I use for professional piloting over airport Xplane 11 on windows 10 home, and sometimes by hour this software freeze stop running while I piloting real a airfreighter in sky, and to doing revoring is slow as 5 minutes minimum, also to start 3D world for improve view, and hd camera in board pilot cabin. Also to retake recovery the control piloting on ground the aircraft and the remote view is wrong of parameters angles. What about the last update in version older to quick restart, avoid freeze and recover more high keep the cockpit equipment settings whithout reload the saved file before a new time to be secure a new bug crach this software, what I use daily and know it since last years.
there a solution, increasing virtual memory and file preference screen video : https://www.x-plane.com/kb/configuring-x-plane-to-use-less-virtual-memory/
Reducing X-Plane’s Virtual Memory Use :
There are a few ways you can reduce the amount of virtual memory that X-Plane needs to operate.
The first thing you can do is remove add-ons. Plugins, custom airplanes, and custom scenery can all increase the amount of virtual memory that X-Plane uses. Try removing add-ons and see if the problem goes away. Add-ons can also increase the amount of memory that X-Plane itself uses. You may have to mix and match add-ons depending on your activities.
The second thing you can do is turn down X-Plane’s settings. Here are some settings that make a difference in virtual memory usage.
AI traffic. More planes uses more memory, and more complex and higher detail planes use more memory.
Texture resolution: turn texture compression on – it saves a lot of memory. Turn down texture res as needed. In particular, do not run with extreme res and uncompressed textures.
Trees – turn down the forest density to save memory.
4x SSAA – when in HDR mode, turn off 4x SSAA if you use a large monitor or a large window size.
If needed, turn down object density.
Related
I would like to set how much GPU RAM is being used as to prevent the app from overflowing on windows. Does anyone have any expert advice?
I am using electron to build an automatic player for windows. This player plays a mix of video's (h264encoded mp4), html and jpeg based on a schedule (sort of like a presentation).
I tested the app on several windows devices, the results vary greatly!
All devices are tiny computers by Asus. In general I noticed 2 distinct differences:
On devices that have no hardware acceleration the chromium gpu process uses up about 30MB of shared RAM, this number never changes, regardless of the content played. The CPU however has all the load here, meaning it is decoding the mp4's (h264) with software instead of hardware.
On devices with hardware acceleration the cpu load is of course less, but the RAM memory used up by the chromium gpu-process varies greatly. While displaying jpeg or html the RAM is about 0.5GB, when mp4'skick in the RAM memory easily goes up to 2GB and more.
On the stronger devices without hardware acceleration this is not a big issue, they have 8GB of shared memory or more and don't crash. However some of the other devices have only 4GB of shared memory and can run out of memory quite easily.
The result of this lack of memory is either the app crashes completely (message with memory overflow is displayed) or the app just hangs (keeps running but doesn't do anything anymore, usually just displays a white screen).
I know that I can pass certain flags to browserwindow using app.commandLine.appendSwitch.
These are a few of the flags that I tried and the effect they had, I found a list of them here:
--force-gpu-mem-available-mb=600 ==> no effect whatsoever, process behaves as before and still surpasses 2GB of RAM.
--disable-gpu ==> This one obviously worked but is undesirable because it disabled hardware acceleration completely
--disable-gpu-memory-buffer-compositor-resources ==> no change
--disable-gpu-memory-buffer-video-frames ==> no change
--disable-gpu-rasterization ==> no change
--disable-gpu-sandbox ==> no change
Why are some of these command line switches not having any effect on the GPU behaviour? All devices have onboard GPU and shared RAM. I know the Command Line Switches are being used on startup because when I check the processes in the windows task manager I can see the switches have been past to the processes (using the the command line tab in the task manager). So the switches are loaded but still appear to be ignored.
I would like to set how much GPU RAM is being used as to prevent the app from overflowing on windows. Does anyone have any expert advice?
Im trying to work around an issue which has been bugging me for a while. In a nutshell: on which basis should one assign a max heap space for resource-hogging application and is there a downside for tit being too large?
