Steady lack of performance during ownership.

Since my last post (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=992709) the performance of my Macbook Pro has gotten worse.
Besides the problem mentioned before, general graphical performance of my mac during random computergames and other graphic-dependent software, the performance of my computer is really not matching its hardware specifications to the best of my experience.
Furthermore, when doing small tasks, like typing in a text field, as in an IM-window or even this formfield right here, after just a few characters, the system slows down and lets me type letters alot faster than they will actually appear on screen.
Even more, interacting with games such as World of Warcraft together with communication software like Ventrilo, constantly screws up the system audio of my machine. Microphone in- and output is distorted to earpiercing noise, and leaves my system hanging for great periods of time, and even sometimes crashes it in kernel panics.
These kernel panics, though, seem to be caused by the game software and not the hardware, since I have heard from many people suffering from these crashes. But the rest of the issues described here is not something that people with similar systems has experienced, which is why it has lead me to believe that something has been malformed in my hardware.
To make a long story short - going from being able to multitask tons of heavy software at a top-notch performance, my mac is reduced to a shadow of what it once was, and I have treated it with great care.
A supporter from the Mac-division of Blizzard entertainment suggested after a long talk that my machine could have sustained damage from overheating at some point, causing this trouble, and I should have my computer examined by Apple.
Since there is a fee involved with having Apple look at my computer, should the error not be hardware, I would like to know if someone could suggest me to check some settings in the system profiler that could verify or unverify that something is wrong at the hardware, and what I should do if Apple should check it out.
PS: I have tried almost every "tweak" that is suggested to increase performance. Bottom line is that I have not altered much of my system between the amazing performance and the horrible performance.
Thanks in advance, Kspr

As an update I tried installing Windows XP on boot camp, to see if there would be any change in performance.
After having partitioned the drive for about 1 minute, my machine had a complete kernel panic crash.
Having lost 15GB in thin air, I recovered it by booting to disk mode and doing a "repair disk".
Recovered the lost size, and tried again. Kernel Panic once again. Repeated it just to be sure a third time, kernel panic again.
I'm positive somethinge's very wrong. Any thoughts on this?

Similar Messages

How do you log SAP vendor activity performed during an OSS Connection?

Hello Everyone,
What is the best and cost effective way to log SAP vendor activity while they are connected to perform OSS related work?
The environment under review provides an OSS SAP support ID and password to the vendor to facilitate the authentication, however, no security audit logging is performed. The SAP team is raising performance issues as the reason why the logging is not turned on.
Is there a way to restrict the security logging only to the OSS support ID and also determine the activity performed during the session? Basically, how can the internal team know that an unauthorized activity was performed during the connection and / or someone made several failed attempts to authenticate through the OSS connection?
Thank you.

It also records the GUI event and is regardless of the success of starting the activity, let alone completing it.
In my books it is "fluffy" security which is inherently flawed for the purpose you are using it for. The main reason for the records is response times.
It only works because authorization concepts are sometimes inherently flawed in their implementation as well.... so people believe what they see...
But for forensics it is usefull IF you are fast enough...
Cheers,
Julius

Is there a way to improve computer performance during TM backup?

I have a MacBook Pro 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 2GB of RAM running 10.5.7 and every time Time Machine starts a backup (about once an hour) my computer becomes unresponsive. I can't type, copy, paste, switch applications without a huge hang up. For example, it took me a total of 7 minutes to get to this thread because Time Machine started a backup and I was stuck in the Finder trying to switch to Safari. Once Safari finally showed up, I got a beach ball.
When TM isn't running, my computer is restored to a responsive state.
I love using Time Machine, because it's a great way to backup everything. Short of turning it off, is there anything else I can do to prevent my computer from going in to lockdown once an hour?
I'm backing up wirelessly to a MyBook USB drive btw.

