Multiple Cores
Is logos multiple processor core aware ? E.g. would 4 cores make a difference over 2 cores ?
ALso i have 4gb ddr2 at 800 would it be worth upgrading to 1066 ddr2, as i can only install up to 4gb so speed is my only upgrade?
Memory would be my cheapest upgrade then processor if cores matter i could upgrade from 3.2 dual core to 3.4 4 core.
Then ssd but that will cost a few hundred pounds?
Bro Garry
Christadelphian
Comments
-
Yes, Logos can use multiple cores (it runs multiple threads).
The most effective use of your upgrade dollars depends on where Logos might bottleneck on your particular system system.
Prov. 15:23
0 -
garry Hill said:
Then ssd but that will cost a few hundred pounds?
There was some talk early on in the development of SSD's that suggested that their lifespan was somewhat less than HDD's. It seems that, at least back then, the circuitry had issues with the number of writes/rewrites being somewhat limited.
I've tried getting more current info on this, but so far I'm finding it difficult to get accurate, complete and current information. One thing is certain: there is a lot of variety in quality, affecting both speed and reliability. If you do decide to go this way, do your homework first.
As to usefulness for L4, indexing (except during the indexing process) has made fast HDD's/SDD's less of an issue than with L3. RAM and Processor speeds, along with a robust, dedicated video card (with lots of dedicated video RAM), are what most find improves their L4 experience the most. Also, the size of your HDD/SDD storage space can also be an issue. L4 needs quite a bit of free HDD/SDD space to complete the indexing process, suggesting a smaller SDD would not always be an improvement over a large HDD.
EDIT: I agree with Kevin that L4 does use multi-core processors well. Consider one of the Intel I-series (I-3; I-5; I-7), which handle some of the threading issues internally. Note that these processors tend to run hot, so have a system with a good fan, and set up your system in a place where it can get good ventilation (and never put a laptop on your lap - you can block the fan, and reduce the air-flow around the box, increasing over-heat damage).
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Does anybody know if it will use six cores? I'm having a new machine built and have been looking at specs for processors, and I see that there's now a new version of the Intel Core i7: Core i7-980X Extreme Edition which features 6 cores and has a 12 MB L3 Cache. Would that make any difference to running Logos? I think I read somewhere in one of the related Wikipedia articles (can't find it anymore) that most software doesn't take advantage of 6 cores yet.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
version of the Intel Core i7
Rosie, I do not know if Logos 4 will run 6 --
but because of the hyper-threading, on my i7, my 4 cores appear as 8 in my Task Manager and all appear to be working during indexing.
What used to take all night with a 1 core running at 100% now takes less than 2 hours - and at quite low %'s of use -- what used to shut my machine to a crawl is now hardly noticed.
.
Regards, SteveF
0 -
The impression I get with the ultra-beefy multi-core processors is that they can handle data faster (during indexing at least) than the Hard drive can process it (this probably has a lot to do with its cache size and speed too). It might not be the most efficient thing to use all six cores unless the HD speed warrants it.
Prov. 15:23
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Does anybody know if it will use six cores?
If they are physical cores Logos can create 6 threads during indexing because a quad core is allocated 4 threads & dual core is allocated 2 threads (irrespective of hyper-threading). So indexing will be faster.
Whether it is faster during normal processing is debatable but it is a multi-threaded application and will benefit when other tasks are running. Multi-core's are slower when running single-threaded applications.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Dave Hooton said:
If they are physical cores Logos can create 6 threads during indexing because a quad core is allocated 4 threads & dual core is allocated 2 threads (irrespective of hyper-threading). So indexing will be faster.
I'm not sure I understand your comment Dave. Hyperthreading allows two threads to be allocated to a single, physical core. The OS and the Apps don't know the difference (functionally) between 8 physical cores and 4 physical cores + hyperthreading. All the OS and Apps know is that they can dispatch up to 8 threads.
0 -
Rosie:
According to Microsoft, all Windows 7 32 bits Editions supports up to 32 processor cores, and 64 bits editions supports up to 256 cores.
You can check this link http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/get/system-requirements.aspx
Any program that uses threads can take advantage of as many cores as available.
