Performance Requirements much higher than in Express 7 ???

Hi,
I am using a G5 Dual-Core 2.oGHz PowerMac and alsways found that I could work very comfortably with Logic Express 7. Since I upgraded to LE 8 I found that it uses up to 50% (!!!) more CPU power running the same projects as LE7 before. I even find myself quite often in the situation that I get CPU overloads - this happened extremely rarely before.
What can i do to minimize the CPU load in LE 8? The way it is now, it looks like I have to go back to LE 7 .....:-(
Greetings
Andreas

Great!
I'm just upgrading from Garageband - never got round to buying LE7 - went out and bought 8 - loaded it up, tried a demo and - wayhey - system overload! I've just added some more ram (2.5GB) - why is it overloading? I haven't even recorded anything yet! This is the kind of stuff I though I left behind with my eMac 700mhz!
Anyone any ideas folks?
Confused
mackers

Similar Messages

Track levels suddenly much higher than normal. ?!?!?

Need some help friends... I have a problem that I can't seem to fix;
When I boot up an existing song or project, the levels shown on most of my tracks are peaking but the sound isn't clipping. The faders were all well below zero normally but for some reason now the levels are much higher and in the red. Why? The whole song sounds the same as far as I can tell but the levels shown on the faders are all much, much higher! The only way to reduce them is to remove the compression and other plugins from the track but I need a way to just restore the original levels...
Many thanks in advance for any suggestions,
If you need any info - please ask - i really want to sort this out asap.
Acoma

So how come BeeJay gets a "Helpful" and I do not when I am the one who correctly diagnosed the problem? Sheesh!
That's 'cos I'm much prettier than you!
Er, no, wait... the other thing...
(In any case, when I saw the original question, I left it for you to answer as you are the chief PFM-advocate around here... )

Number of Records Loaded for 2LIS_02_HDR much higher than expected

Hi, I just did a setup for 2LIS_02_HDR and in table EKKO has 1.2 million and in bw it looks like it is loading well over 6 million right now. Is this because the HDR collects up detail information for header aggregation? Even with that I don't expect 6 million records.
Any ideas? I'm fairly certain I put in all the right parameters in my setup load! Any way to check?
thanks!

>
Kenneth Murray wrote:
> Hi, I just did a setup for 2LIS_02_HDR and in table EKKO has 1.2 million and in bw it looks like it is loading well over 6 million right now. Is this because the HDR collects up detail information for header aggregation? Even with that I don't expect 6 million records.
>
> Any ideas? I'm fairly certain I put in all the right parameters in my setup load! Any way to check?
>
> thanks!
Hi,
please check following :
1. setup most not be filled repeatdly.... in case if its filled multiple times it wil give u higher no. of records than expected. Kindly check in number of entries in table "MC11VA0HDRSETUP".
2. If records are higher than expected than please delete data for application 02 using tcode LBWG and refill it.
Thanks
Dipika

Mileage display is much higher than audible mileage??

So ever since I update my Nano w/video to 1.0.2 something bizarre has started happening.
When I look at the screen on the nano it will tell me something insanely high, let's say 6 miles.
When I press the center button the lovely voice tells me the accurate mileage, usually about half.
When I get home and sync it shows my last run in iTunes as the higher mileage, but on the Nike+ website it displays the correct mileage.
Bizarre....

I am experiencing the same exact problem. The reading on the screen is ~ 1.6 times the true mileage covered, but the pace & times are correct and when you upload the data to nikeplus it uploads the correct data. This all started after I upgraded to 1.0.2, it immediately changed all the stored readings in the history by a fatcor of 1.6!
Is there a fix or do we just wait for the next nano 2nd gen update?

