Tecra M3 - Odd observation about (lack of) RAM performance

Hi folks.
I recently moved up to 2 x 1GB of DDR2 (533) on this laptop, from 2 x 512MB, and one day a week ago or so I got curious and ran the SiSoftware Sandra memory bandwidth benchmark. The result struck me as lower than it should be - both Int and Float memory bandwidth figures were ~900 MB/s, similar to a single stick of DDR1 on a VIA platform in the Sandra database, and falling considerably short of yet again a single stick of DDR1 on an Intel 855 chipset platform - and yet this is a laptop running dual channel DDR2 (on the 915 chipset). It got even more interesting when I removed one of the DDR2 sticks, thus dropping to single channel, and observed identical performance. Utilities like memtest86+, CPU-Z, and Sandra itself do all report that I am in fact running dual channel when there are two sticks installed, so why is there no performance boost? Also the memory latency test results are extremely poor.
Long story short, I have yet to figure out the nature of this problem and therefore whether is fixable, or it's an inherent hardware flaw in the design of this laptop. All tests done without other stuff running, CPU-Z shows RAM running at 266 (533), 4-4-4-12 timings. BIOS is the latest 1.20 available for the M3 w/ VACF.
Here's what I've already tried (might be forgetting something, will add it if I remember):
Tried two sticks, and one stick, of both my old RAM (which came with the laptop), and the new OCZ. Basically all possible combinations are covered.
memtest86+ shows no errors after hours of testing on all the RAM.
Fresh Windows install, latest Intel INF chipset drivers etc, no change.
Any ideas?

What is the bandwidth reported in Memtest?
You wont really see a performance boost unless the memory is being read in ideal situations.

Similar Messages

Tecra R850 - 147 - Question about RAM

Hello.
What kind od RAM and VENDOR are installed on Toshiba Tecra R850 - 147 (Samsung ? Kingston ? OCZ ? .... ? )
regards
p.

Hi RuFiK,
On Toshiba website there is no information about vendor of RAM modules. This could be different from notebook to notebook so best is you remove the RAM cover and check it yourself. So you can check what vendor/model it is exactly.
Do you want to upgrade the RAM?

Lack of Ram and Leopard= tragic

I just got the new Leopard as an early xmas-present along with a 500GB external hard-drive and the new slim keyboard.
I currently have a iMac OS X version 10.3.9, PowerPC G4, 1.25 GHz, 256 MB, and Bus Speed: 167 MHz.
I attempted to install Leopard and when my computer restarted it wouldn't go beyond the infamous blue screen with the beach ball spinning!! I contacted tech support and they helped me get back to the original screen and suggested that I need more Ram, which makes ALOT of sense!
So here it goes I've been fishing around forums and comparing answers. I'm unsure about what to get either a 512MB or a 1GB. I've recently graduated in Graphic Design... so I basically use my Apple for everything! I love it! I use Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Dreamweaver, Flash, Word, Firefox, iTunes, iPhotos, iChat and the list can go on. Please if anyone has any suggestions about which size Ram I should go for, I would really appreciate it! Thanks!
P.S I am also thinking about installing it myself, so far it looks pretty easy... (after seeing the many diagrams in the forums)

Hello Greenjuju and welcome to discussions,
Have a look in this, excellent, post by Mr Totes....
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1274834&tstart=0
Just remember to follow the instructions carefully and be very very gentle with the Mac - You will be fine.
Regards
Ian

Im thinking about buying OWC ram for my macbook pro.

Im thinking about buying OWC ram for my macbook pro but dont know if it will have negative affects on my computer, should i do it?

Only if you install it wrong or use the wrong RAM.
http://eshop.macsales.com/installvideos/
Use the free Crucil.com checker to doublecheck if you need too.
You don't want Apple to do it, they quoted me $435 to upgrade $70 worth of RAM.
Do it yourself or have a local geek friend (PC or Mac) do it, it's not hard, unles you got bad eyesight and can't see the tiny screws. Use a catch mat, follow proper anti-static and handling. (touch only plastic)
Break something inside, your on your own though. No warranty coverqge or AppleCare for self inflicted damage.