Just an update to those who may stumble across this thread.
This issue has not been solved. In fact, I could say it's gotten much much worse. It seems that I can't type, copy/paste or perform even the most basic of tasks while a backup is in progress.
I've downloaded the Time Machine Backup Widget, and it shows a few oddities that may/may not be significant. On one particular day the log shows a request for 1.3GB and then for the next backup (1 hour later) a request for another 2GB in size. Each of the hourly backups seemed to be of similar size requests for that day. What's unusual is that for that particular day, I wasn't really working on anything of significant size at all. I'm a web developer, so I may modify a 1MB file throughout the day, for several hours, but I'm no where near generating modifications that would equate to 8GB a day. My first thought was that Time Machine might be swapping out a weekly/monthly backup at that time - but then the same requests seem to be coming the following three days. Does it take Time Machine that long to perform a weekly backup?
At Time Machine's current rate, my hard drive is filling up pretty fast. To the tune of 8GB a day. The logs seem to also indicate that Time Machine is only copying 2.1MB a day. Again, that falls in line with what I would expect with my activity, but the hard drive seems to be dedicating the "requested" rather than the (smaller) copied amount indicated in the log files.
Backup frequency also seems to be higher than normal on some days. Today, for example, Time Machine has been backing up about once every 20 minutes or so. Right now, I'm on a backup, at various times my typing has been affected and according to the backup status it has been backing up 2.4MB of 2.5MB for the past 22 minutes. It just barely finishes and then it starts right back up again.
I've kept Activity monitor running for the past couple of weeks and as suspected, my CPU reaches maximum capacity and my disk activity goes through the roof during a backup. My external wireless mouse and anything connected to my computer seems to become unresponsive. The trackpad and keyboard go next. Then - typically - I see the beach ball and I know I'm up for an unscheduled computer break. This is most annoying when I'm trying to type an email and a backup kicks in just before I have a chance to click send. One time it took me 10 minutes for my click to be recognized and an email could be queued to send. It took another 3 full minutes for the email to actually go out.
For me, backups are essential. I have resisted turning this feature off, simply because I spent so much money to get it all to work (upgraded OS, purchased a new router and a new backup HD).
I hope Apple releases more control over the backup features and the backup frequency. I'd love to see an option to have backups happen only when CPU cycles are at idle for a few minutes, which would indicate that the user isn't on the computer. Or perhaps give users the ability to set a less aggressive backup schedule, perhaps every four hours or so, rather than the aggressive hourly backups I'm stuck with now.
Time Machine's current status: "finishing backup." has been it's status for at least 10 minutes, that combined with the outlandish 45 minute time it took to copy 2.5MB of data means I have just 5 minutes before my next backup is scheduled to start. There has to be a better way.

Sluggish performance during disk operations

I've got a PC with a SATA hard disk and Arch is installed into a partition which uses the Ext3FS. During any longer disk operations the performance degrades near to a level of unusability. The movement of the mouse pointer is very choppy, switching between windows or desktops takes several seconds and so on... It's of course understandable that this would happen if I tried to access the disk with some program while the operation active, but this happens even if I'm trying to access something that is loaded into the RAM. And all the time most of the RAM remains free.
This doesn't happen while doing similar things in Windows, so I guess I must have just configured my kernel badly or something. Any advice on where to start solving this?

Thanks for your reply.
I've enabled the correct chipset while customizing kernel (Intel ICH6, without which Arch won't even boot, so it should be correct). I've also enabled DMA, but from certain locations I've understood that DMA is only for IDE devices and doesn't affect SATA performance.
I did some poking on some other forums and found out that this problem has been pestering other people too, but no solution has been found (at least I don't know of any).

Lack of performance on 290X 4G

So I have a MSI R9 290X 4G gaming series and my performance is heavily lacking compared to others on similar setups. I get hardly 1200 points in heaven while someone with a lesser cpu than me and the same GPU and driver (14.4) gets 100 - 200 points more. I also cannot control my fan speed % on any programs including CCC.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/1icn4fyaxxmfa23/Hawaii.rom Here is a link to my bios. I have tried others but they all crash my card when the driver starts up, and this one is much newer than what can be found on the net anyway.
I'm not comfortable handing out the S/N of my GPU.

s/n is 602-v309-06sb140501xxxx
I just tested my card on windows 7 compared to 8.1 and the difference is there. I get a good 100 points more on valley.
This is 1100/1250 on windows 7 13.12 (left) and Windows 8.1 14.4 (right). On windows 7 14.4 preformed 1 fps less or so, and 13.12 performs as bad as 14.4 on 8.1, so I wrote off taking a picture of 13.12 on my 8.1 install.
I am going to reformat my main drive that has windows 8.1 with 8.1 again and see if its just a corruption. If not, I'll be switching to 7. But this does not tell me why my performance is so much lower than another card of the same clocks and similar CPU. These results are still below average.