Intel i7-4800MQ CPU Power Consuming is much higher than Windows

On Windows 8.1, I run CPU-Z to generate these information:
Processor 1 ID = 0
Number of cores 4 (max 8)
Number of threads 8 (max 16)
Name Intel Core i7 4800MQ
Codename Haswell
Specification Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4800MQ CPU @ 2.70GHz
Package (platform ID) Socket 947 rPGA (0x4)
Core Stepping C0
Technology 22 nm
TDP Limit 47 Watts
***Core Speed 799.0 MHz***
Multiplier x Bus Speed 8.0 x 99.9 MHz
Stock frequency 2700 MHz
Instructions sets MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, EM64T, VT-x, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3
Turbo Mode supported, enabled
Max non-turbo ratio 27x
Max turbo ratio 37x
Max efficiency ratio 8x
You see: This CPU can run at 800MHz(Core Voltage 0.6 v) on windows, when there is no CPU toast Task. The fan is quiet.
===========================================================
But on Arch Linux, I run the latest i7z-git, I got these information:
Cpu speed from cpuinfo 2693.00Mhz
cpuinfo might be wrong if cpufreq is enabled. To guess correctly try estimating via tsc
Linux's inbuilt cpu_khz code emulated now
True Frequency (without accounting Turbo) 2693 MHz
CPU Multiplier 27x || Bus clock frequency (BCLK) 99.74 MHz
Socket [0] - [physical cores=4, logical cores=8, max online cores ever=4]
TURBO ENABLED on 4 Cores, Hyper Threading ON
Max Frequency without considering Turbo 2792.74 MHz (99.74 x [28])
Max TURBO Multiplier (if Enabled) with 1/2/3/4 Cores is 37x/36x/35x/35x
Real Current Frequency 2653.53 MHz [99.74 x 26.60] (Max of below)
Core [core-id] :Actual Freq (Mult.) C0% Halt(C1)% C3 % C6 % C7 % Temp VCo
Core 1 [0]: 2625.75 (26.33x) 2.45 16.6 1 2.39 77.6 40 0.89
Core 2 [1]: 2653.53 (26.60x) 1 1.14 2.44 1 94.4 40 0.89
Core 3 [2]: 2628.92 (26.36x) 1.41 4.7 1 0 92.9 42 0.89
Core 4 [3]: 2631.18 (26.38x) 2.29 20.4 1.44 1 74.9 39 0.89
CPU can only run at 2.7Ghz (or higher in turbo model), and Core Voltage is 0.89 v. Tha fan is very noisy.
I try many method in CPU power saving, but can not find the solution. Is there any diffierent in power management between Linux and windows?