Observation about the rating's location

This is just an observation about the rating's location. Not a criticism... just an observation...
The ratings are located to the rightmost position of a page. If images are attached, sometimes the page is not completely visible and hides the higher rating such as 4 & 5 . If I like a post, I quickly head down to the right corner of the displayed window and go for the rightmost radio button. I nearly gave Altenbach a rating of 2 on one of his posts
[SHAME ON]
I've given a 1 star rating once because the eye was slower than the mouse
[SHAME OFF]
With loss of peripheral vision to the right side, I now have to be 2X as caution when giving ratings...
or I need to slow down when reading posts
Is it possible to move the ratings (1 to 5 stars) to the left, or have it adapt to the right of the active window? not the overall window..
Thanks,
RayR

I wonder how many times I didn't even notice which radio button got hit...
Especially since it does not give the rating right away...

XP and RAM performance

Lots of sites post info on RAM performance with Leopard. Is the performance benefit the same with XP? Does XP manage the memory the same way?

I couldn't split the solved points and Fortuny took both Helpful points at once. You both however provided very good info.
I contacted the OWC helpdesk and they said RAM should run equally fast under both OSes. They did not address management as I had asked.
I have a 2.16 MB and a 2.4 MB. Both have 2GB RAM. The 2.16 with XP runs Quickbooks and Office. The 2.4 with XP runs Adobe Master and Office. I could bump 2GB RAM to either one, to both, exchange for 4GB in one or both so I'm considering my options.
I would think the 2.16 with Quickbooks would run fine with 2GB. Given the graphic chip limitations of the 2.4 MB I am pondering what to do about bumping the RAM.
I would expect to jump to the MBP in 6 months to a year.
Your input would be appreciated. When faced with a decision, I usually opt to do nothing until I get more input.

Tecra M11-17U, WinXP: displays 2.89G RAM instead of 4G

According to http://aps2.toshiba-tro.de/kb0/TSB82022E0000R01.htm I could expect WinXP (32-bit) to present at least 3.0G up to 3.3G. But I only see 2.89. Is that configurable? How could I enable memory remapping - I do not see anything in BIOS?
Thanks
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Your unit is from Europe, probably the UK. But, this is really the Toshiba USA forum.
Tecra M11-17U Specifications
Tecra M11-17U Downloads
The article you posted is talking about the maximum amount of RAM your would see available in Windows. However, your graphics card uses 'dynamically allocated' RAM. This means that your graphics card has no RAM of its own, but instead uses your system's RAM dynamically as needed. So, this is using up some further RAM.
You could check this thread and the suggestions there:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/234421-30-showing-12gb-windows
Though, you're always welcome here, you may want to use the European forum.
Toshiba European Forum
Good luck.
Mike

Apple Support ignores me completely, there is no way I can complain about lack of feed back and I even have paid for a protection plan!

I have paid for an extended support through the Apple protection plan. Frankly I do not understand what I´ve paid for as there is no support and no plan, except ignorance and waiting time.
I have had and still have serious problem with my Mac Book Pro, and spent loads of money on phone charges with mainly negative results. All I have "achieved" is wasted time. I just wonder if it is only me who feel totally helpless as the Support People are not really helping. I´ve spent approsmimately 200 USD in phonecharges on their support phone, so far. But that is nothing compared to the hours spent waiting for answer and listening no absolute nonsense. Finally I went to an Apple store who sent the machine in for repair, and one fault was the motherboard. However I could still not connect with my Time Capsule and Aperture seemed to have lost all my photos. This all happende after upgrading to Mountail Lion. Also the cable network isn´t working. I can easily see on the net that I am not the only one with problems. I´ve ended up with solving most of this myself, except the network connection. It is still not working.
I am actually deeply dissapointed with Apple and I cannot find any way to even forward a complaint. Not that I believe it would help, but at least I´ve tried. I also think it would be fair to to get my money back for a product I´ve paid for which obviously isn´t working, namely the Apple Care Protection Plan.