Question about Workstation Performance during Scanning

I am looking for information about workstation performace during
scanning
for inventory. My management wants information on impact before I can
implement the service in our environment. We do have a very wide
array of
computers. Anything from Win95 P200 to Win2k/XP P4 3Ghz. Can anyone
point me
in the right direction?

Inventory is minimal.
The first scan takes the most performance. On a p200 we are talking
about 5 minutes with little or no performance hit.
After that, only changes are sent to the server.
I wasn't able to find any doc that talked about performance, but you
can read about inventory in the ZFD documentation.
Hope that helps.
Jared L Jennings, CNE
Novell Support Forums SysOp

Aperture 1.1 performance during longer work time

Hi,
I have Aperture 1.1 running on a G5 2.3GHz dual core with a 7800GT and 8GB RAM and on my MacBook Pro 2.16GHz with 2GB RAM.
Aperture runs fine and the performance is good on both machines, after staring a work session.
But after a few minutes and several pictures Aperture slows down and sometimes the spinning ball shows up.
I don't know why this performance change during work happens.
Any indea?
I also noticed, that the 1.1 version has a higher CPU usage than the versions before, but I don't know if it still uses the GPU as much as before.
JO

Same here, Aperture 1.1 does seem to be more of a CPU hog now than it was before -- incl. a nasty new behavior where it cripples other programs from running or rendering to screen while it is running and "active", even when it is in the background. I also see what others have reported where after 15-30 minutes the Aperture (1.1) perf gets progressively more dismal until the program becomes unusably slow, and/or freezes at the SBBOD.
I'm not that convinced memory is the root cause of the perf. problems, as it doesn't appear to be notably worse than 1.0.1 in its usage, nor does its usage radically change during the perf. problems versus prior to them.
Given both behaviors, I wonder if Aperture is internally competing against its own threads (as well as those of others, though others appear to have lower-priority access) for some critical system lock that each thread is holding too long, or something along that line of pathology. Just speculating, but it seem a closer fit with what's happening inside and outside Aperture while running (impacting other programs' perf as well), versus just rampant memory leakage.
In any event, after about 15-30 mins, Aperture's perf frequently degrades to where it stops being usable (along with the rest of the system while it is running). Other programs running simultaneously with Aperture will start hitting serious perf issues well before Aperture freezes (indeed often before Aperture shows any signs of problems). 1.1 solved many of the big RAW problems, but seems to have introduced some nastily fatal flaws of its own.
Power Macintosh G5 (dual 1.8G) Mac OS X (10.4.6) 3GB Ram, ATI 9800Pro

S_ALR_87013531 how to increae its performance during execution

Dear sir
How to increase the performance of this eport S_ALR_87013531 during execution,since it taking six hours or gives run time exceeded error.
Regards
kunal

Hi,
I dont think it should take 6 hrs to execute this report.
Please check with your BASIS consultant.
Muzamil

NVIdia Powermizer on Laptops - Slow Performance during gaming

Hope this is the place for this post...
I'm currently running nvidia 180.29 and I have the following set in my xorg.conf file:
Option "RegistryDwords" "PowerMizerEnable=0x1; PerfLevelSrc=0x2222; PowerMizerDefault=0x3; PowerMizerDefaultAC=0x3"
The problem I see occurring is that; during gaming the performance level will move from what I have it set to above (Level 2) and dropping to a lower level performance. This; of course, causes a HUGE drop in frames while gaming. I've tried EVERYTHING I researched but nothing seems to make this sticky.
I have tried:
1. Adding options to /etc/modprobe.conf (Setting nvidia stuff I found googl'ing around)
2. The above options added to my device sections of my xorg.conf file
3. Running this script that some said would keep it sticky:
while true; do
powerstate=`cat /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/AC/state | awk '{print $2}'`
if [ $powerstate = "on-line" ]; then
nvidia-settings -q all > /dev/null
fi
sleep 25;
done
All attempts have failed and my performance is HORRIBLE as long as the game is running. When the game quits the performance returns.
Any suggestions, information, links..etc would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance...
EDIT: See alot of people complaining about 180.29 and powermizer.....does anyone know if it's broken?? If it is...can someone post a quick link to how to downgrade?
Last edited by johnnymac (2009-03-15 02:39:56)

You can try to install some older drivers from http://www.nvidia.com/object/unix.html find the driver for your PC, select archiver, run the script... Should work.