Gusar wrote:
silenceleaf wrote:I compare the power consuming with windows.
How exactly? That was my question. Just the voltage report? Or do you actually notice something is not right, like shorter battery life? Different tools could possibly measure things differently. Try turbostat, it's in AUR.
Fan management can also be unrelated to actual power consumption. I've wondered before whether pstate, because it works differently, is confusing whatever is responsible for controlling the fans. What brand of laptop do you have? Post the output of lsmod.
And again, just because a tool says the frequency is at 2700MHz, does not mean the processor is actually at that frequency! It is not most of the time.
Thank you for your help.
I am using dell M4800 laptop which have a 97Wh battery. Mainly browing web page and typing some documents. In windows, its battery can last for 5 hours. In linux, it can only last 3 hours.
I am also trying to find more evidence to compare the power consuming between these two platforms. I understand your meaning. It is hard to fairly compare these two environment. I am strill trying to find more information.
lsmod output
Module Size Used by
rfcomm 50698 12
btusb 19648 0
hid_generic 1153 0
snd_usb_audio 117811 2
uvcvideo 72804 0
videobuf2_vmalloc 3304 1 uvcvideo
snd_usbmidi_lib 19755 1 snd_usb_audio
videobuf2_memops 2335 1 videobuf2_vmalloc
snd_rawmidi 18742 1 snd_usbmidi_lib
videobuf2_core 28243 1 uvcvideo
snd_seq_device 5180 1 snd_rawmidi
videodev 111840 2 uvcvideo,videobuf2_core
media 11719 2 uvcvideo,videodev
usbhid 40545 0
hid 90902 2 hid_generic,usbhid
ctr 3831 2
ccm 7894 2
nvidia 10621191 2
snd_hda_codec_hdmi 36379 1
joydev 9631 0
mousedev 10247 0
dell_wmi 1485 0
sparse_keymap 3146 1 dell_wmi
bnep 13053 2
bluetooth 326343 30 bnep,btusb,rfcomm
arc4 2000 2
x86_pkg_temp_thermal 6991 0
intel_powerclamp 8802 0
coretemp 6358 0
kvm_intel 131532 0
kvm 396221 1 kvm_intel
crct10dif_pclmul 4682 0
crct10dif_common 1372 1 crct10dif_pclmul
crc32_pclmul 2923 0
crc32c_intel 14185 0
ghash_clmulni_intel 4405 0
aesni_intel 45548 4
aes_x86_64 7399 1 aesni_intel
lrw 3565 1 aesni_intel
gf128mul 5858 1 lrw
glue_helper 4417 1 aesni_intel
ablk_helper 2004 1 aesni_intel
cryptd 8409 3 ghash_clmulni_intel,aesni_intel,ablk_helper
snd_hda_codec_realtek 45083 1
iTCO_wdt 5407 0
iTCO_vendor_support 1929 1 iTCO_wdt
ppdev 7118 0
fuse 76830 3
dell_laptop 12389 0
dcdbas 6463 1 dell_laptop
iwlmvm 136091 0
mac80211 474777 1 iwlmvm
microcode 15216 0
iwlwifi 140001 1 iwlmvm
i2c_i801 11269 0
psmouse 88171 0
pcspkr 2027 0
evdev 11045 22
serio_raw 5009 0
i915 725519 5
snd_hda_intel 37352 4
cfg80211 408167 3 iwlwifi,mac80211,iwlmvm
snd_hda_codec 150017 3 snd_hda_codec_realtek,snd_hda_codec_hdmi,snd_hda_intel
snd_hwdep 6332 2 snd_usb_audio,snd_hda_codec
snd_pcm 77822 4 snd_usb_audio,snd_hda_codec_hdmi,snd_hda_codec,snd_hda_intel
intel_agp 10872 1 i915
intel_gtt 12664 2 i915,intel_agp
snd_page_alloc 7298 2 snd_pcm,snd_hda_intel
drm_kms_helper 35710 1 i915
snd_timer 18718 1 snd_pcm
rfkill 15651 5 cfg80211,bluetooth,dell_laptop
drm 239102 5 i915,drm_kms_helper,nvidia
lpc_ich 13368 0
i2c_algo_bit 5391 1 i915
i2c_core 24760 7 drm,i915,i2c_i801,drm_kms_helper,i2c_algo_bit,nvidia,videodev
mei_me 9552 0
snd 59029 23 snd_hda_codec_realtek,snd_usb_audio,snd_hwdep,snd_timer,snd_hda_codec_hdmi,snd_pcm,snd_rawmidi,snd_usbmidi_lib,snd_hda_codec,snd_hda_intel,snd_seq_device
mei 62803 1 mei_me
soundcore 5418 1 snd
e1000e 222900 0
ptp 8244 1 e1000e
pps_core 8833 1 ptp
shpchp 25425 0
thermal 8556 0
wmi 8251 1 dell_wmi
parport_pc 19479 0
parport 30517 2 ppdev,parport_pc
video 11425 1 i915
ac 3334 0
battery 7565 0
processor 24620 0
button 4605 1 i915
vboxdrv 264122 0
msr 2565 0
ext4 473259 2
crc16 1359 2 ext4,bluetooth
mbcache 6074 1 ext4
jbd2 80912 1 ext4
sr_mod 14930 0
sd_mod 31361 5
cdrom 34880 1 sr_mod
atkbd 16806 0
libps2 4187 2 atkbd,psmouse
ahci 23048 3
libahci 21698 1 ahci
libata 172104 2 ahci,libahci
sdhci_pci 12604 0
ehci_pci 3928 0
sdhci 28820 1 sdhci_pci
xhci_hcd 144681 0
ehci_hcd 64171 1 ehci_pci
scsi_mod 132250 3 libata,sd_mod,sr_mod
mmc_core 95465 2 sdhci,sdhci_pci
usbcore 180320 8 btusb,snd_usb_audio,uvcvideo,snd_usbmidi_lib,ehci_hcd,ehci_pci,usbhid,xhci_hcd
usb_common 1648 1 usbcore
i8042 13366 2 libps2,dell_laptop
serio 10721 6 serio_raw,atkbd,i8042,psmouse

Used Space is much higher than actual space used in the partition

Hi All,
I am facing space problem in oracle Linux 5.3.
The parition /oradata is showing Used space as 379 GB when checked with df -TH command and when i go to partition and check space with du -sh command it is showing 280 GB.
How could i reclaim the space.
[orah@hih oracle]$ df -TH
Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda3 ext3 16G 1.0G 14G 7% /
/dev/sda4 ext3 11G 2.9G 6.8G 31% /usr
/dev/sdb5 ext3 11G 158M 9.5G 2% /tmp
/dev/sdb3 ext3 51G 189M 48G 1% /orasig
/dev/sdb2 ext3 11G 277M 9.4G 3% /var
/dev/sdb1 ext3 71G 12G 56G 17% /oracle
/dev/sda1 ext3 104M 16M 83M 17% /boot
tmpfs tmpfs 26G 9.6M 26G 1% /dev/shm
/dev/sdc ext3 529G 379G 140G 74% /oradata
/dev/sdd ext3 529G 401G 128G 76% /orabkp
/dev/sde ext3 212G 197G 14G 94% /oraprod1
/dev/sdf ext3 119G 73G 45G 63% /stage
Rgds,
Alig

What is your output of df -h?
-H uses powers of 1000, not 1024. Computer memory uses binary logic based on the power of 2 (2^10 = 1024, 8 * 8 * 8 * 2 = 1024)
Anyway, df and du measure different things:
"du" reports the space used by files and folders
"df" reports the space used by the file system, which includes the overhead for journals and inode tables.
If a file is open by a user and the same file is deleted then df and du will report different output.
A reboot of the system should align df and du output more closely.