Hi, so you suggest I should be grateful for getting what I have paid for? Sorry but that's only getting what I paid for. Add to that, that this has been against the phone support I've used a lot of time and money for! I don't feel anything but hopelessness for the total lack of customer support. An expensive Mac Book Pro shouldn't fail after 2 years in the first place! But failure may of course happen with the best products, and Apple as well. The real fault however is Apple's arrogance and failure to fix it! Instead of getting help and guidance to a solution, I used hours and lost days of work, and was made to pay a lot for total unusable "assistance". I was even adviced to hold back on taking the Mac Book Pro to a store, as I was told the support person a senior, would figure it out. Well Apple definiately squezzed the lemon! Since the Time Capsule/Time Machine system didn't fuction I was also in a stale mate as I needed assurance that My files wasn't lost when delivering the machine for repair. I was adviced that could happen. Quite a deadlock wasn't it! As an expert on Quality Assurance I was also suffering lost revenue in my work for clients. I finally had to buy a Samsung Ultrabook as working machine and backup, a neccesity as Apple obviously cannot be trusted when needed. Bill Gates and Windows has one advantage over Apple, they know things can go wrong and hence have much better support. Apple support is a maze were only the strongest and most persistent get through. I am one as I didn't accept being treated like that. That's the only reason I finally got a repair. However the machine is still not functioning as mentioned. I have a case number, a phone number and mail address to a senior support person, whom I've been trying to contact for more than a week, He has still not responded to my mails or phone calls. I cannot even figure out how to contact Apple to complain about such ignorance. Note by the way that here in Norway I must pay to call support and more often than not there is more than half an hour waiting time. I might spend hundred of dollars in that "game" without even knowing that I will get the support I've paid for and only keep paying even more for wasting my time! This is simply not good enough, it is no less than arrogant and wrong! I frankly think Apple is doing a big mistake with such por treatmen of their customers.

Response from Verizon about lack of Lumia device support

I am wanting to know what the exact problem is with issuing Lumia updates from this carrier. As of today in the United States the only carrier that has to issue an update to Cyan for Lumia devices is Verizon. We have the Denim update coming to Lumia devices here soon. Then there is the confirmation that next year when Windows 10 premieres devices that are running Windows 8.1 will be able to update but Denim, and subsequently Cyan updates, will be required to perform this update. Honestly I am very displeased with this support and this lack of ability to get the update out, whoever might be involved in that, but seeing as every other carrier in the United States has the update available then there has to be something that Verizon is making difficult in deployment. Seeing as really this should not be Verizon's decision as to when this update is delivered originally, because it is not like a computer's updates is dictated by an ISP, this is something that really is rubbing my fur the wrong way. Thus I would like to open yet another discussion thread on this issue and see if Verizon will give any additional details as to why they are the last service provider to update their old devices considering that they also have the smallest line of products from now Microsoft, they have reduced that line of product recently and they have yet to make any official comment on the issue or if we will ever see the device. I am very patient but 6 months to get an update is a little ridiculous.

Verizon does not care about Windows Phone Users! It is very obvious. Why did they pull the Icon? Why did they not start testing the Cyan update in a timely manner? Why do they not respond? THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT WINDOWS PHONE USERS!