One important point: a program can create any number of threads. Windows is responsible for the administration of the cores and threads, so 2 or more threads may be running on a single core, but they can´t run simultaneously, so there´s no performance gain.
Obviously, the more cores, the more parallel threads you can have running simultaneously, and the more performance you gain.
But don´t forget that there are others key components you must consider: available RAM, hard disk performance,etc.
Regards,
0 -
Ron Keyston Jr said:Dave Hooton said:
If they are physical cores Logos can create 6 threads during indexing because a quad core is allocated 4 threads & dual core is allocated 2 threads (irrespective of hyper-threading). So indexing will be faster.
I'm not sure I understand your comment Dave. Hyperthreading allows two threads to be allocated to a single, physical core. The OS and the Apps don't know the difference (functionally) between 8 physical cores and 4 physical cores + hyperthreading. All the OS and Apps know is that they can dispatch up to 8 threads.
My comment is based on Logos' comments and inspections of Indexer logs on my dual-core and quad-core processors. L4 will create threads based on the number of cores; and allocate one resource to each thread for indexing. I did not make it clear that other threads are also created, but only 4 resources at a time are being indexed on my quad core with hyper-threading enabled. And I've rarely seen more than 6 active "CPU's" in Task Manager during indexing when L4 is the only foreground task. On the other hand, my dual core is at 100%!
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Dave Hooton said:
Multi-core's are slower when running single-threaded applications.
Egad! Really? Are there many single-threaded applications left? Anything major that would be a performance hog? I use dozens of little utility programs, many of which have been around since Windows '95 or so, which are probably single-threaded. But all the big apps (Office I'm sure, Adobe Creative Suite, etc.) I would hope are multi-threaded by now.
Victor Ulloa said:But don´t forget that there are others key components you must consider: available RAM, hard disk performance,etc.
Yes, I know. I'm looking at getting 24GB RAM, so memory won't be an issue. My twin 7200 RPM 1 TB hard drives might end up being the bottleneck. SSD is intriguing technology, but I don't think it's far enough along for me to go for it yet. My understanding is it wears out in unpredictable ways and sooner than hard disks do. And the cost/capacity ratio is still quite high. And I think they only come in sizes up to 256 GB so far (mainly just for laptops), so getting enough disk space would involve putting together an array of eight of them. I don't even begin to know what people do for data redundancy on them (comparable to RAID for HDDs). OK, enough TLAs for the evening!
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Rosie,
Don't worry too much about that. Even if the app in question can only use one core, Windows will tend to push everything else to the other cores, leaving the one to run your app as best it can. Besides, your new CPU is maybe rather faster than whatever old one you are replacing, and with more cache memory, and on a faster motherboard, with better bandwidths, and faster disk subsystems etc ... and so on ...
In general, buy as much hardware as you can afford, up to just short of the newest and best. Those come with a price that hurts, so one step or two back from leading edge serves most people well in my view.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
And I think they [SSDs] only come in sizes up to 256 GB so far (mainly just for laptops)...
FYI: SSDs currently come in sizes up to 512 GB or 1 TB, but they are very very very expensive at this time:
512 GB:
1 TB:
0 -
GeoPappas said:Rosie Perera said:
And I think they [SSDs] only come in sizes up to 256 GB so far (mainly just for laptops)...
FYI: SSDs currently come in sizes up to 512 GB or 1 TB, but they are very very very expensive at this time:
512 GB:
1 TB:
Yowza! That 1TB SDD is more than 30x as expensive as the equivalent sized HDD!
0 -
Rosie Perera said:GeoPappas said:Rosie Perera said:
And I think they [SSDs] only come in sizes up to 256 GB so far (mainly just for laptops)...
FYI: SSDs currently come in sizes up to 512 GB or 1 TB, but they are very very very expensive at this time:
512 GB:
1 TB:
Yowza! That 1TB SDD is more than 30x as expensive as the equivalent sized HDD!
