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

Similar Messages

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

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

I just bought MacPro 15", i7, Quad-Core, upgraded to 8GB RAM. Its responding to slow to poen applications e.g. word, ppt, chrome etc. reboot is too slow. Dont think its working so fast. Dosenot seems to be worth to money paid. What to do?

I just bought MacPro 15", i7, Quad-Core, upgraded to 8GB RAM. Its responding to slow to poen any applications e.g. word, ppt, chrome etc. reboot is too slow. Dont think its working so fast. Dosenot seems to be worth to money paid. What to do? Not happy with Mac.

Sandeep Goyal
Jul 8, 2012 2:26 AM
Is is possible to install Win 2007 in MacPro (retina display) with USB (2.0 or 3.0) as new Mac retina display lacks DVD.
MacBook Pro with Retina display, Windows 7
They have been calling their notebook a MacPro for a year. Or is it this?
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4463661

Hi i use a macpro i7 wt 7200rpm internal drive i get this message Disk is too slow-(prepare) (-10001) when i am using logic 9

Hi i use a macbook pro 17" 2.66ghz intel core i7 with 8gb ram & a 500gb@7200rpm internal drive i get this message "Disk is too slow. (Prepare) (-10001) when i am using logic 9 wiyh just a 5 vsts loaded 2 of them being esx24's . i used to not get this warning earlier in the same or even heavily loaded projects.
When i press play the beachball appears for a minute or so then the message.
Even when i open up a new project a beachball appears for about 30-40 secs and then the project opens up
i have even tried opening up the projects w/o any vst's loaded (i have disabled them from audio units manager)
Initially i thought it was a hard drive problem so apple had it replaced for me but i am still encountering the same problem.
have even tried disabling the sudden motion sensor from terminal no luck there too
tried reloading osx 10.6.7 no luck there too
what do i do
aggi

How full is your 500 GB hard disk?
Do you have 10% to 15% free space available?

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

Disk is too slow or system overload error with Logic 9.1.4

I have am running Logic 9.1.4 on a MacPro 2 X 2.8 Ghz (Intel) with 8GB of RAM running OS X 10.6.7.
I recently updated to Logic 9.1.4 and was trying to record one track of vocals on a session on which I had previously worked on a few weeks earlier with no issues.
But today I got this error over and over again:
Disk is too slow or System Overload.
Occasionally I would get the message below with the error, but not always:
The Sudden Motion Sensor may have parked the hard drive head, or the disk performance is not sufficient to read or write all audio tracks, or the system was not able to process all data in time.
I don't have a lap top and tried a few fixes found here (buffer size increase ,rebooting etc.). Again, I recorded several tracks of vocals on other days with absolutely no problems. But today couldn't record more than a few seconds at a time without getting this error. The only difference I can think of is that I updated to the latest version of Logic 9 (9.1.4) rather than whatever the previous Logic 9 version was.
Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.

ISSUE RESOLVED!
So after messing around with this for over 4 hours today, I think I have resolved the issue.
The issue seems to have been primarily with my main vocal track, which was frozen while I was recording a harmony vocal. The main vocal track was actually made up of about 20-30 take folders which I had swiped to make one good take. I was hoping to take a good hard listen at my swipes during mixing once all recording was done, so I had never merged into one audio track. Besides, like I said, this track was frozen so I figured it was already playing back as though it was one audio file.
So I just merged all the takes in this track into one file. Counterintuitively, unfreezing about 10 tracks also seemed to improve performance in the meters. Which makes me wonder whether I should use freezing at all? Both these things together seem to have made all the difference.
In the process, I also learned how to run Logic 9 in 64-bit mode, although this (at least by itself) didn't seem to make any difference other than making AmpliTube inoperable.
So the lesson here: don't have too many take folders going at once. And freezing tracks with take folders doesn't seem to come close to being the same thing as playing back one single merged audio file.

