Windows performance reminder

PG Music Home

I recently increased the RAM in my PC from 512 Mb to 2 Gb. Shoulda been great, right? Instead, I found that my CPU was being hammered, often--and I mean really often--showing 100% usage for extended periods. Not what I expected, especially since I don't recall ever using more than about 30% of physical RAM.

Then it occurred to me to check the virtual memory settings. This is typically supposed to be about 150% of physical RAM. Well, it was--when I had 512 Mb. Now it was about 1/3 of my RAM.

To check and/or change performance settings in Windows XP, right click on "My Computer" and select "Properties". Click on the "Advanced" tab--then do it again. For my purposes (music workstation), the best settings were "Processor scheduling: Background services" and "Memory Usage: System cache".

Since setting up my PC I had also learned that the pagefile should be on another drive than the one on which your OS resides. So I clicked on "Virtual memory: Change", put it on D:\ and used the recommended setting shown; in my case, 3070 Gb. (More is Not A Bad Thing.) You can also let Windows set it for you, but it didn't seem to be giving me enough. After you do this you will have to restart your machine for the change to take effect.

If your defrag utility will let you do this, as Norton SpeedDisk used to, have it put the pagefile on the physical outer edge of the drive, which rotates faster and therefore yields better throughput. Every little bit helps. And of course, defrag often.

My CPU still peaks out at 100% at times, but for much shorter periods. Otherwise it tends to max out at about 65%, and then only for short periods. And I have to have a LOT of things going on to make that happen. Much better now.

Happy musicmaking,

R.

You're not using Norton on your machine, are you? That right there takes up most of your resources when it comes to CPU usage. Norton is VERY, and I say it again VERY bad for any configuration. AVG is less CPU hungry. I found that it's best to disable any AV programs when trying to use your PC as a DAW, no matter which program you use.

Just a thought.
Mike

I mentioned Norton as a reference only, and that only for their Speeddisk defrag utility. It used to let you define where certain types of files went on the physical disk, as well as specifying their order. Alas, Symantec/Norton have systematically reduced user control over their products, so I have found other, better (and FREE!) alternatives.

Haven't used NAV for years. AVG became too resource-hungry and didn't offer much control, so I now use Avast! antivirus. It at least allows me to disable the online scanners when I so choose. AVG used to, but when they introduced ver. 8 I couldn't find that option any more.

Per another user's recommendation, I have switched from the free Glary Utilities (which I still recommend) to IObit's Advanced SystemCare Free. It has a nice defrag utility, as well as a memory optimizer which is superior to Glary's. IObit also have a "Game Booster" utility which looks promising; it optimizes your system at the touch of a button, then returns it to its original state when you have finished your turbocharged session. Not like another one I tried (idiot!); my system hasn't been the same since. In the meantime, setting up the disk cache as mentioned above made a huge difference.

All of this represent a compromise, of course. I will shortly have a dedicated DAW with NO extraneous software, and a separate PC for teh interwebz.

Thanks for the thoughtful remarks.

R.

With 2gb of memory your system should be doing very little hard paging. If you feel like tweaking your own and not letting Windoze do it for you, try a pagefile min and max of 500/3000. I'll bet it never grows past 500. Putting your page file on a different drive probably won't make much difference since paging is not your problem.

Your performance settings are the opposite needed for a workstation. Those you have are for a server. I'm curious why you chose those.

You did not mention how old your computer is. Perhaps you're just 'processor bound'. You can use the Task Manager to see what processes are eating up your CPU. And watch out for those programs that 'tweak' your system. They often cause more harm than good.

R

Quote:

And watch out for those programs that 'tweak' your system. They often cause more harm than good.

R

No doubt about that! I've experienced that myself. I have since refrained to the conventional methods of keeping my system "clean".

Best,
Mike

I have to agree with Rachael there. A good doses of RAM helps limiting the use of slow pagefiles. However, if you make your pagefiles large, the chance that (too)many stuff ends up in there is bigger and slows down a system. In fact I run 3 different systems, that is, they are in hardware all the same, but they differ in software and other applications. Some of those applications demand from me to use page files, so I do that, to a limit. I do not like the setting Rachael recommended though, I rather use a fixed standard in which high and low size is the same amount. Expanding and shrinking of a pafgefile also slows processes down. On two of my systems I even dont use it at all, it runs like crazy there. No swapping, just in and out of the RAM without those swap-delays.

Check your most exagerated use of programs that you might run in one time together in as Racheal mentioned your task manager. By checking processor and memory usage, you should be able to set up a better maximum for your virtual memory.

As for the settings referred to by Racheal as server settings: That maybe so, but some programs use these settings as optimized performance settings for their programs (Digidesign Protools e.g.)

I have to admitt that when I was reading your post, I got a nostalgic Win98 feeling, for those systems the settings you use were not rare, but for XP, 2000, Vista, things drastically changed on those points of view.