I know! That 6 dollar shipping is waaaaay too much. I refuse to get one because of that! [;)]
Prov. 15:23
0 -
HI,
Thank you all for your replies looks like a subject that really needs looking into, logos if you are listening (reading) i would gladly put in the time to test where money would be best spent if you provided the funding for the test equipement for me ! he he!
Only kidding , but after a long think a good solution might be purchasing a sata 3 card £15 ish then a small ssd drive £100 ish and a Western digital Fast black drive 10000 speed with 64 mb cash again £100 ish.
Thanks
Garry
p.s. i might not be kidding logos "!"
Bro Garry
Christadelphian
0 -
JimT said:Rosie Perera said:
Rosie,
Don't worry too much about that. Even if the app in question can only use one core, Windows will tend to push everything else to the other cores, leaving the one to run your app as best it can. Besides, your new CPU is maybe rather faster than whatever old one you are replacing, and with more cache memory, and on a faster motherboard, with better bandwidths, and faster disk subsystems etc ... and so on ...
Yes. Get a processor that runs faster (GHz) than your current one! But a 3.0 GHz dual-core is no match overall for a quad-core (6-core) at 2.8 GHz.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
I'm looking at getting 24GB RAM, so memory won't be an issue. My twin 7200 RPM 1 TB hard drives might end up being the bottleneck. SSD is intriguing technology, but I don't think it's far enough along for me to go for it yet. My understanding is it wears out in unpredictable ways and sooner than hard disks do. And the cost/capacity ratio is still quite high. And I think they only come in sizes up to 256 GB so far (mainly just for laptops), so getting enough disk space would involve putting together an array of eight of them. I don't even begin to know what people do for data redundancy on them (comparable to RAID for HDDs).
I'm on 12GB RAM right now, and would get 24GB if I thought it would make a significant difference. I'm not convinced that Logos 4 scales consistently when RAM is increased. SSDs from early entry manufacturers such as Intel, OCZ, Crucial, and Corsair are quite mature and very robust. They wear out in predictable ways, and 'sooner than hard disks do' still means 3-5 years (and who these days keeps a hard drive that long?).
Typical sizes range from as small as 32GB to as large as 512GB (larger sizes are grossly uneconomical), though 256GB is the current sweet spot. Few people need more than 256GB for a system drive anyway, and most intelligent people already use a smaller fast drive for their system drive, and larger drives for their storage. I'm looking at purchasing the Crucial C300 256 GB SSD and the i7 980X at the end of this year, and anticipate a significant increase in performance.
Win 7 x64 | Core i7 3770K | 32GB RAM | GTX 750 Ti 2GB | Crucial m4 256GB SSD (system) | Crucial m4 256GB SSD (Logos) | WD Black 1.5 TB (storage) | WD Red 3 TB x 3 (storage) | HP w2408h 24" | First F301GD Live 30"
0 -
Jonathan Burke said:
I'm on 12GB RAM right now, and would get 24GB if I thought it would make a significant difference. I'm not convinced that Logos 4 scales consistently when RAM is increased.
I've been running with 8GB, which should be more than ample for Logos. My problem is that after using Logos (and other apps) intensely for several hours or more, things start running slower and slower until eventually they almost come to a grinding halt (or start crashing) and I have to reboot. I'm guessing there are memory leaks all over the place. But I wouldn't care if I had more memory.
Jonathan Burke said:most intelligent people already use a smaller fast drive for their system drive, and larger drives for their storage
I must not be among the "intelligent people" then. The problem is, I have pretty massive storage requirements for system and software installations, and I cannot put an upper bound on how much space I'll need for that. I avidly use over 40 major software products, and keep buying more and upgrading to new versions of them. If I keep my "Program Files" on a limited size drive, I might run out of space on it before long. I'd want room for the swap file on it as well.
Another problem is (I hate to admit this) I don't actually know how you can structure a Windows installation across multiple drives. For example, how do you move C:\Users to
\ ? I would have thought that once you've booted Windows, that directory is in use and locked and you can't move it somewhere else. However I've never tried, so it might be easier than I think.0 -
Rosie Perera said:
For example, how do you move C:\Users to
\ ? I would have thought that once you've booted Windows, that directory is in use and locked and you can't move it somewhere else. However I've never tried, so it might be easier than I think.I too would like to understand more about moving my user directory to another drive. I have heard that if you move a the user/name directory when the operating system is still freshly installed ( brand new ) the move work very well. More info please.
