Lion Performance Question

My wife's MacBook Pro has the 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo with 4 GB of RAM. It currently runs Snow Leopard. We've been using MobileMe to sync the calendar and address book with her iPhone, but that is going away. So if I upgrade the MS Office and VMWare Fusion, we can upgrade to Lion.
My question is whether Lion's performance is adequate on the 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo processor, because that CPU is listed as the minimum CPU for Lion. Snow Leopard runs well and I don't want to upgrade and lose performance. Thanks in advance.

A Core 2 Duo is the minimum processor but not the actual one that's in your computer. It's quite sufficient for Lion. After all the first C2Ds ran at 2.0 GHz and are not nearly as fast as yours. Of greater importance is RAM. 2 GBs is the minimum, but 4 GBs would be much better. More if possible since you also run Fusion.

Similar Messages

I have leopard and want to upgrade to lion. I have a macbook about 3 years old and wonder if I should just get a new macbook pro ($$$) instead. Is it worth the headache to upgrade to snow leopard and then lion? How does lion perform on an intel core duo 2

I have a macbook about 3 years old running leopard. I amwondering ifitwouldbeworth the trouble to install snowleopardand then lion ($60.00) or just buy a new macbook pro ($$$$$$). How does lion perform on an intel core 2 duo processor?

I have Lion installed on a Mini with a C2D processor. The same Mini has Snow Leopard on another partition and there is no noticeable difference in operational speed between the two OS's. But compared to my new MBPro 17" with a 2.83GHz i7, the Mini running Lion is noticeably slower. So if you can afford anew MBPro, then I would get it because you will probably be unhappy with the performance of Lion on the older MBPro. The other benefit of getting a new MBPro with Lion is that if you have any Power PC applications currently on the old MBPro, which will not operate in Lion, then you still have the ability to use them. Many users got stung by upgrading to Lion, only to find they could no longer use the older PPC applications.

Simple performance question

Simple performance question. the simplest way possible, assume
I have a int[][][][][] matrix, and a boolean add. The array is several dimensions long.
When add is true, I must add a constant value to each element in the array.
When add is false, I must subtract a constant value to each element in the array.
Assume this is very hot code, i.e. it is called very often. How expensive is the condition checking? I present the two scenarios.
private void process(){
for (int i=0;i<dimension1;i++)
for (int ii=0;ii<dimension1;ii++)
for (int iii=0;iii<dimension1;iii++)
    for (int iiii=0;iiii<dimension1;iiii++)
         if (add)
         matrix[i][ii][iii][...] += constant;
         else
         matrix[i][ii][iii][...] -= constant;
private void process(){
if (add)
for (int i=0;i<dimension1;i++)
for (int ii=0;ii<dimension1;ii++)
for (int iii=0;iii<dimension1;iii++)
    for (int iiii=0;iiii<dimension1;iiii++)
         matrix[i][ii][iii][...] += constant;
else
for (int i=0;i<dimension1;i++)
for (int ii=0;ii<dimension1;ii++)
for (int iii=0;iii<dimension1;iii++)
    for (int iiii=0;iiii<dimension1;iiii++)
       matrix[i][ii][iii][...] -= constant;
}Is the second scenario worth a significant performance boost? Without understanding how the compilers generates executable code, it seems that in the first case, n^d conditions are checked, whereas in the second, only 1. It is however, less elegant, but I am willing to do it for a significant improvement.

erjoalgo wrote:
I guess my real question is, will the compiler optimize the condition check out when it realizes the boolean value will not change through these iterations, and if it does not, is it worth doing that micro optimization?Almost certainly not; the main reason being that
matrix[i][ii][iii][...] +/-= constantis liable to take many times longer than the condition check, and you can't avoid it. That said, Mel's suggestion is probably the best.
but I will follow amickr advice and not worry about it.Good idea. Saves you getting flamed with all the quotes about premature optimization.
Winston

BPM performance question

Guys,
I do understand that ccPBM is very resource hungry but what I was wondering is this:
Once you use BPM, does an extra step decreases the performance significantly? Or does it just need slightly more resources?
More specifically we have quite complex mapping in 2 BPM steps. Combining them would make the mapping less clear but would it worth doing so from the performance point of view?
Your opinion is appreciated.
Thanks a lot,
Viktor Varga