Rman backup size for Dr db is very much higher than that of primary db

Hi All,
My production database on Oracle 10.2.0.4 had a physical size of 897 Gb and logical size of around 800 Gb.
Old tables were truncated from the database and its logical size got reduced to 230 Gb.
Backup size is now 55Gb which used to be of 130 Gb before truncation.
Now this database has a DR configured. Backup of this DR database is daily taken which is used to refresh test environments.
But the backup size for DR database has not decreased. The restoration time while refreshing test environments is also same as before.
We had predicted that the backup size for DR database will also decrease and hence reducing the restoration time.
We take compressed RMAN backup.
What is the concept behind this?

When you duplicate a database it will restore all the datafiles from the RMAN backup. You will find the physical space of your source database. Remove the fragmented space using object movement. Then shrink the tablespaces and take fresh RMAN backup and restore.
Regards
Asif Kabir

Sun Studio 12 is still much faster than the newest express 11/08

I gave the newest Express 11/08 a try on my laptop. I found that Studio 12 is still
much faster than the express version at least on my laptop. See the old messge below.
http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5321607&tstart=15
I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.

I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.Thanks for noting :)
This has already been filed as a bug - http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6735472.
And as you can see it is even already fixed.
Unluckily it missed Express 11/08 integration time slot (by a mere week or so).
It is reasonable to expect it to be available at the next Express/whatever release happens next.
regards,
__Fedor.

Line rate is higher than attainable rate!

I've been on Infinity for 3 or 4 months now and have had consistently a BT profile of 72.3 to 72.86Mbps, the changes occuring after modem resets or power cycles. Attainable rate (via the standard modem hack) has been 75272 to 76184kbps. Line rate has been 500 to 900 kbps below the attainable rate.
A few days ago we had a major power cut in the local area including here, lasting for several hours and afterwards, everything worked as normal. Just now I decided to check my BT profile and modem stats, just out of interest, as you do. The results are interesting - my profile has gone up to 75.73/20.00 and the modem stats are what I thought was impossible - line rate is much higher than the attainable rate! Stats are below.
Line is stable and needless to say I am delighted - I am now getting speedtest d/l results 3Mbps higher than ever before (74Mbps), but can anyone explain how line rate can be above attainable rate?
Mode    VDSL2
Traffic type    PTM
DSL synchronization status    Up
DSL up time    272927
   Line Status
    Downstream    Upstream
Attainable rate (kbit/s)   75948   26179
SNR margin (dB)        5.4      15.1
Line attenuation (dB)      0          0
Output power (dBmV)         13      3.8
   Statistics
      Downstream    Upstream
Line rate (kbit/s)   78235    20000
CRC errors      0             0
FEC errors               981       178
HEC errors             2182    0

You must have a good line and probably have the cabinet in your front room!
Who knows! I wouldn't say it would be impossible to hit pass your attainable rate, i would only take these as estimates as much as everything else.
It was like when i was on copper, thinking my line could only sync at 4MB, but constantly synced at around 6.5-7MB which was good for me! lol!
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

3G much faster than WiFi now?

Ever since I purchased the 3G iPhone my 3G performance is MUCH faster than my WiFi connection. My old iPhone was very fast on my WiFi connection but the new 3G iPhone is MUCH slower using the WiFi connection. It's so much slower that I have permanently turned WiFi OFF. My WiFi network is exactly the same. The only thing that has changed is the phone. I thought it would get better with the latest update but it hasn't. Anyone else experiencing this??

Here are the results from my speed tests.
3G TEST:
262 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
317 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
572 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
293 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
589 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
AVERAGE SPEED IS 406kbps
WiFi TEST:
1763kbps (initial latency probe is 35976ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
1543kbps (initial latency probe is 36095ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
2239kbps (initial latency probe is 441ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
CRASH (Had to restart Safari)
1780kbps (initial latency probe is 22810ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
1656kbps (initial latency probe is 29863ms, 28364ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
2084kbps (initial latency probe is 411ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
AVERAGE SPEED IS 1844kbps
The problem with my WiFi is the initial connection takes forever. Once it gets going it is much faster. Looks like I have massive turbo lag. Since the initial WiFi ping takes longer than the entire 10 pings of the 3G test the WiFi connection “appears” much slower. Not good.
Anyone have any idea how I can fix this? Should I try and return the phone?