About Mac Pro RAM and one "Nehalem" Processor 2.8 vs 3.2

Hi,
Unfortunately I don't have so much money to spend but I find Apple products very high quality and in same time very expensive, specially for my country (Russia), according to statistic, it’s less then 1% of people that using Mac Pro in here, my country really poor :/
I never use Mac before, but I think that time is come and I would like to buy one on my birthday soon (22 November). I really tired of my crazy PC with Vista, it’s always bugs lags, and so on, it’s poor machine. I can buy new PC with i7, nice performances or buy Mac, but I think, Mac will be more quality and stable.
I'm web designer and programmer and using my PC with Adobe programs, normally Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, very rare with After Effect (1 day per month). Sometimes I’m playing games like Dragon Age or CS:Source, Starcraft2. But I got PS3, but unfortunately it’s connected to our main home TV, and I can’t play PS3 because all day this TV watching my family :/ lol
I’m not sure if there are any way to connect PS3 to TV and computer screen at the same time… but it’s another question.
Now about Mac I'm wondering of buying cheapest Mac Pro 2010:
# One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Nehalem”
# 3GB (3x1GB)
# 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
# ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
# One 18x SuperDrive
But at the same time, I wondering about how long time I will be able to use this Mac, and enjoy it before it will come too old. Because I just can’t spend and buy Mac every 2-3 years.
I’m looking forward to use it for 4-5 years I think or so. I know it’s very hard question and I’m not really sure if it’s right to discuss it, but I’m saying just what I think.
And maybe because of this, it’s better to order processor with 3.2Ghz, and a bit more RAM (8GB (4x2GB))? What you think?
And what will be the different between this 2 processors and more RAM? Because it will be +800 USD or so, and it’s very expensive for me (pay addition 800 Dollars), I just want to ask you if it will costs this money. Unfortunately I can’t spend more money on Mac to buy 6-core Westmare and more RAM But I think cheapest Mac, for my tasks already very powerful and awesome, what you think?
And if you’ll advice me, not to pay addition 400 USD for +0.4Ghz, and the different is very little, then what you think about addition Ram for stock MAC?