0 -
JF said:Rosie Perera said:
For example, how do you move C:\Users to
\ ? I would have thought that once you've booted Windows, that directory is in use and locked and you can't move it somewhere else. However I've never tried, so it might be easier than I think.I too would like to understand more about moving my user directory to another drive. I have heard that if you move a the user/name directory when the operating system is still freshly installed ( brand new ) the move work very well. More info please.
It's not something I would do because the element of risk is quite high especially if your computer is part of a domain. This site claims to have a reliable method http://lifehacker.com/5467758/move-the-users-directory-in-windows-7 but you can investigate others by Googling for "Move user directory" and selecting one for your OS. Because of the sensitivities of L4 regarding permissions I would uninstall it completely before making this change.
EDIT: also look at http://www.starkeith.net/coredump/2009/05/18/how-to-move-your-windows-user-profile-to-another-drive/
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Hi
Bro Garry
Christadelphian
0 -
It also depends on your operating system, so if you do search for how to move your user drive make sure you include your operating system in your search.
Having your os on another drive helps with speed and with recovery if you have problems with your drives. But there is plenty of ifo out on the web or in the forum, just ask a direct question and provide as much info on your computer and software as possible.
Also if on a network always ask network administrator before doing anything
Bro Garry
Christadelphian
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
I've been running with 8GB, which should be more than ample for Logos. My problem is that after using Logos (and other apps) intensely for several hours or more, things start running slower and slower until eventually they almost come to a grinding halt (or start crashing) and I have to reboot. I'm guessing there are memory leaks all over the place. But I wouldn't care if I had more memory.
Fixing that memory leak should be your first priority. Purchasing more memory is simply a bandaid, you're not addressing the real issue. All that will happen is that you'll take longer to run out of memory.
Rosie Perera said:I must not be among the "intelligent people" then. The problem is, I have pretty massive storage requirements for system and software installations, and I cannot put an upper bound on how much space I'll need for that. I avidly use over 40 major software products, and keep buying more and upgrading to new versions of them. If I keep my "Program Files" on a limited size drive, I might run out of space on it before long. I'd want room for the swap file on it as well.
My point was a smaller system drive, and larger drives for storage. A system drive is just that, a drive for your operating system. That's the OS. Not your apps. Your apps are not part of your operating system. No one needs a 1TB drive for their OS. No one even needs a 500GB drive for their OS. There is no OS in the world which, once installed, takes up over 100GB of hard drive space. Even if you install a fully bloated Win7 Ultimate OS you're struggling to hit 30GB. Your system drive does not need to be more than 64GB, even leaving room for the page file and temp directories.
I actually have a 500GB Caviar Blue drive for my system drive, and a 1TB Caviar Black drive for my storage and apps, so in my case my OS drive is slower than my apps drive. But that's ok because my apps are the kind of programs which benefit more from speed. I have Adobe CS4 (around 10GB), Adobe Lightroom (with a 15GB catalog), Logos 4 (with a 12GB resources folder), X1 (with a 9.8GB index folder), and Thunderbird (with a 12GB mail directory), not to mention another 15GB of resources in my Logos 3 folder. All this and more, and plenty of space left over. If you have more than 1TB of apps, I'd be very surprised, but there's no need to place an upper limit on how much space you'll need in the future, you just buy a larger drive. Simple.
Rosie Perera said:For example, how do you move C:\Users to
\ ?The simplest method is always best. I would try a symbolic link, the way I always do if I want to change the location of a system directory or special folder. It should work fine.
Win 7 x64 | Core i7 3770K | 32GB RAM | GTX 750 Ti 2GB | Crucial m4 256GB SSD (system) | Crucial m4 256GB SSD (Logos) | WD Black 1.5 TB (storage) | WD Red 3 TB x 3 (storage) | HP w2408h 24" | First F301GD Live 30"
0 -
Jonathan Burke said:
Fixing that memory leak should be your first priority.