Slow Query Performance During Process Of SSAS Tabular

As part of My SSAS Tabular Process Script Task in a SSIS Package, I read all new rows from the database and insert them to Tabular database using Process Add. The process works fine but for the duration of the Process Add, user queries to my Tabular model
becomes very slow.
Is there a way to prevent the impact of Process Add on user queries? Users need near real time queries.
I am using SQL Server 2012 SP2.
Thanks

Hi AL.M,
According to your description, when you query the tabular during Process Add, the performance is slow. Right?
In Analysis Services, it's not supported to make a MDX/DAX query ignore the Process Add of the tabular. it will always query the updated tabular. In this scenario, if you really need good query performance, I suggest you create two tabular.
One is for end users to get data, the other one is used for update(full process). After the Process is done, let the users query the updated tabular.
If you have any question, please feel free to ask.
Regards,
Simon Hou
TechNet Community Support

Siebel Prod App poor performance during EIM tables data load

Hi Experts,
I have a situation, Siebel Production application performance is becoming poor when I start loading data into Siebel EIM tables during business hours. I'm not executing any EIM jobs during business hours so how come the database is becoming slow and application is getting affected.
I understand that Siebel Application fetches data from siebel base tables. In that case why is the application getting very slow when EIM tables are only loaded.
FYI - Siebel production Application server has good hardware configuration.
Thanks,
Shaik

You have to talk with your DBA.
Let's say your DB is running from one hard disk (HD).
I guess you can imagine things will slow down when multiple processes start accessing the DB which is running from one HD.
When you start loading the EIM tables, your DB will use a lot of time for writing and has less time to serve the data to the Siebel application server.
The hardware for the Siebel application servers is not really relevant here.
See if you can put the EIM tables on their own partition/hard disks.

ZPool performance during resilver

Hi everyone. Hoping someone can provide some guidance here.
We are trying to develop some low-end NAS devices using Solaris 11.1 to house virtual machines. Between the RAID configuration and the SSDs we have been able to obtain very solid performance under max load. The problem is when a drive fails.
Disk latency, more precisely read latency, goes extremely high. An example is we have one recently built and not housing many machines. start a resilver, read latency jumps from 25ms to 235ms. A bit of a problem for VMs.
1.37TB used on a 14TB pool, almost 200GB to resilver.
Hardware controllers in my experience are bale to rebuild a drive and the performance impact is not noticable. Different situation I understand.
I am trying to locate a tunable or some other suggestion to help resolve this issue. I suppose the same can be said for scrubs. We currently do not perform scrubs because it brings the system to its knees.

Thanks again for your feedback.
If resilvering cannot be stopped then Orcale may want to clarify it's documentation: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19082-01/817-2271/gbcus/index.html
"Resilvering is interruptible and safe." I guess this is only in terms of an accidental interruption like a power outage.
I also ran the iostat -En and there are a lot of errors. Small portion below.
root@pop-tac-san02:~# iostat -En
c9d0 Soft Errors: 0 Hard Errors: 0 Transport Errors: 0
Model: WDC WD800AAJS-0 Revision: Serial No: WD-WCAV2N5 Size: 80.03GB <80025845760 bytes>
Media Error: 0 Device Not Ready: 0 No Device: 0 Recoverable: 0
Illegal Request: 0
c10d0 Soft Errors: 0 Hard Errors: 0 Transport Errors: 0
Model: WDC WD800AAJS-0 Revision: Serial No: WD-WCAV2N4 Size: 80.03GB <80025845760 bytes>
Media Error: 0 Device Not Ready: 0 No Device: 0 Recoverable: 0
Illegal Request: 0
c7t21d0 Soft Errors: 0 Hard Errors: 11 Transport Errors: 23
Vendor: ATA Product: WDC WD2001FASS-0 Revision: 0101 Serial No: WD-WMAUR0278223
Size: 2000.40GB <2000398934016 bytes>
Media Error: 9 Device Not Ready: 0 No Device: 2 Recoverable: 0
Illegal Request: 12 Predictive Failure Analysis: 0
c7t22d0 Soft Errors: 0 Hard Errors: 5 Transport Errors: 19
Vendor: ATA Product: WDC WD2001FASS-0 Revision: 0101 Serial No: WD-WMAUR0371013
Size: 2000.40GB <2000398934016 bytes>
Media Error: 0 Device Not Ready: 0 No Device: 5 Recoverable: 0
Illegal Request: 10 Predictive Failure Analysis: 0
c7t23d0 Soft Errors: 0 Hard Errors: 7 Transport Errors: 28
Vendor: ATA Product: WDC WD2001FASS-0 Revision: 0101 Serial No: WD-WMAY00096167
Size: 2000.40GB <2000398934016 bytes>
Media Error: 0 Device Not Ready: 0 No Device: 7 Recoverable: 0
Illegal Request: 9 Predictive Failure Analysis: 0
c7t24d0 Soft Errors: 0 Hard Errors: 4 Transport Errors: 16
Vendor: ATA Product: WDC WD2001FASS-0 Revision: 0101 Serial No: WD-WMAY00129943
Size: 2000.40GB <2000398934016 bytes>
Media Error: 0 Device Not Ready: 0 No Device: 4 Recoverable: 0
Illegal Request: 10 Predictive Failure Analysis: 0
I'm no expert but I'm guessing this is causing my performance problems during resilver.
Edited by: 991704 on May 22, 2013 10:34 AM