Thank you hatter.
I'm appreciate for your help and answer, and this amazing links! They are very helpful.
I find some interesting information. And most interesting is SSD thing. But unfortunately it's very expensive for me
I got 2 ways to go, and I really confused now. I take a look what you said, about making a PC with i7. And here is what I find on our Russian market - only 1 company which offers high quality custom PC's with up to 3 years guarantee.
What they can offer:
Price: $2060
(Basic Config: DEPO Ego Z71i)
OS:
Microsoft® Windows 7 Home Premium RUS 32-bit
or
Microsoft® Windows 7 Home Premium RUS 64-bit
MotherBoard:
*ASUS P6T, Intel®X58 chipset , DDR3, ATX*
CPU:
*Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 930 (4-Cores, 2.80GHz, 4.8 GT/s, 8Mb)*
Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 950 (4-Cores, 3.06GHz, 4.8 GT/s, 8Mb) +$365
Intel® Core™ i7 Processor Extreme Edition 980X (6-Cores, 3.33GHz, 6.4 GT/s, 12Mb) +$1150
RAM:
*3Gb DDR3-1600 Corsair Dominator, Triple Channel*
6Gb DDR3-1600 Corsair , Triple Channel +$40
12Gb DDR3-1600 Corsair , Triple Channel +$260
HDD1:
*1TB SATA hard drive (7200rpm)*
2 x 1TB SATA hard drive (7200rpm) +$80
4 x 1TB SATA hard drive (7200rpm) +$230
2 x 2TB SATA hard drive (7200rpm) +$355
4 x 2TB SATA hard drive (7200rpm) +$790
HDD2:
WD VelociRaptor 150GB, 10000rpm, 16Mb cache, SATA-II +$175
2.5" 64GB SSD SATA II +$205
WD VelociRaptor 300GB, 10000rpm, 16Mb cache, SATA-II +$285
2.5" 128GB SSD SATA II +$405
RAID:
RAID0 (required minimum 2 HDD) +$10
RAID1 (required minimum 2 HDD) +$10
Optical Drive 5.25":
*DVD±RW/CD-RW/DVD 16x4x/5xDL/16x4x/16x/48x/24x/48x*
BD-ROM&DVD RAM&DVD±R/RW, 5x/5x/12(R9 6)x/6x/12(R9 4)x/6x/12x/24x/24x/32x +$130
SuperMulti Blu-Ray ReWriter +$235
Card Reader 3.5":
*Card Reader/Writer 50 in 1 (CF/MD/SM/MS/SD/MMC)*
Video:
*ATI Radeon™ HD 5870 (1024МБ, PCI-E TV-out DVI+HDMI)*
1536MB NVIDIA GeForce 480GTX PCI-E DVI +$110
2x ATI Radeon™ HD 5850 (1024МБ, PCI-E TV-out DVI+HDMI) +$230
2x ATI Radeon™ HD 5870 (1024МБ, PCI-E TV-out DVI+HDMI) +$490
Sound:
*Realtek 7.1 (integrated)*
Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi™ Titanium Fatal1ty Champion Series +$400
Power:
*800W (12sm)*
1000W (14sm) +$50
1200W (14sm) +$55
WiFi:
*WLAN 802.11bg*
Mouse + KeyBoard: (lol)
Without mouse and keyboard -$75
Cordless Desktop® Wave Pro™ +$75
Maitance:
*1 Year*
2 Years +$10
3 Years +$20
Ok, that’s it.
DEPO - It’s our Russian company so I can’t give you link on English web page, but if you are interesting to view it, maybe with Google translate:
http://www.depo.ru/H/MDL658/1000004953/zconfigurator.aspx
And I’m not really sure, if they offer high quality components, and I can’t check it.
I just don’t want to repeat same experience like with my previous computer – I bought top computer for very high price with top components, but everything was bugging, it’s terrible, I’m working with this computer 3 years now (it’s cored 2 duo with radeon x1900 and vista :S video card - without supporting DX10-11, 2 Hdd 500Gb RAID 0, - maximum lags – I cant’ even make a diagnostics… crazy). And I’m so sad about this computer, and I don’t want to repeat same experience. That’s why I wonder about Mac Pro or any other quolity PC, but price is too high, or if I buy just normal Mac Pro:
• One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Nehalem”
• 3GB (3x1GB)
• 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
• ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
• One 18x SuperDrive
• Apple Magic Mouse
• Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) & User's Guide
For 2499 USD, I still need to add more RAM, and It will costs 2874 USD with 8 Gb, but without changing Processor and/or HDD for SSD to speed up computer like **** and enjoy it every minute. I maximum can spend 3000-3200 USD for new computer. And all I want, to enjoy it’s stability and speed. To load photoshop in less then 5 seconds, working with AE a bit, 3dmax a bit, play a bit. Maybe I want to much :/

Is slow time machine due to a lack of RAM

When I originally purchased Leopard, I used time machine on an old imac G5 with 2.5 gig ram without a problem. I have now changed my Mac to the latest Imac G5 with dual. I am starting over with TM and it is so slow.
I have checked that I have the correct format on my LaCie external 320 gig firewire hard disc. I am not running Symantec antivirus.
In the last 6 hours I have managed to backup 7.75 gig with 137 gig to go. This cannot be right.
I have only 1 gig of ram and have ordered an extra 2 gigs. Will this make a difference?
The data on my new mac was restored from time machine. I have the bug that prevents me from copying and pasting a new icon on my HD. Could this be related?
Help please