Hi,
In SXMB_ADM you can set the time out higher for the sync processing.
Go to Integration Processing in SXMB_ADM and add parameter SA_COMM CHECK_FOR_ASYNC_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT to 120 (seconds). You can also increase the number of parallel processes if you have more waiting now. SA_COMM CHECK_FOR_MAX_SYNC_CALLS from 20 to XX. All depends on your hardware but this helped me from the standard 60 seconds to go to may be 70 in some cases.
Make sure that your calling system does not have a timeout below that you set in XI otherwise yours will go on and finish and your partner may end up sending it twice
when you go for BPM the whole workflow
has to come into action so for example
when your mapping last < 1 sec without bpm
if you do it in a BPM the transformation step
can last 2 seconds + one second mapping...
(that's just an example)
so the workflow gives you many design possibilities
(brigde, error handling) but it can
slow down the process and if you have
thousands of messages the preformance
can be much worse than having the same without BPM
see below links
http://help.sap.com/bp_bpmv130/Documentation/Operation/TuningGuide.pdf
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/43/d92e428819da2ce10000000a1550b0/content.htm
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/com.sap.km.cm.docs/library/xi/3.0/sap%20exchange%20infrastructure%20tuning%20guide%20xi%203.0.pdf
BPM Performance tuning
BPM Performance issue
BPM performance question
BPM performance- data aggregation persistance
Regards
Chilla..

I love osx mountain lion my question is why was air play taken out of specific app like quick time and iTunes i dont always want to display my whole computer when i am in airplay mode

i love osx mountain lion my question is why was air play taken out of specific app like quick time and iTunes i dont always want to display my whole computer when i am in airplay mode

Funny, my iTunes still has AirPlay capability without AirPlay Mirroring active.

I just bought a 2009 macbook pro with an os upgrade to lion. my question is how do i take the previous owners name (like when i bluetooth) to my name???

I just bought a 2009 macbook pro with an os upgrade to lion. my question is how do i change the previous owners name (like when i bluetooth) to my name???

Your MBP should have been given to you with the original installation disks and OS. The Lion OS is licensed to the person who sold it to you. You will have create your own account and purchase Lion if you wish to use it. Those are the stipulations in the licensing agreements.
Ciao.

Swing performance question: CPU-bound

Hi,
I've posted a Swing performance question to the java.net performance forum. Since it is a Swing performance question, I thought readers of this forum might also be interested.
Swing CPU-bound in sun.awt.windows.WToolkit.eventLoop
http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=1636&tstart=0
Thanks,
Curt

You obviously don't understand the results, and the first reply to your posting on java.net clearly explains what you missed.
The event queue is using Thread.wait to sleep until it gets some more events to dispatch. You have incorrectly diagnosed the sleep waiting as your performance bottleneck.

Xcontrol: performance question (again)

Hello,
I've got a little performance question regarding xcontrols. I observed rather high cpu-load when using xcontrols. To investigate it further, I built a minimal xcontrol (boolean type) which only writes the received boolean-value to a display-element in it's facade (see attached example). When I use this xcontrol in a test-vi and write to it with a rate of 1000 booleans / second, I get a cpu-load of about 10%. When I write directly to a boolean display element instead of the xcontrol,I have a load of 0 to 1 %. The funny thing is, when I emulate the xcontrol functionality with a subvi, a subpanel and a queue (see example), I only have 0 to 1% cpu-load, too.
Is there a way to reduce the cpu-load when using xcontrols?
If there isn't and if this is not a problem with my installation but a known issue, I think this would be a potential point for NI to fix in a future update of LV.
Regards,
soranito
Message Edited by soranito on 04-04-2010 08:16 PM
Message Edited by soranito on 04-04-2010 08:18 PM
Attachments:
XControl_performance_test.zip ‏60 KB