Lack of performance in SELECT-ing XML records

Hello Champs, I am new to XML world. But as a DBA now I'm into the situation to suggest better performance improvement in accessing XML records.
Problem:
There is a batch job from informatica, fetching records from XML tables(close to 400, one by one) stored in oracle database. All 400 tables just have two columns as described below:
Name                                         Null?          Type
RECID                                     NOT NULL VARCHAR2(255)
XMLRECORD                                            XMLTYPE
Each table has NORMAL index created for it only for VARCHAR2 column:
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX "username"."Indexname_PK" ON "username"."table_name" ("RECID") PCTFREE 10 INITRANS 2 MAXTRANS 255 NOLOGGING COMPUTE STATISTICS STORAGE(INITIAL 65536 NEXT 1048576 MINEXTENTS 1 MAXEXTENTS 2147483645 PCTINCREASE 0 FREELISTS 1 FREELIST GROUPS 1 BUFFER_POOL DEFAULT) TABLESPACE "tbs_idx" ;
All the table has the CLOB index created for it with below description.
     CHUNK PCTVERSION RETENTION FREEPOOLS CACHE      IN_ROW    FORMAT          PAR
      8192                 14400            YES                           YES         ENDIAN     NEUTRAL          NO
Informatica issues below query on all the table, where it could just fetch only 400rows/sec in average. This takes entire buisness day to complete the batch job for all 400 tables, which gives big problem in production environment.
SELECT <table_name>.<column_name>.getclobval() FROM <table_name>;
SQL> select * from v$version;
BANNER
Oracle Database 10g Enterprise Edition Release 10.2.0.5.0 - 64bi
PL/SQL Release 10.2.0.5.0 - Production
CORE    10.2.0.5.0      Production
TNS for IBM/AIX RISC System/6000: Version 10.2.0.5.0 - Productio
NLSRTL Version 10.2.0.5.0 - Production
Clarification required:
1. Where do you see in this scenario, there is a problem which blocks the performance?
2. What type of index on this setup is normally advisable?
Many Thanks for your assistance,

Not sure if you will like it, although it will improve your performance issues considerably, upgrade to Oracle 11.2.0.3 or 11.2.0.4 and be sure that all those XMLTYPE (CLOB) stored columns will be created/recreated with XMLTYPE (SECUREFILE BINARY XML).
One way of making sure that XMLTYPE will be stored via Binary XML Securefile LOB storage is by setting "db_securefile" on database level ( Using Oracle SecureFiles ) to value ALWAYS or FORCE. Binary XML Securefile XMLType content may only be created on ASSM enabled tablespaces...

Crashing and poor performance during playback of a large project.

Hi,
I've been a regular user of iMovie for about 3 years and have edited several 50GB+ projects of DV quality footage without too many major issues with lag or 'dropped frames'. I currently have a 80GB project that resides on a 95% full 320GB Firewire 400 external drive that has been getting very slow to open and near impossible to work with.
Pair the bursting-at-the-seams external drive, with an overburdened 90% full internal drive - the poor performance wasn't to be unexpected. So I bought a 1TB Firewire 400 drive to free up some space on my Mac. My large iTunes library (150GB) was the main culprit and it was quickly moved onto the new drive.
The iMovie project was then moved onto my Mac's movie folder - I figured that the project needs some "room" to work (not that I really understand how Macs use memory) and that having roughly 80GB free with 1.5GB RAM (which is more than used to have) would make everything just that much smoother.
Wrong.
The project opened in roughly the same amount of time - but when I tried to play back the timeline, it plays like rubbish and then after 10-15 secs the Mac goes into 'sleep' mode. The screen goes off, the fans dies down and the 'heartbeat' light goes on. A click of the mouse 'wakes' the Mac only to find that if i try again, I get the same result.
I've probably got so many variables going on here that it's probably hard to suggest what the problem might be but all I could think of was repairing permissions (which I did and none needed it).
Stuck on this. Anyone have any advice?