Memory leaks are not user fixable. They are due to bugs in applications, when the app allocates memory but then never frees it when it doesn't need it anymore. Logos has been guilty of this, and I'm willing to bet MS Office has a few too. Right now Logos is the main app that I spend hours a day using, so I suspect it's Logos that is allocating and never freeing memory. Unfortunately, we can't find out where this is happening in order to report it to them.
Jonathan Burke said:My point was a smaller system drive, and larger drives for storage. A system drive is just that, a drive for your operating system. That's the OS. Not your apps.
It's not so easy to isolate what directories are OS only and what are Apps only. Many apps install DLLs in the windows\system directory, and some install themselves into C:\ without giving you a choice. I'm sure you're still right that it would never use up over 100GB in spite of all this. But famous last words. Bill Gates allegedly once said he never anticipated anyone would need more than 640K of memory. (He denies it.) I remember when I got my first PC and it had a 20 MB drive and that seemed ample at the time. I'm sure 100 GB will seem equally quaint one day.
Jonathan Burke said:my apps are the kind of programs which benefit more from speed
Ditto. I use Adobe Creative Suite heavily, other graphics and video editing software, etc. I'd want them all on the fast drive, which is why I've never bothered to install them on separate drives. I'm an old holder from the DOS days, too, so I still do a lot of file management from the command line, and it's just more convenient having it all on one drive so as not to have to keep swiching back and forth.
Jonathan Burke said:Rosie Perera said:For example, how do you move C:\Users to
\ ?The simplest method is always best. I would try a symbolic link, the way I always do if I want to change the location of a system directory or special folder. It should work fine.
So I take it you always do this for your "Program Files" and "Program Files (x86)" directories?
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Memory leaks are not user fixable. They are due to bugs in applications, when the app allocates memory but then never frees it when it doesn't need it anymore. Logos has been guilty of this, and I'm willing to bet MS Office has a few too. Right now Logos is the main app that I spend hours a day using, so I suspect it's Logos that is allocating and never freeing memory. Unfortunately, we can't find out where this is happening in order to report it to them.
Memory leaks are sometimes user fixable. Sometimes it's a program setting, or a patch, or simply a program we shouldn't have installed in the first place. I doubt in this case that it's Logos 4, since I have my computer on 24/7 and Logos 4 is always on, and other people are sure to have reported the same issue. The fact that you can't find out where it's happening in Logos contributes to the conclusion that it isn't happening in Logos.
Rosie Perera said:It's not so easy to isolate what directories are OS only and what are Apps only.
Once you've installed the app, no. But that's the whole point of deciding where to install your app at the time that you actually install it. Regardless of any little bits and pieces which might be in the registry or other directories, the bulk of the space taken up by the app will be in the directory you choose.
Rosie Perera said:Many apps install DLLs in the windows\system directory, and some install themselves into C:\ without giving you a choice.
Most apps these days give you a choice of where to install them, and DLLs don't take up much room at all. If you create a symlink for your C:\Programs folder, you don't even have to worry about those programs which don't give you a choice, they'll all go exactly where you want them. This way you keep your OS and your apps on separate drives, and you can have a small fast drive for the system and a larger drive for the apps.
Rosie Perera said:I'm sure you're still right that it would never use up over 100GB in spite of all this.
Actually I was only talking about the OS, not the OS and apps. Installing an OS and apps, it's easy to go over 100GB.
Rosie Perera said:Ditto. I use Adobe Creative Suite heavily, other graphics and video editing software, etc. I'd want them all on the fast drive, which is why I've never bothered to install them on separate drives.
Find out how much space your apps take up, add some headroom, and that will tell you what size SSD you can use for your apps. I doubt you'll need more than 128GB. That way you can have all your apps on a fast drive, and your storage on a larger, slower drive (which was the original point of this discussion).
Rosie Perera said:So I take it you always do this for your "Program Files" and "Program Files (x86)" directories?
No need, I just install programs directly onto the Caviar Black. It makes re-imaging a lot faster, because my system drive isn't cluttered up with non-system apps.