soranito wrote:
Hello,
I've got a little performance question regarding xcontrols. I observed rather high cpu-load when using xcontrols. To investigate it further, I built a minimal xcontrol (boolean type) which only writes the received boolean-value to a display-element in it's facade (see attached example). When I use this xcontrol in a test-vi and write to it with a rate of 1000 booleans / second, I get a cpu-load of about 10%. When I write directly to a boolean display element instead of the xcontrol,I have a load of 0 to 1 %. The funny thing is, when I emulate the xcontrol functionality with a subvi, a subpanel and a queue (see example), I only have 0 to 1% cpu-load, too.
Okay, I think I understand question now. You want to know why an equivalent xcontrol boolean consumes 10x more CPU resource than the LV base package boolean?
Okay, try opening the project I replied yesterday. I don't have access to LV at my desk so let's try this. Open up your xcontrol facade.vi. Notice how I separated up your data event into two events? Go the data change vi event, when looping back the action, set the isDataChanged (part of the data change cluster) to FALSE. While the data input (the one displayed on your facade.vi front panel), set that isDataChanged to TRUE. This is will limit the number of times facade will be looping. It will not drop your CPU down from 10% to 0% but it should drop a little, just enough to give you a short term solution. If that doesn't work, just play around with the loopback statement. I can't remember the exact method.
Yeah, I agree xcontrol shouldn't be overconsuming system resource. I think xcontrol is still in its primitive form and I'm not sure if NI is planning on investing more times to bug fix or even enhance it. Imo, I don't think xcontrol is quite ready for primetime yet. Just too many issues that need improvement.
Message Edited by lavalava on 04-06-2010 03:34 PM

Mountain lion performances

Hello,
I migrated to Mountain Lion last week-end. I had a big performances problems. New Safari takes much more time to open pages. Iphoto taks more time to start. From time to time I had a message "votre disque de démarrage Mac OS X ne dispose plus d'espace disponible pour la mémoire allouée aux applications". What to do? I'm thinking about downgrading to initial operating system. It is risky isn't it? How to isolate a performance problem and to resolve it?
Thanks for your help
GAGA0412

Your problem is excessive swapping of data between physical memory and virtual memory.
That can happen for two reasons:
You have a long-running process with a memory leak (i.e., a bug), or
You don't have enough memory installed for your usage pattern.
Tracking down a memory leak can be difficult, and it may come down to a process of elimination. In Activity Monitor, select All Processes from the menu in the toolbar, if not already selected. Click the heading of the Real Mem column in the process table twice to sort the table with the highest value at the top. If you don't see that column, select
View ▹ Columns ▹ Real Memory
from the menu bar.
If one process (excluding "kernel_task") is using much more memory than all the others, that could be an indication of a leak. A better indication would be a process that continually grabs more and more memory over time without ever releasing it.
If you don't have an obvious memory leak, your options are to install more memory (if possible) or to run fewer programs simultaneously.
The next suggestion is only for users familiar with the shell. For a more precise, but potentially misleading, test, run the following command:
sudo leaks -nocontext -nostacks process | grep total
where process is the name of a process you suspect of leaking memory. Almost every process will leak some memory; the question is how much, and especially how much the leak increases with time. I can’t be more specific. See the leaks(1) man page and the Apple developer documentation for details:
Memory Usage Performance Guidelines: About the Virtual Memory System

Poor lion performance

This is an issue that goes on and on.
I am working with three apple machines:
1 MacBook Pro 2.53 GHzCore 2 Duo
1 iMac 2.8 GHz Core 2Duo
1 iMac 2.93 GHz Corei7
Before lion all of my machines were fast and enjoyable.
Today my machines performance is an absolute disaster!!!!!!!!!!
I have done every possible thing I have been able to find or think about, such as verifying and repairing the Disk Permissions – this helped some but not enough…
Out of my three machines ONLY the Core i7 has a marginally satisfactory performance.
The Core 2 Duo machines just cannot handle lion.
Trashing lion appears like the only solution but unfortunately it comes with many application upgrades and going back to snow leopard is really not the best scenario – I will suffer serious losses.
Does anybody have a miracle suggestion (other than trashing lion).
For whoever may read this on time, my advice is: skip lion all together. In fact, at this point I am sorry to say that even MS Windows (any version) is better than lion…

