Time taken for each action

[arvind]

Hi Peter,

I made a list of the time taken for each action while normally using XXHE, maybe we could compare if it is more or less the same for everyone & what could be influencing it.

Time for Stop Services after reboot = 75 secs
Time for Stop Services at new playlist = 7 secs
Time for track to start playing after stop services window closes = 15 secs
Time taken to change track using hotkeys = 15 secs.

The objective would be if the timing can be reduced to make things happen faster.

Arvind

[praphan]

For the first unattended playback (after reboot) with all services need to be stopped, I usually go to the rest room. hehe.

[PeterSt]

I don't think you can improve much on this, because the stopping of the services it depends on Windows itself. I can imagine this is cpu related somewhat, but otherwise ...

I could apply some trickery on the multi-threading department, but things might get unstable from it (killing services in the wrong sequence).

Stuff like Alt-N (or just starting a new playlist) *can* go without notice, and it will be (or should be) about just that one service has started again which takes a long time to stop. The cure to this would be something like not allowing them (any) to restart, but that too might incur for unstable stuff.
Anyway, yes, this is something to improve upon ...

Peter

[GerardA]

My times:

Time for Stop Services after reboot = 45 secs

Time for track to start playing after stop services window closes = 5 secs

[PeterSt]

Hmm ... only after Gerard's last post I now realize this one :

Time for track to start playing after stop services window closes = 15 secs

This seems to be veeery long ! Even the 5 seconds from Gerard is.

This must be similar to changing the digital volume which can take long for some. This is under 1 second here (SFS SC of 240), as the start of playback usually is (but can be 3 seconds or so).
Let me also notice that my PC really is "underperforming", like the memory running at 833Mhz (while it really can be 2200), and in the end my processor (cores) runs at 1.45HGz only. This, while the latter can be 2.9 just the same (no Hyperthreading) and it really doesn't make a difference that I notice. Still, about the only thing which happens at changing volume is memory operations and some math. But, there's some I/O involved too, and I think something can go wrong in that area. Wrong to the sense of things needing to wake up (up to the spinning disk), not getting acces to the processor to begin with (very well possible with "real time" operation) or other stuff I can't see through yet. Btw, here too a first volume change can take ages. But it's always a first only (after a reboot), as it *always* has been so that things for a first time act strange. This already was so under XP, with the example of Direct Sound threads just ran twice (with double output !) after a reboot. Completely crazy and as far as I'm concerned OS bugs. Something like : "All was made to be reproduced from an earlier situation - and in a fast fashion; It was not made for doing it right the first time". On this matter think about how the swap file works. In today's Windows OSes *all* goes to the swap file. Not when memory is needed ... just by standard. This means that memory can just be sweeped out, and whatever is needed can be read from the swap file right away. But ... this also incurs for reading it from the swap file *only*, instead of reading directly from the original source. See ? there is a difference, and I'm fairly sure some tasks are made for just reading from the swap file only, and never read from disk directly. So, first time :
original source -> memory (don't use yet !) -> to swap file -> read from swap file -> use.
next time :
read from swap file -> use.
If all works like this, a first time of whatever it is takes longer ...

But even if the first time would go like this :
original source -> memory (use) -> to swap file
the latter two are done in parallel, while the swap file operation has the highest priority (it has). So it will hold up the "(use)" anyway, *and* severely.

In earlier OS versions it worked like :
original source -> memory (use) -> More memory needed ? swap out memory to swap file (and read from original source or swap file what's needed)
This is much faster and without hussle as long as you don't need more memory than there is. But when you do, there's additional hussle ...


But here is more ...
Look for a hyberfil.sys file in the root of our OS disk. It's a plain copy of your memory, just in case the PC falls asleep - never mind you told it to never do that. That too is just maintained (and consumes your precious SSD space ...). Btw, the most unambiguous way to shut it off is to go to the command prompt (cmd in Run) and type this :

powercfg.exe -h off

Don't forget to press Enter, and next reboot.
Notice though that now all your hybernate and sleep whatever options will have disappeared from the menu's. To get them back, change the "off" into "on" for the mentioned command.


From all this, don't make the mistake to shut off the swap file ("virtual memory") because it won't work for how we use XXHighEnd (the contrary !).

Peter

[GerardA]

Well no sleep here anymore.
But times did not improve 70 en 4 seconds.
But who needs sleep anyway?

