HD RAM CPU Fragmented Question!!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Atterion
  • Start date Start date
A

Atterion

New member
Looking for some sort of verification.

Computer:
AMD Athlon XP 1900+
512MB PC2100 DDR Ram
ABIT KG7 MoBo
Maxtor 40GB UATA100 hardrives
Windows XP Home ver. 2002

When I defrag my hardive, I turn off page-filing, defrag, then reset page-filing to 256MB Ram (I never see it rise above 100MB used), allowing the page-file to use 1 continous area on the harddrive. I also have write behind cache disabled and read ahead disabled (because Logic 5 has never shown the hard drive straining to keep up, thus commiting less RAM and CPU cycles to data transfer). Using the Analyze function in the XP Defrag program you can go in and check to see how the Page-File is used (represented by Green Bars that XP indicates as unmoveable). It seems to me that when I disabled write behind cache and read ahead that the page-files started becoming more fragmented. This doesn't seem to affect hard-drive performance, but actually seems to affect processor usage negatively. My question is: Does anyone know the effects of the Physical RAM usage? Does it become more fragmented as well? Should I Only Disable Write behind caching and Enable Read ahead or Vice Virsa? Or is this all just a unrealistically silly need to squeeze every last track out of my system.

Seems to me Athlon is pulling the weight here, while my Maxtor is slacking off in the background. Is there a better way to get my HD and RAM optimized and get with the program (Pun). Are there any really good RAM defrag programs or other good utilities out there (preferably free:) that might help.

Thanks for any replys!
 
I would not disable Read Ahead caching, I think you would probably take a significant hit in hard drive performance.
 
There is absolutely no reason to defrag RAM. RAM stands for Random Access Memory. Every block in your 512MB can be read in the same exact amount of time. That is, it will take the same amount of time to read any block of memory regardless of how fragmented it is.

Hard drives are a different story. In a way they are sort of random, but the heads and spinning platters dicate that the system be primarily sequential. A contiguous file can indeed be read faster than a fragmented file.

The write cache you are referring to is in the drive hardware itself. Disabling it slows performance (sometimes considerably) but very much reduces your risk of data loss during sudden power interruptions. Typically it should be left enabled on a workstation. Enabling or disabling disk caches to enhance RAM performance does not make sense.

At 512MB, you are not using all of your physical memory. The pagefile will still be used of course, but infrequently enough that you will not take a performance hit. There was an issue at 512MB with Windows 98 that could slow performance, but you will not see that with XP.

If that Maxtor drive is 7200RPM, then you have one of the fastest drives made. You do not need to take any special measures to improve drive performance unless there is a serious problem with your controller or controller drivers. That drive will quite easily do the 9MB/sec sustained transfer required for 32 tracks of 24bit 96khz audio. The rest of your system (especially the motherboard) will typically choke before the drive itself will reach its maximum potential.

You're using DDR memory, which is the fastest memory available on an Athlon XP system. You also have 512MB of which you will probably only use 256MB at any given time if you're just doing typical audio multitracking. Upgrading to over 512MB will not improve your performance. Upgrading to memory with better a better latency rating will not improve your performance considerably.

Fragmentation is only a serious problem if you are very frequently deleting and adding files over a fairly long period of time (on a drive of that size especially). Unless you are seriously taxing the drive (many many many many 24bit 96khz tracks) you should not have to defrag but once a year, maybe every six months at the most. I frequently work with 24 track 24bit projects that are stored on a horribly fragmented partition and do not see any drive related problems. Of course you do have a faster CPU, so fragmentation might become an issue for you faster than it would be for me (assuming your projects contain a whole boatload of tracks).

Improving hard drive performance and adding memory will also not enhance most DSP processes, as the DSP itself typically considerably slower than process of loading the file from the disk. Very few wave editors load files into memory, but read them straight from the disk. Writing files after a destructive DSP process has completed would be faster on a faster disk, but not very much faster with the faster drives available (e.g. SCSI 10K and 15K which are actually slower in many cases on large file performance). DX and VST plugins themselves do not consume enough memory to warrant a memory upgrade.

The best way to get a noticable performance boost on a Windows XP system is to completely disable the new interface and all of the special effects. Other than that, severe optimizations are not necessarly, nor were they necessary on Windows 2000. In fact, I've helped tons of people with computer problems shortly after they "optimized" because of some FAQ somewhere on the net. All of your optimizations should offer noticable, measureable performance increases, and should be tested for some time to ensure that the system behaves in a reliable manner before performing the next optimization.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Depends on the programs running

In the wonderful world of Windows (other OS's also)history and poor programming, defragging RAM does help to a certain extent. The problem arises when a program is closed but does not release the RAM that was used back to the OS.

It's not really an issue of defragging the RAM but letting the OS know that it is available for use again. Many programs have this problem (flaw). Then again, it's not profitable to make sure your programs close correctly, just that they open and are functional for the most part.
 
That's not called "defragging." It's also not typically an issue on NT-based operating systems in which memory is freed by the operating system when a process terminates. Of course while a process is running it's free to leak memory like a dutch dam, but there's no way to help that other than to get the developers to fix it or don't run it.

At any rate, memory leaks on a system with 512MB running XP should not pose a serious threat.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Surely much of this, is due to the fact that I don't know really how to gage this new processor. I've only had this thing about a month or so (stepping up from a AMD K6-2 500mhz with 320 mb of 100mhz ram). Is this good for my system:

In Logic Platinum 5
16 tracks at 16 bit 44.1khz
and 8 audio instruments or so (EXS 24, B-4, Pro 52, FM-7, Sampletank etc).
with Dynamics and EQ for each, and a half a dozen other effects like reverbs on the busses, ultramaximizer etc.

Are these respectable numbers for this system or should I be getting more out of this thing. I know running straight audio tracks without the plugins and VST instruments, I could probably get more tracks at higher rates, but I use the instruments to quite some extent (hence the lower sampling rates).

This is my first "Racing Computer". I have no point of reference with these new machines. Any comments greatly welcomed. Thanx!
 
Well it's hard to say because various instruments use various amounts of resources, as do effects/processors. Your results might be somewhat respectable if you're running that much DSP.

What are your requirements? (or even a guess at what you think you'll be wanting to do)

Slackmaster 2000
 
Also, hit CTRL+ALT+DELETE and then click on "Task Manager". On the third tab are some stats about your machine including CPU and memory charts. Watch these stats while you're recording.

Does anybody know if XP Home has performance monitor? Perfmon can be a great tool if you know what you're looking for.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Well I would like to get more instances of my soft synths. Realistically, I know I probably can't much more out of this rig, but I'll try anything to get another synth lead here or TrueVerb insert there.

Hey maybe I should liquid cool this thing and clock it out to like 2.5Ghz or something, after all this MoBo is an award winning OC dream.
 
I'd suggest you do as Slackmaster suggests....Open up the task manager ( ctrl+alt+del then hit the magic button ) while you're performing some of these tasks and check the CPU & RAM graphs......

In my experience with these newfangled PC's ( a 486/sx/33 was a racehorse when I started out!!! ) The fact that it doesn't appear to be running at lightspeed doesn't mean that much. An operating system etc can only run so fast no matter what CPU or bucketload of RAM you throw at it.

Being a total newbie to the recording world ( check my number of posts ) I'm not going to try to be an expert on the resourse requirements of DAW's but as far as everyday operation goes, there really is only so much you can do as far as system optimisation goes.

Well that's my 2c worth and my 1st post out of the way too...Yippee...

PS I'm learning waaaaaay loads from you guys..Thanks and keep it up.

Danglez.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top