The person in question may need to update to 10.6.8 or 10.7.3 or later and apply the Flashback patch.
The program in question may need to be updated to deal with the Flashback patch. 10.7.0, 10.7.1, and 10.7.2 are not protected from the Malware and Apple's recommended procedure for those with 10.5.7 or earlier, 10.6 to 10.6.7, or 10.7.0, 10.7.1, 10.7.2 without the ability to update due to applications not being compatible with 10.5.8, 10.6.8, or 10.7.3 or later, is to disable Java. Sadly this leaves many Java applications in a lurch with a need to work around the auto-execution bug that the Flashback malware has created.

MBP with 27" Display performance question

I'm looking for advice regarding improving the performance, if possible, of my Macbook Pro and new 27'' Apple display combination. I'm using a 13" Macbook Pro 2.53Ghz with 4GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics card and I have 114GB of the 250GB of HD space available. What I'm really wondering is is this enough spec to run the 27" display easily. Apple says it is… and it does work, but I suspect that I'm working at the limit of what my MCB is capable of. My main applications are Photoshop CS5 with Camera RAW and Bridge. Everything works but I sometimes get lock ups and things are basically a bit jerky. Is the bottle neck my 2.53Ghz processor or the graphics card? I have experimented with the Open GL settings in Photoshop and tried closing all unused applications. Does anyone have any suggestions for tuning things and is there a feasible upgrade for the graphics card if such a thing would make a difference? I have recently started working with 21mb RAW files which I realise isn't helping. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Matt.

I just added a gorgeous LCD 24" to my MBP setup (the G5 is not Happy) The answer to your question is yes. Just go into Display Preferences and drag the menu bar over to the the 24 this will make the 24 the Primary Display and the MBP the secondary when connected.

White macbook Lion performance

I have a White Macbook 2,1, running Lion 10.7.5. I believe its the late 2006 model., 2G RAM. Replaced the original drive with a 500GB, 7200 RPM drive a couple of years ago. The performance is just dreadful. Constant spinning beach balls, delays in keyboard characters. I've noticed by System memory takes up 1.7G of of the 2G of available RAM. Am I correct is assuming that is the problem, and the machine is just not powerful enough to run Lion efficiently? I've run a variety of maintenance programs to clear out junk files, caches, etc, disk permissions. I do have an very large audio library connected through iCloud, but I don't understand why that would be a problem if iTunes isn't running.
Any thoughts about what might be causing the performance problems, or is it just the age of the computer?

You might want to open Activity Monitor and under the (Memory) tab check the amount of (Page Outs) to the hard drive....
The minimum requirement for RAM under Lion is 2GB.....so you will not have much actual RAM to work with for any extra apps.....that is why I suggest checking the (Page Outs) in Activity Monitor....it would mean that the MacBook is using the hard drive to store commands that would normally come from the RAM and would be much slower....

Performance question about 11.1.2 forms at runtime

hi all,
Currently we are investigating a forms/reports migration from 10 to 11.
Initialy we were using v. 11.1.1.4 as the baseline for the migration. Now we are looking at 11.1.2.
We have the impression that the performance has decreased significantly between these two releases.
To give an example:
A wizard screen contains an image alongside a number of items to enter details. In 11.1.1.4 this screen shows up immediately. In 11.1.2 you see the image rolling out on the canvas whilst the properties of the items seem to be set during this event.
I saw that a number of features were added to be able to tune performance which ... need processing too.
I get the impression that a big number of events are communicating over the network during the 'built' of the client side view of the screen. If I recall well during the migration of 6 to 9, events were bundled to be transmitted over the network so that delays couldn't come from network roundtrips. I have the impression that this has been reversed and things are communicated between the client and server when they arrive and are not bundled.
My questions are:
- is anyone out there experiencing the same kind of behaviour?
- if so, is there some kind of property(ies) that exist to control the behaviour and improve performance?
- are there properties for performance monitoring that are set but which cause the slowness as a kind of sideeffect and maybe can be unset.
Your feedback will be dearly appreciated,
Greetigns,
Jan.