From my experience, there are a couple of things you can check.
First, if you installed any third party memory go to About this Mac and see how much memory your system is recognizing. I had a problem here even though I bought the memory from an authorized Mac reseller and repair facility. We cured it by removing the original factory installed memory and booting with the memory that I installed. It recognized it immediately and then I went back in an reinstalled the factory installed memory and it has been ripping since.
The more and bigger size of files that you are initially backing up the longer it takes. It did take a long time for me to back up about 70 gigs of data.
Also, for some reason, Time Machine doesn't like daisy chained FireWire drives. I have four in my system and the first time I tried running Time Machine, it cranked for hours and then gave me an error. I disconnected my backup drive from the daisy chain and plugged it into its own FireWire port and it worked great after that.
Personally, I like Super Duper as a backup better because it produces a bootable backup and can be scheduled to run whenever you want (I did it once a day). With Time Machine you have to use your install disk in conjunction with Time Machine. However, Super Duper is not yet compatible with Leopard although they seem to be getting closer. It like Time Machine does an initial back and then only changes files when the files change. It keeps only one backup copy of your hard drive not the hourly, weekly, etc that Time Machine.
Many people like Carbon Copy Cloner (CCC) which does the same as Super Duper but I am not sure that you can schedule backups or if the backup it produces is totally recopied every time it runs or just updates changed files like Super Duper and Time Machine.
Again, Time Machine is very very slow on the initial backup.

Question about Mac Mini RAM Slots?

My dad is thinking about buying the 1.66 GHz Intel Core Duo Mac Mini (MA607LL/A), and I was going to upgrade the RAM for him with a stick of 512 RAM from Crucial.
1. I can't find out online if the factory default Mac Mini ships with 2 sticks of 256 already in each slot, or if it ships with 1 stick of 512. Can someone please confirm this for me? I'm guessing it ships with two sticks of 256, one in each slot, but I'm looking for a confirmation on this.
2. Also, if I replace a stick of 256 with a new 512 stick, how much of a performance hit will he get if the ram isn't identical in pairs? We could just replace each stick with 512 if it's really worth it, but if the performance gain is minimal, then it may not be worth it.
Any help is appreciated, thanks.

hello mike,
Your best bet is to go the whole way, and put 2X 1G ram sticks in the machine. This will future-proof the machine, and also give the bset performance per buck. OsX really likes a lot of RAM.
As far as taking a performance hit by having mis-matched ram, i dont think its going to make a whole lot of difference. The performance decrease is very minimal. the same is true for macbook's FYI.
Cheers, hope it helps
Bryza

New News about slots? RAM: Is more really better?

Hi,
Ok, two questions in one post but if I can save one tree,... it's worth it...
Has there be any new consensus regarding filling one's RAM slots versus leaving 2 empty?
I've done my own limited testing in PS4 and AE4 and it seems to make no difference at all. What apps benefit from leaving two slots empty, taking advantage of the hyper-threading, I believe?
And when is RAM too much RAM, as in not needed? Due to a recent bout of madness I went from 16gb to 32 in my Mac. The difference? Awfully subtle, if one at all. Even having the preference in AE4 of putting more memory to individual processors, being able to increase it, has had little noticeable effect in that app. Am I happy I have the RAM, yes. For what I paid for it, no. Does it really boost performance? Not as much as one might hope.
Caveat emptor?