I have an application used to visualize huge medical datas, which can eat up to several gigabytes of memory if several imaging volumes are opened size by side. Caching the data to be viewed is essential for fluent workflow. The software is supported with windows workstations and is started with a bootloader, which assigns the heap size and launches the main application. The actual memory needed by main application is directly proportional to the data being viewed and cannot be determined by the bootloader, because it would require reading the data, which would, ultimately, consume too much time.
So, to ensure that the JVM has enough memory during launch we set up xmx as large as we dare based, by current design, on the max physical memory of the workstation. However, is there any downside to this? I've read (from a post from 2008) that it is possible for native processes to hog up excess heap space, which can lead to memory errors during runtime. Should I maybe also sniff for free virtualmemory or paging file size prior to assigning heap space? How would you deal with this situation?
Oh, and this is my first post to these forums. Nice to meet you all and be gentle! :)
Update:
Thanks for all the answers. I'm not sure if I put my words right, but my problem rose from the fact that I have zero knowledge of the hardware this software will be run on but would, nevertheless, like to assign as much heap space for the software as possible.
I came to a solution of assigning a heap of 70% of physical memory IF there is sufficient amount of virtual memory available - less otherwise.
You can have heap sizes of around 28 GB with little impact on performance esp if you have large objects. (lots of small objects can impact GC pause times)
Heap sizes of 100 GB are possible but have down sides, mostly because they can have high pause times. If you use Azul Zing, it can handle much larger heap sizes significantly more gracefully.
The main limitation is the size of your memory. If you heap exceeds that, your application and your computer will run very slower/be unusable.
A standard way around these issues with mapping software (which has to be able to map the whole world for example) is it break your images into tiles. This way you only display the image which is one the screen (or portions which are on the screen) If you need to be able to zoom in and out you might need to store data at two to four levels of scale. Using this approach you can view a map of the whole world on your phone.
Best to not set JVM max memory to greater than 60-70% of workstation memory, in some cases even lower, for two main reasons. First, what the JVM consumes on the physical machine can be 20% or more greater than heap, due to GC mechanics. Second, the representation of a particular data entity in the JVM heap may not be the only physical copy of that entity in the machine's RAM, as the OS has caches and buffers and so forth around the various IO devices from which it grabs these objects.
How does memory allocation affect battery usage? Does holding lots of data in variables consume more power than performing many iterations of basic calculations?
P.S. I'm working on a scientific app for mac, and want to optimize it for battery consumption.
The amount of data you hold in memory doesn't influence the battery life as the complete memory has to be refreshed all the time, whether you store something there or not (the memory controller doesn't know whether a part is "unused", AFAIK).
By contrast, calculations do require power. Especially if they might wake up the CPU from an idle or low power state.
I believe RAM consumption is identical regardless of whether it's full or empty. However more physical RAM you have in the machine the more power it will consume.
On a mac, you will want to avoid hitting the hard drive, so try to make sure you don't read the disk very often and definitely don't consume so much RAM you start using virtual memory (or push other apps into virtual memory).
Most modern macs will also partially power down the CPU(s) when they aren't very busy, so reducing CPU usage will actually reduce power consumption.
On the other hand when your app uses more memory it pushes other apps cache data out of the memory and the processing can have some battery cost if the user decides to switch from one to the other, but that i think will be negligible.
it's best to minimize your application's memory footprint once it transitions to the background simply to allow more applications to hang around and not be terminated. Also, applications are terminated in descending order of memory size, so if your application is the largest one existing in the background, it will be killed first.
How should I decide system requirements like:
RAM capacity
FLASH memory capacity
Processor frequency
etc
I am building an application to control NAND FLASH, LCD driver, UART control, keypad control using a 16 bit micro-controller.
This has to be estimated from previous projects with similar functionality. Or even other people's products. But it is best to develop with a larger capacity and decide on final parts when your software nears completion, because its easier to omit components than to try and find room for them later. This kind of design can be an iterative process, start with one estimate and see if a prototype works, don't commit to volumes until you are nearly at the end.