The profile can't be changed although I suspect if there was an issue then banding the line would be something they could utilise if you were happy to do so.
It's all theoretical right now until you get the service installed. Don't forget there's over 600000 customers now on FTTC and only a very small percentage of them have faults. It might seem like lots looking on this forum but that's only because forums are where people tend to come to complain.
If you want to say thanks for a helpful answer,please click on the Ratings star on the left-hand side If the the reply answers your question then please mark as ’Mark as Accepted Solution’

Logic 9 + Mountain Lion = Performance Problems

Hi,
After months of debating to upgrade to Mountain Lion, I did it (and regret it like iOS 6).
I'm just wondering if anyone gets the issue with Logic 9, where it works for around an hour no problems, then the CPU meter goes mental and causes glitching in the audio no matter what I/O buffer size I choose, or what sample rate my projects in, OR how many plugins/instruments I have open?
It's really starting to affect my clients as to solve the problem the OS needs a full reboot.
I am fully updated in Software Update and it worked perfectly until Mountain Lion.
Hope there is a solution!
Tim

Your question is too vague... More details are required...

SSD Performance Questions

I've just ordered a MBP 2.4Ghz with 7200rpm 750GB drive, I will be adding either a single 8GB memory stick (total of 10GB) or a 16GB kit. I'm looking for my first SSD use as a boot drive for OSX and potentially Win 7 in BootCamp and hope I can get some counsel on model selection and configuration.
I read that SSDs suffer a performance drop (sometimes significant) as the drive fills up. Also there are both 256GB and 240GB drives. Ideally I'd like to avoid the frustration associated with seeing performance drop and maximize my formatted capacity.
1) Are there models that maintain performance over time? Is there a specification that indicates how performance drops as the drive fills up?
2) Is there a performance difference (current / long-term) between 256 and 240GB drives?
3) Does an abundance of RAM improve performance and / or longevity?
4) How much space (if any) should be kept free for swap files in OSX / Windows?
5) With 240 / 256GB SSDs, how much usable space is available after formatting?
6) Is there a difference in performance based on file format NTFS vs. HPS+?
7) Do I need to be concerned about major name brands (Intel, Samsung, OCZ, Kingston, etc.) being incompatible with MBPs?
8) Are some SSDs easier to install / configure / maintain on a MBP than others?
9) Are there any issues I should be aware of regarding the installation or use of a SSD that would impact my MBP's warranty?
Based on performance, reliability and 5-year warranty, I've been attracted to the Intel 520. I've also read good reports on the Samsung 830. One review indicated that the 830 maintained performance over time while the 520 experienced a significantly greater drop. True?
I can buy either drive in the $330 range. Here on the forum I've read many recommendations for the OWC drives and support. For comparable performance and a 5-year warranty, it looks like the Extreme Pro would be the model to buy, however, at $460 it is 50% more expensive. Thoughts?
Thanks in advance! This is the kind of purchase that I can only make once every 5-years, so I really appreciate any help.
JD

