RPM HD - Mac OSX 10.7.5
The CPU stays at 90% idle the whole time.
I know this is an old thread, but maybe someone could give me a hand.

JavaScript Performance Slow – Not Utilizing Full CPU?

Hello all. I have a script performance question I was hoping someone could help with.
I’ve developed a folder level JavaScript for Acrobat that does a great detail of linking and annotation for a certain kind of PDF book that we produce where I work. The script works, however the performance is quite slower than I would expect. On some of the larger books I run the script on it takes hours to complete. I did suspect my code for a while and optimized it as much as possible. I noticed later though that while the script is running Acrobat only utilizes a maximum of about 12 percent of the CPU (12 percent of one core). I would think this number would be much higher. Has anyone else experienced this? Is there a way around it?
Craig

JavaScript is an interpretive language or each line of code is reprocessed each time it is asked to be rerun. When a PDF form is opened all of the JavaScript is processed from plain text through a syntax check, and common actions being converted into tokens for faster running. Also functions are converted into tokens for reuse.
So gains in processing times are achieved by determining the best place to place code like using the on blur action for processing a field process that only has to occur when a field value changes like testing a value and issuing a waring versus running a full calculation for that same action.
When any field used within a calculation is modified, all calculations are reprocessed when ever one of those fields is changed. Another way to improve performance is to create a function or a predefined process that may have some input values, performs a specific task. and may return a result. So if I have a calculation like computing elapsed time between 2 time values on a time sheet rather than coding the conversion of the time strings to a number, performing calculation and formatting the result for each day, I could define a function that uses the 2 time values, computes the difference and returns the formatted result. Since the function has been syntax checked and tokenized it will run faster on each call for each day.
It is also possible to combine the calculation for many fields into one larger calculation in one form field and it is even possible to call a user defined function within another user defined function so one eliminates the repeated initialization for the code for each field.
If one is adding fields with JavaScript and adding calculation actions, it is best to turn off the the doc's calculate property while adding the fields since each new added field will trigger a recalculation as each field is added. Just remember to turn it back on at the end. This should have no affect when adding annotations or searching for words.
If you are having to search through the PDF for each word, then there is a lot of overhead. I have noticed with such scripts that the first use takes significantly longer than the next call as long as Acrobat is not closed. This maybe due to the use of virtual memory by the computer and the code I use is in the RAM from the first call and not the virtual swap file for the second call of the process.
You might also get faster processing by using the Action/Batch processing of Acrobat Professional.

AE CC not using 4 CPU cores

I have Win8 Pro 64-bit version and AE CC 64-bit, RAM is 16GB. Processor is Intel i5 2500k, 4 cores.
And in my task manager I see AE is using only 2 cpu cores, why isn't it using all 4 of them for rendering?

See this to understand how CPUs are used by After Effects:
https://www.video2brain.com/en/lessons/optimizing-cpus
You won't always see all of your CPUs used at 100%. There are a lot of other components to rendering, and the CPU is often not the bottleneck.
See this page for resources about making After Effects work faster: http://adobe.ly/eV2zE7
See this page for information about hardware for After Effects: http://adobe.ly/pRYOuk

Dvds made with encore cs5 not using full 4.65gb as cs4 did

The majority of my video work consists of burning DVDs of event videos that are longer than two hours. I edit the video, dynamic link over to Premiere, add a second time line with a 10 second logo video and render the DVD. And since the begining of time with CS3, these DVD images always come out to be 4.65/4.66 gb (according to OS X). Now, with CS5, changing absolutely nothing--exact same workflow--Encore is only using 4.21 gb of space. The disc info section of the build pane lists around 450mb of free space (on the particular project I'm looking at right now).
This is a significant amount of wasted space and is unacceptable. Why is this happening?

I was finally able to talk to someone from Adobe and they tell me that this is the expected behavior, that supposedly not all DVDs are manufactured at the correct size and this extra space is to prevent problems. Should that even be true (aren't DVD's a standard?? If it says there's 4.7gb on it doesn't than mean there's 4.7gb??) this is a STUPID decision for the following reasons:
* It doesn't show this 500mb extra space until after you render your items. Before that time, it shows all the disc space being used--1 or 2 megs free and no more
* If this is necessary then make the default disc image size 4.2gb and add it to the drop-down list of sizes. Then I can pick 4.7 if I want it.
* It doesn't even always leave 500mb. Sometimes, completely unexplicably--I'd say 10% of the time, it uses the full amount of space...like it's done since Encore v1.0. So if I manually change the disc size to 5.2 in order to get the right size image, I sometimes find that nope, Encore isn't drunk today, and I now have a 5.2gb disc image and have to start over.
It seems like every time I update my software w/ the promise of things speeding up my workflow (and other things in CS5 have), something like this pops up to F it all up and I resign myself to thinking well, I guess Adobe will fix this one day...and call it CS6 and charge me another $700 for it.

Cc2014 not using all CPU cores or GPU

I'm using the new CC2014, and I exported a project straight out of Premiere and it utilized all 8 of my CPU and my GPU. When I export using Adobe Media Encoder, it only uses one core and doesn't seem to use the GPU at all. I tried changing the setting to from GPU to software only, and it didn't seem to make a difference.

Just found out, that drag and drop PPro Sequences into AME seems to be a work-around.Plus unchecking the "Import Sequences Natively" in AME.
Well, ..indeed it worked. Not very convenient though and it's a bug that's been around for a while (7 month!! according to some users).
Please fix this, cannot be too hard, can it?
What bothers me even more is a still low CPU usage of around 35% over all when exporting....
My system:
i7-5930K @ 4.40GHz (overclocked)
Gigabyte GTX 770 GB
SSD cache drive
HDD-RAID0 assets drive
Windows 8.1

Intel Xserve not using full CPU

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for