In the case of an LCD based product, you will have two major components using up flash memory, the code and the LCD data (character strings, bitmaps etc). Its certainly easier to estimate the LCD data than the code, which depends on functionality, compiler optimisations etc. If you are bringing in external libraries then at least you already have code for them.
In any case, have an upgrade plan. The worst thing is to run out of capacity at the end of the project and be struggling to optimise the last feature/debug solution in without adding another problem. Make sure you know what the next size up chips are and how you can get them to fit, sometimes a PCB can be designed to take various different chips in the same position. Or have an expandable system, where you can plug things into a memory bus.
How many units will you be making ?
If your volumes are low (<1e3), but per unit profits high and time to market matters, more hardware will get the developers done sooner.
If the volumes are huge (>1e6), profits per unit low, then you penny pinch the hardware, but time to develop will go up. If time to market matters, that's a tradeoff.
Design the board with 2x the capacity (RAM/flash), but don't load the parts, other than to check it works.
Then if you run out of room, there is somewhere to go.
Will customers expect to get firmware updates ? Or is this a drop-ship product with no support ? Supportable is harder, needs more resources.
You'll need to pad resources to have room to expand into if the product needs support for a long time.
For CPU frequency estimates, how much work is required to be done ?
Get an Eval board for a likely MCU and prove out the core function.
Let us say it's a display for a piece of exercise equipment. Can it keep up with the sensors on the device at 2-3x the designed pace ? That's reading the sensors and updating the display. If cost is required to be low, you can then underclock the eval board adn see what trades can be made.
We have some users which are using lower-CPU powered machines and they're encountering slow response times using our web application. Is there any way for me to do testing so that I can simulate lower CPU rates?
For example, I have 2.3 Ghz computing power, can I lower it to 1.6 Ghz or lower so that I may be able to test it?
BTW, our customers are using Windows. I have to simulate low computing power on Internet Explorer as browser.
Most new CPUs multiplier can easily be lowered (Intel: Speedstep, AMD: PowerNow!). This is used to save power. With RMclock you can manually adjust your multiplier and thus lower your frequency and make your pc slower. I use this tool myself so I can tell you that it works.
http://cpu.rightmark.org/products/rmclock.shtml
The virtual machine Bochs(pronounced boxes) allows you to set a instructions per second directive. It's probably the slowest emulator out there as it is though...
Create some virtual machines.
You can use VirtualPC or VirtualBox both are free.
I would recommend to start something on the background which eats up all your processor cycles.
A program which finds primenumbers or something similar.
Another slight option in addition to those above is to boot windows in a lower resource config. Go to the start menu,, select run and type MSCONFIG. You can go to the boot tab, click on advanced options and limit the memory and number of of processsors. It's not as robust as the above, but it does give you another option.
Lowering the CPU clock doesn't always give expected results.
Newer CPUs feature architecture improvements which make them more efficient on an equvialent clock basis than older chips. Incidentally, because of this virtual machines are a bad way of testing performance for "older" tech as well.
Your best bet is to simply buy a couple of older machines. Using similar RAM (types and amounts), processor, motherboard chipsets, hard drives, and video cards. All of which feed into the total performance of the machine itself.
I bring the other components up because changing just one of them can have an impact on even browser performance. A prime example is memory. If your clients are constrained to something like 512MB of RAM, the machines could be performing a lot of hard drive access for VM swaps, even for just running the browser. In this situation downgrading the clock speed on your processor while still retaining your 2GB (assuming) of RAM would still not perform anywhere near the same even if everything else was equal.
Isak Savo'sanswer works, but can be a bit finicky, as the modern tpl is going to try and limit cpu load as much as possible. When I tested it out, It was hard (though possible with some testing) to consistently get the types of cpu usages I wanted.
Then I remembered, http://www.cpukiller.com/, which does this already. Highly recommended. As an aside, I found this util from playing old 90s games on modern machines, back when frame rate was pegged to cpu clock time, making playing them on modern computers way too fast. Great utility.