kayakjunkie wrote:
I've just ordered a MBP 2.4Ghz with 7200rpm 750GB drive, I will be adding either a single 8GB memory stick (total of 10GB) or a 16GB kit.
Your performance with the large 16GB should outweigh any drawback the 7,200 RPM drive or even a 5,400 RPM drive unless you start swaping then the 7,200 shoud be fine enough.
The SSD is good for transfering large data sets off the machine, to another SSD, but little benefit on the same machine with most files as they are small so you don't see any benefit really in most day to day operations. If you had low RAM then the SSD would help with a faster memory swap. As you know SSD's wear out faster than hard drives.
I'm looking for my first SSD use as a boot drive for OSX and potentially Win 7 in BootCamp and hope I can get some counsel on model selection and configuration.
Here's the speed demon chart, note the fastest ones are smaller in capacity
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/high_end_drives.html
Again, unless your transfering large data to a external SSD via Thunderbolt on a constant basis (and can afford to replace the worn out SSD's) then a SSD as a boot drive really isn't worth it for most computers if you have a large amount of RAM.
It used to be with 32bit processors/OS , 3.5GB RAM limits, that having a fast boot drive mattered in day to day because of the faster memory swap, but not anymore. My 4GB with 5,400 RPM stock is fast enough, but I will be getting 16GB soon for my virtual machine OS's.
I read that SSDs suffer a performance drop (sometimes significant) as the drive fills up. Also there are both 256GB and 240GB drives. Ideally I'd like to avoid the frustration associated with seeing performance drop and maximize my formatted capacity.
Hard drives do this too because the files have to be broken up more to fit into tiny spaces.
Hard drives also suffer a bit past the 50% filled as the sectors get smaller.
I use my 750GB partitioned 50/50, A cloned to B so I can option boot either as I won't use the second 50% of the drive day to day as it's too slow for my tastes.
IMO 250GB is too small for a drive with Windows too, the fastest 500GB SSD would be better $$$. better balance of speed and onboard storage.
1) Are there models that maintain performance over time? Is there a specification that indicates how performance drops as the drive fills up?
2) Is there a performance difference (current / long-term) between 256 and 240GB drives?Not that I know of.
Not that I know of.
3) Does an abundance of RAM improve performance and / or longevity?
Yes, more RAM = less swapping to the SSD means it will last longer and run faster.
4) How much space (if any) should be kept free for swap files in OSX / Windows?
I would suggest 25% for a SSD should be free space, ideally 50% filled for a hard drive, but to 75% max is likely more realistic for most people.
6) Is there a difference in performance based on file format NTFS vs. HPS+?
You will have little choice of format for OS X or Windows, OS X needs HFS+ and Windows needs NTFS.
If you do a third partition (hard) then exFAT would likely be the best choice for both OS's to access.
7) Do I need to be concerned about major name brands (Intel, Samsung, OCZ, Kingston, etc.) being incompatible with MBPs?
8) Are some SSDs easier to install / configure / maintain on a MBP than others?
Not that I know of.
9) Are there any issues I should be aware of regarding the installation or use of a SSD that would impact my MBP's warranty?
Just don't break anything doing so, as one is allowed to replace the RAM/storage. However the warranty/AppleCare doesn't cover the newley added items of course.
http://eshop.macsales.com/installvideos/
Based on performance, reliability and 5-year warranty, I've been attracted to the Intel 520. I've also read good reports on the Samsung 830. One review indicated that the 830 maintained performance over time while the 520 experienced a significantly greater drop. True?
Performance isn't going to matter unless your dealing with large amounts of data on a constant basis, a long warranty is always good. But SSD's have no moving parts that I know of, so...easy to give a 5 year warranty. IMO.
Look here
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/
I can buy either drive in the $330 range. Here on the forum I've read many recommendations for the OWC drives and support. For comparable performance and a 5-year warranty, it looks like the Extreme Pro would be the model to buy, however, at $460 it is 50% more expensive. Thoughts?
OWC is good, but your basically doing all the work anyway so you can choose to install what you want if you find a faster/larger SSD someplace else.
You need to learn how Lion Recovery Partition works, there are no OS X install disks anymore, it'a all on a partition to boot to install Lion. If you remove the drive, you need to install Lion somehow again right?
Carbon Copy Cloner, clones your entire Lion and Lion Recovery Partition to a external drive, can option boot from it and it's the same thing. Reverse clone onto the new SSD.
Other info you will need.
https://support.apple.com/kb/HT4718
https://support.apple.com/kb/dl1433
http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/08/lion-recovery-disk-assistant-tool-makes-external- lion-boot-recovery-drives/
A option is you can choose is after you installed Windows in Bootcamp (as the machine won't boot a Windows disk from a external optical drive) on the SSD and used WinClone to clone Bootcamp for backup, is to replace the Superdrive with a kit and place the hard drive there for partitioning and storage.
This way the SSD stays unchanged and fast, the hard drive takes all the work of the users files, changes etc, places the wear and tear on that instead.
The Superdrive goes into a enclosure (sold with the kit) and is a external optical drive.
This modification will of course void your warranty/Applecare.
For more information, see Bmer (Dave Merten) over at MacOwnersSupportGroup as he has done this and knows all the tricks.

Lion Performance Question

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for