128MB --> 256MB - Big improvement for editing?

[ODiN]

I have a C366@550 and 128MB of RAM..... was curious how much of a speed boost going up to 256MB would be for video editing. I have a Marvel G400 and TRY to use Premiere/Media Studio Pro 5.2, but everything goes so slow when working with clips.. is that normal? Thanks in advance.

------------------
-=ODiN=-

[Patrick]

I asked this same question several months ago, and was quickly informed by the "brains" at this site that RAM size makes little difference. It's the CPU speed that has more of an impact.

I have a C366 running at 567 MHz with 192MB of RAM. I've noticed that I only make use of this much RAM when I'm manipulating photographs, not when I'm editing video.

You state that "everything" goes so slow when you're working with clips. Perhaps you could be more specific.

[ODiN]

What I mean is I get just manipulating clips that are quite large (several hundred megs)... and previewing the files I guess. I'm still not that familiar with Media Studio Pro, but I don't think i'm doing anything that would make things go slow when creating previews.....<shrug>

[A_BIT]

Odin,

Your MSP project settings probably do not match those of your captured clips. I'm talking about Resolution, audio settings, codec, etc.

This is discussed in the MSP manual.

-Anthony

[Jerry Jones]

Patrick:

I don't know who the "brains" were who
told you Ram size doesn't make that much
of a difference.

RAM size does make a difference.

See:

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/ram/index-c.html

>Performance: The amount and type
>of system memory you have is an
>important contributing factor to
>overall performance. In many ways,
>it is more important than the
>processor, because insufficient
>memory can cause a processor to work
>at 50% or even more below its
>performance potential. This is an
>important point that is often
>overlooked.

[Grigory]

Jerry,

The reply Patric referred to was from me. It was based on experimantal fact that in most situations when you force Windows not to use all RAM for file cache, it uses less than it has for 128 MB level. This was measured while editing video.

Video applications ARE memory hungry, but they do not keep a lot of data in RAM. Also you do not use huge images in editing - full DV size BMP takes only 1.4 M. Code modules occupy 20-50 M, which is still below 100M with ~20 M left free and 8 M used for file cache.

Download Taskinfo 98 freeware and look on how your application uses RAM. Very interesting.

I used 96 M for some time and did not noticed difference when upgraded to 128, if I took care about file cache

Last comment: many shareware and some parts of commecial programs simply have bad code, causing memory leaks. In this situation, you may benefit from more RAM, because the critical size of used RAM is reached later. I have enough examples of such programs, as I am using PC continuously every day.

So, adding extra 128M is useless if you configure the system correctly and do not use hundreds of bitmaps in editing state in image editor, that also have long UNDO buffer.

In the last case the more - the better. I, however, do not see SWAP FILE IN USE other than 0 at 128 M.

You citation is correct, it works very well between 32 and 96 M, approximately.

It is always not a good idea to use several memory hungry applications at once. You can easily take all RAM, even 1G.

Conclusion - explore your system, and listen to your hard drive. If you detect intensive swapping - increase the RAM, but only after you prohibit Windows to use all available RAM for file cache.

Grigory

[A_BIT]

Well, if Odin's preview performance is not memory related it could well be for the reasons I mentioned.

Grigory,

You have my interest in the Windows File cache. What is a good way to determine how much to allow Windows to use? Does it matter what type of application you are running?

-Anthony


[This message has been edited by A_BIT (edited 18 November 1999).]

[Patrick]

Jerry, I may have a lot to say about camcorders (maybe too much ), but I readily admit that I'm a relative novice when it comes to NLE. However, with my limited knowledge, I'm inclined to agree with what Anthony has stated.

I was hoping to save Grigory the trouble of having to repeat himself, but he beat me to the punch. Here's the thread we were involved in back in July:

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/Forum2/HTML/001327.html

By the way, who's this "Dedushka" fellow in the old thread?

[Stewman]

Speed is initially dependent on the CPU, but as to general speed increase, you won't get much going from 128->256 (excpet for a longer memory check at boot time).