When updating my legacy app to my native app I get the error that the "APK code version must be higher than 2000000" . I've specified in the builder that this would be 4.0.0.0

I've tried to update but I get that error. But the thing is that the version i´'m uploading is 4.0.0.0
Any help?Digital Publishing Suite

The version code needs be be much higher than 6. Make it 20000007 or something like that.
Digital Publishing Suite Help | Setting version numbers in Web DPS App Builder

When I have headphones plugged into my iphone it says warning'' high volume'' and becomes first a red and then plop a number of red pops but it will not be so for someone else I know. My sound will be much lower than anyone else in the music, and when I t

When I have headphones plugged into my iphone it says warning'' high volume'' and becomes first a red and then plop a number of red pops but it will not be so for someone else I know. My sound will be much lower than anyone else in the music, and when I talk by phone headset

Hi! I have the same problem when I use my headphones .
iPhone 4s England, iOS 6.1.2

Why does this forum perform much slower than form forum in metalink?

I feel strongly that this forum performs much slower than the form forum in metalink where there are even more active and more issues created there.
I don't know why Oracle creates two form forum, which one is faster and another one is slower.
What is the difference b/w them besides here is jsp pages and over there is plsql pages?

Oracle certainly allows you to have users that do not have roles. Or users that don't have any system privileges. Or users that don't have any object privileges.
If you want the query to return a row for every row in DBA_USERS, you would need to outer join all the other tables to DBA_USERS.
Justin

Another one with much higher BB usage than normal

Hi,
This is probably going to sound familiar to lots of people, but we also are recording much higher BB usage than normal. We are only on the 10gb package, as our max 512kb broadband doesn't make it worthwhile trying to do much with the www.
Our usage is usually pretty close to the 10gb, and in fact we have probably gone over it 3 or 4 times in the last 2 years (I work away a lot, so Skype gets hammered, which I know could be up to about 350mb/hour). Our average usage has been 9.87gb according to BT. I was home at the end of June, and decided to reactivate BT FON, and my wife and I also installed the Smarttalk app. Now, halfway through July, we are already up at over 7gb used.
The warning e-mail for 6gb used was last night, the usage monitor is already showing over 7gb - that is a heck of a lot of broadband usage for a property with such a slow connection. I have tried tackling BT in the past, and got absolutely nowhere, being told that although they could give me details of the previous weeks usage, they couldn't go back any further because that informaton was unavailable - unsatisfactory response, but that was all I could get.
Obviously BT are saying we could always go unlimited, but I'd rather find out what the issue is and why this sudden increase - we aren't using that much internet.
Iain

Iain_L wrote:
Hi,
This is probably going to sound familiar to lots of people, but we also are recording much higher BB usage than normal. We are only on the 10gb package, as our max 512kb broadband doesn't make it worthwhile trying to do much with the www.
Our usage is usually pretty close to the 10gb, and in fact we have probably gone over it 3 or 4 times in the last 2 years (I work away a lot, so Skype gets hammered, which I know could be up to about 350mb/hour). Our average usage has been 9.87gb according to BT. I was home at the end of June, and decided to reactivate BT FON, and my wife and I also installed the Smarttalk app. Now, halfway through July, we are already up at over 7gb used.
The warning e-mail for 6gb used was last night, the usage monitor is already showing over 7gb - that is a heck of a lot of broadband usage for a property with such a slow connection. I have tried tackling BT in the past, and got absolutely nowhere, being told that although they could give me details of the previous weeks usage, they couldn't go back any further because that informaton was unavailable - unsatisfactory response, but that was all I could get.
Obviously BT are saying we could always go unlimited, but I'd rather find out what the issue is and why this sudden increase - we aren't using that much internet.
Iain
Got the same problem, see my seperate Post.
Don't wish to hi-jack your post but how can BT be tackeled?
It's hard to keep a daily check, I would say impossible!

Is 8J 2135a higher than 8K1079 for technote 304198 video performance

Technote 304198 (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304198) states that video frame rates might be too low if the 10.4.7 OS build is lower than 8K1079. My build of 10.4.7 is 8J2135a
Is that higher than 8K1079? 2135a seems higher than 1079, but 8J is lower than 8K. Can anyone help clarify this?

Is that higher than 8K1079?
8J2135a is lower than 8K1079, but that article only applies to Mac Pros, and the fix will only work on a Mac Pro, as no other model of Mac includes the required build on its Mac OS X installation disks. You should not do an Archive and Install.
(15510)

Performance Requirements much higher than in Express 7 ???

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for