I understand completely, having worked with a 100 GB project once. I found that getting a movie bloated up to that size was just more difficult with jerky playback.
I do have a couple of suggestions for you.
You may need more than that 80GB free space for this movie. Is there any reason you cannot move it to the 1TB drive? If you have only your iTunes on it, you should have about 800 GB free.
If you still need to have the project on your computer's drive, set your computer to never sleep.
How close to finishing editing are you with this movie? If you are nearly done except for adding audio clips, you can export (share) it as QuickTime Full Quality movie. The resultant quicktime version of your iMovie will be smaller because it will contain only the clips actually used in the movie, not all the saved whole clips that iMovie keeps as its nondestructive editing feature. The quicktime movie will be one continuous clip, incorporating all your edits and added audio. It CAN be further edited, but you cannot change text of titles already there, or change transitions or remove already added audios.
I actually do this with nearly every iMovie. I create my movies by first importing videos, then adding still photos, then editing with titles, effects and transitions. I add audio last, and if it becomes too distorted in playback, I export the movie and then continue adding audio clips.
My 100+ GB movie slimmed down to only 8 GB with this method. (The large size was due to having so many clips. The movie was from VHS footage of my son's little league all-star game, and the video had so many skipped segments that I had to split it into thousands of clips to remove the dropped ones. Very old VHS tape!).
I haven't upgraded to QT 7.5.5, but I heard that the jerky playback issue is mostly resolved with this new upgrade. I am in mid-project with about 5 iMovies, so I will probably plod along with my work-around method, not wanting to upgrade in the middle of any of them.
Hope this is helpful to you.

Lack of performance in Final Cut Pro

As I am pretty new to the whole video editing scene on the Mac, I have a performance question for those who are somewhat more familiar with FCS(2).
I have a MBP Core Duo 2Ghz with 2GB of ram and 100GB@7200rpm (around 8GB free), and I am experiencing lags, lots of rendering and framedrops whilst capturing. Is this normal? Am I doing something wrong? I have a bunch of other apps open like iTunes, iCal, Safari and Dreamweaver, however when I use Final Cut the only app that's busy is FC. There's also plenty of (even unused) memory when I look at the activity monitor. How come I still get the message FC encountered dropped frames?
Another thing is playback. A simple speed alteration (for time lapse) gets FC all frustrated; it will only run smoothly when I render it first. It will play, but not hold a constant framerate. I find this strange, because if FC is protesting with this simple procedure, I don't even wanna know what it does once some filters are applied. Besides, a friend of mine with Premiere Pro and a single core processor can in fact run the time lapse at full framerate. No problems at all.
So my question is: is this kind of poor performance normal on a machine as described earlier? Or am I doing something wrong here?
If it's really not that special, I'd rather use Premiere Pro than FCS. Unless someone can give me a reason why PP can do the same thing, but then smoothly on an inferior machine.

First off, if you keep comparing programs and platforms hoping one will work like the other you will never be happy and may as well go back to Premiere right away.
That being said, there is the right and recommended way to do these things and then there is the way that works for you.
Some people claim to be able to edit just fine with a USB2 drive connection, what they are editing and how hard it's pushing the drive I don't know, I just know that I can't afford the problems and therefore don't do it.
Some people use their system drive as a scratch drive and get along fine. I've done this myself in a pinch and it's worked well enough, but again, I don't make it a habit because I want to avoid problems that are easy to avoid.
Some people have no issues when looping a deck or camera through the FW drive in order to capture. I've tried it and it's hit and miss. Depends somewhat on the deck or camera you use. Canon seems to have more issues in this regard than others. But again, a $50.00 card can eliminate the problem altogether so the decision is an easy one for me... get the card.
The point is, you can spend time trying these various methods, or you can do it the recommended way from the start, but wanting it to work in a certain way because that's the way something else works is not going to get you editing.
rh

Steady lack of performance during ownership.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for