And for sure check what Racheal said, what processes are causing those peaks. If possible, turn them off, allready before starting them. So then you need to change some settings in your services. A nice thing to check would be the webpages of "blackviper". Just google it and tweak your system by hand instead of those nice handy little tools, that indeed can change more than you would want it to change, giving all control out of hands.

I've heard of this. Might be worth trying for $39.00
http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html

From what I can find the OP's system is pretty old.

The first thing to do when possible is increase system memory. 2 gigs is good, 4 gigs is better, though it may not be possible in the OPs case because of physical limitations of the motherboard.

I am not able to find the specs for that MB but that is really beside the point since the point was simply the effects of memory (correct) and swap file (also correct MAYBE).

The 32 bit versions of XP and Vista will not use more than 4 gigs (actually somewhat less) so do not bother trying to get more than 4 gigs if you have the 32 bit versions.

If you have XP X32 and 4 gigs it is unlikely that you will need more. If you have Vista OTOH...

If you build your own machines (I do) then a motherboard / processor swap might be the best bet. AMD dual and even quad cores are CHEAP as is memory. I actually swap motherboards without even reinstalling the system. Just have your driver disk handy for the new mb. This assumes of course that you are not using a raid for the boot disk and changing to an incompatible chipset.

A dual core with 4 gigs should give you all the processing power you need and can use.

So's you guys'll know, I work on PCs as part of my self-employed living. I'm no authority and I do make the odd stupid mistake, but I sorta know my way around machines and Win OS.

Quote:

From what I can find the OP's system is pretty old.

Five years.

Quote:

The first thing to do when possible is increase system memory. 2 gigs is good, 4 gigs is better, though it may not be possible in the OPs case because of physical limitations of the motherboard.

I'm maxed at 2 Gb.

Quote:

If you build your own machines (I do) then a motherboard / processor swap might be the best bet. AMD dual and even quad cores are CHEAP as is memory. I actually swap motherboards without even reinstalling the system. Just have your driver disk handy for the new mb. This assumes of course that you are not using a raid for the boot disk and changing to an incompatible chipset.

A dual core with 4 gigs should give you all the processing power you need and can use.

AFAIK, the best I can do with the present mobo is go to a 2.2 GHz AMD Athlon XP v the present 1.8 GHz. I've long since deemed that unworthy of the time, effort, and expense. If I replace both MB and processor, then I need new memory and drives as well. So, until I can afford the new system from the ground up--(and I've been building my own since 2000)--this is still the fastest thing I've ever owned. I'll just have to make do, I guess. *g*

R.

Understood Ryszard. And I understand the "gotta replace everything" issue. OTOH if you NewEgg, a modern MB, processor and memory could be had for as little as $210. I use the AMD-790GX with the built-in graphics (I don't game).

MB: $90

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138140

Two gigs of RAM: $28

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231098

A triple core with fan: $77

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103254

Everything else in your system could likely be used. This is a very usable system if you are not trying to build a gaming system. I use thatBiostar MB and it is nice, though it has no MOSFET cooler. I use one of the first 4 core AMD chips (slightly lower clock speed IIRC), works fine. And I use that memory except 2 gigs / stick (slightly more expensive but more memory). I run SQL Servers on that hardware. Cheap and gets the job done.

Go with the Gigabyte MB if you want to OC:

$120

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128384

With either MB you now have an upgrade path to the new Phenom II quad core at a later date if you find you need it.

As you know building your own has the advantage of lower cost and upgrades down the road, though to be honest a low end DELL is a mighty powerful machine.

I've never built a computer I didn't like (and I've built every computer I've ever owned

) ...Another quick tip, it might not affect performance too much but it will free up hard drive space. Reduce the default size for system restore, even more so if you have drive partitions (system restore on additional partitions has little value). If you're getting tight for room and have been using Windows defaults, you could get some space

Quote:

I've never built a computer I didn't like (and I've built every computer I've ever owned ) ...Another quick tip, it might not affect performance too much but it will free up hard drive space. Reduce the default size for system restore, even more so if you have drive partitions (system restore on additional partitions has little value). If you're getting tight for room and have been using Windows defaults, you could get some space

My first computer I built from parts kits in 1976, s-100 backplane, z-80 based with 24K of RAM. It ran Basic that loaded off of a cassette player. To be quite honest it wasn't much fun. It took 3 minutes to load a 16K basic interpreter and it crashed on the least excuse.

OTOH the next machine I built (about 1982) had an 80186 and 512K of RAM, and a dual floppy. That is what I really learned to program on.

Quote:

My first computer I built from parts kits in 1976, s-100 backplane, z-80 based with 24K of RAM. It ran Basic that loaded off of a cassette player. To be quite honest it wasn't much fun. It took 3 minutes to load a 16K basic interpreter and it crashed on the least excuse.

whoa! thats right .... that kind of PC is not so much fun as it is so slow like a turtle. i guess nowadays PC's are so fast.