Optimizing your system for video depends on the application your using. Adobe After Effects uses A LOT of memory (for real time previews). On the other hand, Premiere is pretty good with memory but does require a significant amount of HD space depending on the project.

[DrMordrid]

My systems editing performance increased drastically when going from 64 to 128 megs and again to 256 megs. I'd never go back down, but then I use a lot of effects and overlays in my projects.

IMHO video editors are memory hogs of the first order requiring PHYSICAL ram, and the more effects, transitions and such you add the more they want/need.

Dr. Mordrid




[This message has been edited by DrMordrid (edited 19 November 1999).]

[Grigory]

File cache:

By default, windows uses all free physical RAM for file cache, leaving only few hundreds kilobytes free.
On 128 M system, it probably takes 100 M
for file cache initially.

Later, when the memory is required, the file cache size can be shrinked to 1/2 of its initial size, but this happens only when the system has memory allocation demand far exceeding physical RAM size. This behaviour makes swapping very intensive, while a lot of RAM is used to store useless data.
Typically, file cahe size of 4 or 8 MB is enough to make application loading as fast as it can be for the first time.
Yes, next launches of the same application can actually read code from file cache, but how many times you run the same application again?
File cache is useless for video, because it cannot store all video files inside. Disk reading/writing via file cache are accelerated only for repeatable operations, but for long read and writes the system just waste some of CPU power to manage file cache.
Cache resizing is done by a system and you cannot control WHEN it decide to do this. Resizing the file cache not only involve CPU activity, but also may lead to reading or writing data from swap file, which interrupts video stream.

So, to make system better suited for video, you must:
1. Set the file cache small - 8 mb is enough
2. Prohibit the system to resize file cache while working.

In System.ini file, place two lines in section
[vcache]
minfilecache=8000
maxfilecache=8000

save the file and reboot.

This sets file cache minimum and maximum equal. Both goals are achieved. Now you have all other RAM available for applications.

One more thing - you may need to set initial swap file size big enough too.

Sometimes the RAM size is not enough to keep all data. If the system has ready swap file with a lot of free space inside it, it can easily write some data into it. This is slow operation, but its does not require resizing of the swap file itself. Writing with resizing is REALLY slow.
So, keeping the initial swap file size about the RAM size is a good way to protect your system from becoming extremely slow.

Now about advantages again. If you allocate a lot of RAM for preview cache, to store some temporal data in video application, you may need to have more and more RAM.

I am using Premiere, which has option to bulid preview and effects in RAM. Once I made a long preview with sound checked as to be bulit in RAM. The system quickly used all physical RAM, then it used available space in swap file and started to resize it. This lasted forever with high disk activity. I had to terminate application with three fingers combination.
Then I found Sound:Preview to RAM and changed to Preview to disk. The sound file(s) were built quickly.

Using 1 G of RAM, I could probably accelerate building sound preview of 150 Mb. How much?

To make sound, the editor reads avi file and extracts audio data. This is slow process, if the interleave value is about 1 frame. You can easily see this in MSPRO too. All time the editor reads (plays inside) the avi. Writing operation for sound itself takes only ~10% of total time. So, directing the result to RAM could save 10% time for audio preview. Note, the audio preview itself takes ~10 of video preview generation. So, upgrading to 512 MB, and using preview to RAM could save 1% of total time, compared to disk preview and 128 MB RAM.

For effects preview, you may get from 1 to 10% performance increase, but have to keep track of RAM usage, otherwize you can easily put system in continuous swapping with ANY RAM size.

Conclusion:
Carefully configuring editing application, and choosing correct modes, you can use 128 MB, as spend money for hard drive or CPU upgrade. Both give you better performance in return.

64 and 128 ARE very different indeed.

Grigory

[A_BIT]

Grigory,

Thank you very much! Your posts are always much appreciated.

-Anthony

[Riktar]

Hi Doc,
Is it possible you are seeing the increase because you are using NT? I know that from my own (Albeit limited) experience that 95 seems to stop showing big returns in performance once you hit the 128meg mark. NT 4.0 seems to keep showing good returns everytime I add memory to the system.
Just a thought,
Riktar