Lightroom 2.4 Is Too Slow To Use As A Professional Product

Hello -
I would like to know how to get Lightroom to respond in less than 4-8 seconds for almost any task.
From returning to Grid mode (4.5 seconds) to adjusting a routine crop and angle (5-7 seconds per move, 60-90 seconds total) to simply shift-selecting three to fifty photos (4-9 seconds) no matter what I do in Lightroom, it is worse that Photoshop 1.0 on a Mac Plus. Really.
Returning to Lightroom from another app - 7 seconds.
Getting the menus to drop down - 4 seconds.
My lightroom settings:
standard preview size: 1680
Quality: High
Discard 1:1: Never
write changes to XMP: off
Catalog: 127 mb on F drive (24 gig free)
Catalog: 13.5k photos, 95 gig on F drive
Cache: 6 gig on F drive
NVIDIA settings: performance over quality
My computer:
HP 8730 elitebook
4 gig ram
XP Pro, SP2
Proc: Core 2 Duo T9400, 2666 MHz (10 x 267)
DirectX 4.09.00.0904 (DirectX 9.0c)
Chipset: Cantiga PM45
Video: NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M (1024 MB)
(2x) 250 gig 7200 rmp HD
Before anyone says to export to a new catalog and re-import, etc, use a smaller catalog, etc, be advised that I have done all of that. I have imported only 250 images to a new catalog, on a newly installed OS, with Lightroom as the ONLY application. Still it acts this sluggish.
I have scoured the boards for solutions, and having tried all the varied fixes to no avail, I really quite strongly feel that a person should not EVER be in the position or running some of the most powerful available hardware and STILL have to wait interminable seconds for Lightroom to respond.
This software, as it stands now on the PC platform (unless I am missing something quite obvous) is absolutely unusable in its present state.
Can someone from Adobe or a board guru please respond in kind to my request for help?

Photo_op8 wrote:
BradKaye wrote:
I'd have to agree with the subject of this 100%, even though I'm not experiencing anywhere near the levels of lag ellsworth is on any of my primary workhorses.
1st-Gen 17" MacBook Pro 2.4Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo with Hi-Rez Screen (about 2 years old)
1st-Gen MacPro (Dual Twin-Core 3Ghz, 3x, 10k-RPM 150GB Raptor RAID-0, partitioned to System/Scratch/Files (in that order) 16GB RAM...blah blah (about 2.2 years old)
3 week old MacPro 2x2.66 Quad-Core MacPro, 16GB RAM, Multiple Partitioned (System/Scratch/Files) Internal 4x-1.5TB RAID-0, 4x 1.5TB eSATA RAID-0, 2x NVIDIA GT 120's, 30" NEC 3090WQXi, 26" LaCie 526, 24" Apple LED Display
OS 10.5.8 on all machines.
Let me repeat-
Partitioning ONE drive to contain system files, application, cache, catalog and photos=SLOW.
It really doesn't matter that the drive is 7200 or 10k rpm if ALL items reside on the same drive. The MacPro has four bays. One drive for system and catalog, second for cache, third for photos=FAST.
Wow, I'm glad you repeated that, and used capitalized text so that I would be sure to understand.
Clearly, the benchmarks I have off of the various evolutions of my last 3, $10k computers must be in error. (single system disk, RAID-0 system disk, 10k RPM system disk, RAID-0 3x -10K rpm system disks, multiple scratch volumes on different drives, singular scratch volumes on RAIDed drives, tested via benchmark programs and application specific batch tests, etc.etc.)
More importantly as an issue of forum protocol, you didn't actually read my post.
Brad Kaye wrote:
I partition about 10% of the outside of a drive as separate and put the information I need to get to most quickly which tends to be the system folder then scratch disk in a another separate partition and then I leave the rest on that drive as gobs of 'B' space for media and other crap files, reserving the first 10%-30% of the outside of a different drive (or RAID-0 sets) for my files and Lightroom catalogs.
I'm throwing 370 mb/sec between two individual sets of 4 drive RAID-0 sets. Single 7200rpm drives sling about 80 mb/sec. My drive arrangement isn't the reason Lightroom IS TOO SLOW TO USE AS A PROFESSIONAL PRODUCT.
Also, since I referenced and linked the former software engineer turned photo FREAK in my post, whose blog I started reading last year corroborating the decisions I've made in my previous system setups with immaculate documentation and testing procedure your response even more seems like the entire reason I rarely bother posting in community forums. You seem to be here to spout, not to contribute and learn.
Take a look at all of the info contained here: (I've already read it, all of it, and more)
Diglloyd Mac Performance Guide
and if you still think I'm wrong, lets have an informed debate about it. Really.
Otherwise, lets please keep this topic moving forward with the issues Adobe needs to address next to make Lightroom a better product for professional photographers, and specifically, help out ellsworth999 who started this topic, who seems to have a big helping of problems on his plate. I can't speak to him directly of his problems since I'm not using the Windows version of the software.