Another big difference between high-performance and low-performance CPUs is the number of cores available. This can realistically differ by a factor of 4, way more than the difference in clock frequency you're likely to encounter.
You can solve this by setting the thread affinity. Even IE6 will use 13 threads just to show google.com. That means it will benefit from a multi-core CPU. But if you set the thread affinity to one core only, all 13 IE threads will have to share that one core.
I understand that this question is pretty old, but here are some receipts I personally use (not only for Web development):
BES. I'm getting some weird results while using it.
Go to Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Power Options\Edit Plan Settings\Change Advanced Power Settings, then go to the "Processor" section and set it's maximum state to 5% (or something else). It works only if your processor supports dynamic multiplier change and ACPI driver is installed correctly.
Run Task Manager and set processor affinity to a single core (or whatever number of cores you want) for your browser's (or any other's) process. Not a best practice for browsers, because JavaScript implementations are usually single-threaded, but, as far as I see, modern browsers actually DO use multiple cores.
There are a few different methods to accomplish this.
If you're using VirtualBox, go into the Settings for the VM you want to slow the CPU speed for. Go to System > Processor, then set the Execution Cap. The percentage controls how slow it will go: lower values are slower relative to the regular speed. In practice, I've noticed the results to be choppy, although it does technically work.
It is also possible to set the CPU speed for the whole system. In the Windows 10 Settings app, go to System > Power & Sleep. Then click Additional Power Settings on the right hand side. Go to Change Plan Settings for the currently selected plan, then click Change Advanced Power Plan Settings. Scroll down to Processor Power Management and set the Maximum Processor State. Again, this is a percentage. Although this does work, I find that in practice, it doesn't have a big impact even when the percentage is set very low.
If you're dealing with a videogame that uses DirectX or OpenGL and doesn't have a framerate cap, another common method is to force Vsync on in your graphics driver settings. This will usually slow the rendering to about 60 FPS which may be enough to play at a reasonable rate. However, it will only work for applications using 3D hardware rendering specifically.
Finally: if you'd rather not use a VM, and don't want to change a system global setting, but would rather simulate an old CPU for one specific process only, then I have my own program to do that called Old CPU Simulator.
The main brain of the operation is a command line tool written in C++, but there is also a GUI wrapper written in C#. The GUI requires .NET Framework 4.0. The default settings should be fine in most cases - just select the CPU you'd like to simulate under Target Rate, then hit New and browse for the program you'd like to run.
https://github.com/tomysshadow/OldCPUSimulator (click the Releases tab on the right for binaries.)
The concept is to suspend and resume the process at a precise rate, and because it happens so quickly the process will appear to just be running slowly. For example, by suspending a process for 3 milliseconds, then resuming it for 1 millisecond, it will appear to be running at 25% speed. By controlling the ratio of time suspended vs. time resumed, it is possible to simulate different speeds. This is completely API agnostic (it doesn't hook DirectX, OpenGL, etc. it'll work with a command line program if you want.)
Old CPU Simulator does not ask for a percentage, but rather, the clock speed to simulate (which it calls the Target Rate.) It then automatically determines, based on your CPU's real clock speed, the percentage to use. Although clock speed is not the only factor that has improved computer performance over time (there are also SSDs, faster GPUs, more RAM, multithreaded performance, etc.) it's a good enough approximation to get fairly consistent results across machines given the same Target Rate. It also supports other options that may help with consistency, such as setting the process affinity to one.
It implements three different methods of suspending and resuming a process and will use the best available: NtSuspendProcess, NtQuerySystemInformation, or Toolhelp Snapshots. It also uses timeBeginPeriod and timeEndPeriod to achieve high precision timing without busy looping. Note that this is not an emulator; the binary still runs natively. If you like, you can view the source to see how it's implemented - it's not a large project. On my machine, Old CPU Simulator uses less than 1% CPU and less than 1 MB of memory, so the program itself is quite efficient (unlike running intensive programs to intentionally slow the CPU.)