[praphan]

Hi Peter,

You ask me in another thread to check the lapse time to convert 12 FLAC tracks using 12 cores , HT on, unattended mode, all services off.

Here you go:

Time from click play to GUI vanishing : 20 sec.
Time from click play to hearing sound : 105 sec.

The above is the first play hit after reboot.

But for the next play :
Time from click play to hearing sound : 5 sec.

I also monitored CPU core processing from task manager. I don't see all 12 cores working simultaneously. Max is 7-8 cores running at the same time.

Is this what you expected?

Praphan

[juanpmar]

As I have a similar system than Praphan (thank you for your advises Phraphan around one month ago, remember?) I´d like to contribute also with my lapse time to convert 12 FLAC tracks.

Unattended and services off.

From reboot:

7 sec. from click play to the XX window vanishing
92 sec. from click play to the little window "Wait for services to stop..." vanishing
95 sec. from click play to hearing sound

From the next play:

the times were:
2 sec.
4 sec.
6 sec.

So very similar to the Phraphan times.

In my case I can see the 12 cores working very fast but just when converting FLAC and only after the reboot. The second time I´ve only seen one core working, same with WAV.

[praphan]

As I have a similar system than Praphan (thank you for your advises Phraphan around one month ago, remember?) I´d like to contribute also with my lapse time to convert 12 FLAC tracks.

Hi,
Yeah, I remember I shared my experience on UPS with you. What sort of passive conditioner you ended up with? I did not see your full list of hardwares in your signature.

Well, your PC did the converting job way faster than mine. I will try with your setting by (a) do nothing with cover art and (b) dial down SFS to 240 and wee if I can get the same converting lapse time as yours.

Thanks,
Praphan

[juanpmar]

Praphan,

When I said a similar system than yours I was thinking more about the six cores i7-970, RAM, PSU, X58 motherboard etc. not about the way to cool it, sorry.

I don´t use a passive conditioner. My CPU cooler is a Noctua NH-U12P SE2 with only the front fan and with ULNA (Ultra-Low-Noise-Adaptors). Very silent.

I use a case with fans, although at low rpm, very silent also. I´ll post today about my new PC

[praphan]

Praphan,

When I said a similar system than yours I was thinking more about the six cores i7-970, RAM, PSU, X58 motherboard etc. not about the way to cool it, sorry.

I don´t use a passive conditioner. My CPU cooler is a Noctua NH-U12P SE2 with only the front fan and with ULNA (Ultra-Low-Noise-Adaptors). Very silent.

I use a case with fans, although at low rpm, very silent also. I´ll post today about my new PC

Impressive PC indeed ! You should use your PC for some other demanding applications like gaming or movie rendering. I am going to use mine for X-Plane flight simulator.

Cheers!

[juanpmar]

Thanks Praphan, I see that we have similar hobbies because I like very much also Flight Simulator. Although I could use the PC for more demanding applications as you say, in this case I´m planning to use it just for XXHigEnd and maintain it as clean as possible, I´ve tried to build it with the music objective in mind and as future (Peter) proof as possible (multi-cores, possibility for overclocking, more memory, etc.)

[praphan]

   Sorry for other reader.

But hey, great to hear that we have a common hobby. I used to fly RC aircraft a lot in the old days but switch to something indoor due to my back problem.

I guess it is very unusual to post photo of the member on the forum. So I just cropped it out. Here are my very old model aircrafts. I did fly my chopper in F3C maneuver : loop , roll, autorotation, etc.

Praphan

[juanpmar]

Great, it looks that you lose your head for flying!!. 

I used to go to see how the RC aficionados flyed their airplanes here in Madrid on Sunday mornings and also the first Sunday of every month there is an airport near the city where old pilots use to fly old planes:

Here you can see that I also almost lose my head

Let me put also a picture of my system to avoid censure (just in case) of the other pic. ;-)

Can you see the Phasure NOS1 there at the right end?. Looks nice eh? and what about the PC?

[praphan]

Oh god !!! You made me and my wife lol with tears. The way you camouflage your head.

Madrid eh ..... you are Spanish. We love spanish jumbon, parma or whatever ham you call it. Lots yummy than the Italian one.  We are Thai anyway.

So to return the compliment, I share the picture of my listening room which likes yours - a home theatre too. You have more space for the room treatment stuff. How nice !

My NOS1 is hidden in the shelf and looks like the Mc "blue eyes". What  a coincident !

Have a nice day.
Praphan