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

File sharing too slow

Hi,
I have 2 macs connected via hub. My internet connection is very fast and everything is ok but file sharing is too slow. 1GB takes 8 hours to be transfered.
Any fix?
Thanks!

yup same here, 9 gb file shared via airport extreme from my Macpro 8proc to my 17" Macbook Pro was going to take 4 hrs?????? doing it via firewire now, 10 minutes.
is there a network setting in missing as both machines obviously have 902.11N and the extreme is setup for N (B/G compatible)??
jas

"Disk too slow or System Overload" ... hardly

Hi all!
I hung onto my 2007 MacPro until just before summer when I upgraded to be on the safe side. I do orchestral work and have been accustomed to running heavy VSL projects on one single machine pretty effortlessly. On my new 12 MacPro, things are working even smootherEXCEPT for this "Disk too slow or System Overload" happening from time to time on fades. The projects in hich I experience this behaviour are audio only, orchestral mixes of between 60 and 70 audio tracks and I get the message when executing fades on all tracks simultaneously. I can't remember getting this on my old MacPro which had a fraction of the cpu-power and not nearly as much ram.
My specs are 2x2.66 6-Core w/32GB ram, and all audio files, fade files and othe project files, are written to two 2 TB 7200 disks in the internal disk slots, configured as striped RAID. This gives more than enough speed and I still have 1,64 TB of free space on the RAID set.
This issue comes and goes and I can't seem to figure out what triggers Logic's problem to read fades fast enough. Just now I had some corrupted fade ailes, rebuildt them and now Logic can't get past the fades at all unless I start playing in the middle of them.
I can't understand why this problem should be introduced on a configuration much, much faster than my previous MacPro where this problem hardly ever occured. I even doubled the I/O buffer from 512 that I was using on my old mac, to 1024 with no difference at all. Increasing Process buffer size to "Large" doesn't have any affet either.
Any clues anyone?
Best regards,
Ginge

Good point, nice link!
But the thing is I'm not using any software instruments and apart from one EQ on a track here and there, two Tube tech plugs and two sends to Altiverb (of which one is inactive). This kind of load was not a problem on the old heap and shouldn't be a challenge for a 12-core... Also, without changing anything apart from the move above, it is now playing with only one pixel-high movement on the meter, like you would expect it to do.
BTW the quirk is now back on the project that was fixed. I did new fades at another position and CPU 1 is now maxing out again. A new set of fades means equal fades on regions on 63 tracks playing simultaneously.
As I'm writing I'm becoming aware of one interesting aspect: the project files contains imported aaf data and to save space I'm leaving the media-files at the original location where it was put by Pyramix who exported the aaf. I figure there shouldn't be a difference if the audio files reside in a folder called "Media files" or "Audio files". These folders are sitting on the same disk albeit not in the same subfolder. If anything, I'd assume it would minimize potential for error caused by having several copies of files with identically names on different locations on the disks. But now it seems the issue is less likely to appear if I save the project including assets, copying external audio files (on any disk), or at least that is how it looks like right now. New fades are working fine after I've done this.
Doesn't make sense to me but it seems to make a difference...
Ginge

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

MacPro 12c FCPX 10.1.3 rendering too slow

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for