I looked through more of my bookmarks for dual vs triple. Tests on other motherboards, different OS, are likely going to show different results, but....
The reply in this thread is of interest:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/245839-30-triple-channel-memory
*Everest Ultimate Conclusion* Everest shows virtually no difference in dual vs triple channel mode with clockspeeds being the deciding factor. you will also notice the latency scores show much lower results than Sandra was reporting,( with latency Lower is better) again due to the different way of rating the performance. We were surprised to see such little difference in Everest after the virtual shut out in Sandra.
This is exactly why we like to use more than one kind of test to evaluate products we test and also helps to illustrate that not all performance tweaks will render a positive result, depending on what you are doing sometimes it will render a similar result.
http://www.ninjalane.com/articles/general_information/dualvtriple
For us, the real issue was how much of the memory bandwidth bottleneck prior Mac Pro the move to DDR3 offer customers. Intel's own Core i7 X58 for PC builders comes with just 4 DDR3 DIMM slots, not 3, and not 6 as most (all) the other desktop boards come equipped with (does Intel know something?).
It is also interesting to see the enormous advances CPUs have made in the virtualization area:
•The latest Xeon 55xx of early 2009 is about 4.2 times faster than the best 3.7GHz dual-core Xeons of early 2006. Moving from the 3-4 year old dual-core servers towards the newest quad-core Opterons/Xeons will improve the total performance of your server by about 3 to 4 times. http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3567&p=12
Intel (and Apple) wanted to move beyond the cost, heat, latency of using Fully-Buffered ECC which can use 10-15W per DIMM - Apple needed theirs to come with very large heat spreaders to keep the heat produced under control.
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=603
There may be more trouble shuffling data between two CPUs with just 6 or 8 DIMMs. I'd like to see a single cpu with 3 x 4GB configuration setup. Or 6 x 2GB, also 12GB. And then compare to 4 x 4GB. Get the dual cpu out of the equation.
Future I think means 2nd generation Nehalem 2010, with the move to shrink to 32nm.
*Intel bringing out Nehalem-EX*
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16981
*Intel to include error correction with server chips*
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsid=116423
The best upgrade you can do, you did already, SSDs.

Observations about Exporting to SmugMug

This is not about the built-in feature, but about using the plugin, SmugInPro, which supports full resolution desired, and does not result in syncing of albums back to the Aperture Library.
Today I had the rare occasion to upload a very large gallery to SmugMug -- over 400 images. While doing so, I was watching the Acitivity Monitor as this was processing on my nMP. My resolution choice, while a very large file, is not the full size of my images from my Nikon D800, because most clients are not prepared to deal with those. What I was able to observe was that the CPU was very busy during the time that the first 80 to 100 images were uploading, but then afterwards, little CPU % was being used. This suggests that the rendering to the size I selected (fit within 4288 X 4288) had been accomplished by that time, and afterward only the actual uploading was being processed.
This idea suggests that some considerable temporary storage must be involved for the rendered versions, does it not? Assuming so, where is that storage residing? I did not wish to look for it, since my first objective is to get this large upload finished -- still going on, btw.
My Library is Managed, and completely contained on an external, TBolt 4TB drive.
Ernie

It used to be that the SmuginProForAperture plug-in would render _all_ the images in a batch, and then it would upload them. This has a very large memory footprint for large sets. I don't know that it's rendering them to disk.
I contacted the developer about this because it wasn't ideal, and he said he was going to change it to do in more of an "image-by-image" way. This was a couple years ago, and I thought I recalled before changing to the native plug-in that it was better.
How old is your version of the Smugin Plugin? I had to say that

About the win7 RAM

i managed to setup boot camp for me to install win7 32bit,and i installed the drivers for my device(downloaded from apple server and burned on disc),everthing is normal and perfect.then i check system info and it says about the RAM: 4GB(2.15GB available).it is weird! as far as i know,32bit can recognize 3.25GB over 4GB,not 2.15GB!! 1GB LESS! anybody know this help me!!!
my device is MBP MC723(i7-2720qm dual graphic card with intel HD3000 and HD6750,4G ram),running lion10.7
ps: i checked the ram on lion,it recognized 4GB and has alomost 2.5GB free.dual system shoud not interfere with each other,right?

The useable amount of 4GB RAM with a 32-bit Windows depends on the computer and how many adress-ranges are reserved (or taken over) by the various hardware extensions.
With a MacPro for example I never had more than 1.95GB of useable RAM with 32-bit Windows.
The Intel 3000 in your MBP shares 384MB of the main RAM regardless whether it is on/used or not.
The graphics memory of the HD 6750 is mirrored into the main RAM area.
And there's more...
All of this reduces the amount of useable RAM with 32-bit Windows whereas with 64-bit Windows this uses adress-ranges outside of the real amount of RAm installed thus giving you the full amount of RAM as useable.
Stefan

Tecra M3 - Odd observation about (lack of) RAM performance

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for