Win 7 x64 | Core i7 3770K | 32GB RAM | GTX 750 Ti 2GB | Crucial m4 256GB SSD (system) | Crucial m4 256GB SSD (Logos) | WD Black 1.5 TB (storage) | WD Red 3 TB x 3 (storage) | HP w2408h 24" | First F301GD Live 30"
0 -
Jonathan Burke said:
Memory leaks are sometimes user fixable. Sometimes it's a program setting, or a patch, or simply a program we shouldn't have installed in the first place. I doubt in this case that it's Logos 4, since I have my computer on 24/7 and Logos 4 is always on, and other people are sure to have reported the same issue. The fact that you can't find out where it's happening in Logos contributes to the conclusion that it isn't happening in Logos.
No, it points to the fact that I haven't tried to narrow it down yet. Other people have reported memory leaks in Logos in the past, and I'm always running the latest beta version which is prone to bugs, so that is why I even though to implicate Logos as a possible culprit.
This only happens when I've been intensively using my PC with 10-15 apps all running at the same time, several with multiple documents open, madly multi-tasking between them, doing lots of huge memory intensive things in Logos, and doing this for hours and hours or days, on end. I have my computer on 24/7, but I do have to reboot it about every week, as it gets sluggish. I have yet to even try to narrow down whether it's a memory leak at all, let alone what app it's coming from. That was just my prime theory. Keeping Resource Monitor running would be a start, but it wouldn't really solve the question for me. Those numbers are always fluctuating up and down. It would be near impossible to tell from looking at the numbers if there were a memory leak. I don't really have the time to diagnose it. Memory is relatively cheap. I've actually only got 4GB on my laptop that I'm using right now. The machine I'm planning to rebuilt had 8GB which was usually plenty, but I'd love to go up to 12GB or 24GB. I use Photoshop a lot too, and sometimes deal with big hunkin' files that make it slow down. More memory would help. And I use a mosaic-making photo app called AndreaMosaic that deals with even larger files.
Jonathan Burke said:Rosie Perera said:I'm sure you're still right that it would never use up over 100GB in spite of all this.
Actually I was only talking about the OS, not the OS and apps. Installing an OS and apps, it's easy to go over 100GB.
I know. I was talking about the OS plus DLLs that apps had installed in the system directory.
Jonathan Burke said:Find out how much space your apps take up, add some headroom, and that will tell you what size SSD you can use for your apps. I doubt you'll need more than 128GB. That way you can have all your apps on a fast drive, and your storage on a larger, slower drive (which was the original point of this discussion).
What are the trusted names in SSD makers? I know Western Digital and Seagate in the hard disk world, but am completely unfamiliar with who makes the fastest and most reliable SSDs.
Jonathan Burke said:I just install programs directly onto the Caviar Black. It makes re-imaging a lot faster, because my system drive isn't cluttered up with non-system apps.
Oh man, that is a whole area I need to learn more about and do better at. I haven't done any disk imaging for backups yet at all. I just make full backups of the whole C:\ directory structure onto an external drive. But I recently bought a standalone disk duplicator (to recover the data from my dead PC), and you're giving me new hope and impetus to get on the ball so I'll be able to get back up and running more quickly in the future should this happen again.
0 -
Yep - more RAM is NOT the fix for memory leaks. It just buys more time between reboots etc.
Task Manager is a great tool to keep an eye on things. Turn on the extra columns, and take screen prints, captures, or notes (remember paper?) from time to time. With luck, the offending application will tend to stand out, depending on the nature of the resource usage.
0 -
JimT said:
Yep - more RAM is NOT the fix for memory leaks. It just buys more time between reboots etc.
Task Manager is a great tool to keep an eye on things. Turn on the extra columns, and take screen prints, captures, or notes (remember paper?) from time to time. With luck, the offending application will tend to stand out, depending on the nature of the resource usage.
Yes, I know. And Process Explorer which I have and use. But I don't have time. It's times like this when I wish I were not a geek and were more easily persuaded to stop being so stubborn and just cave in to all the Mac marketing. But as long as I know there's still something more I could do to get more out of my Windows machine, I will do it, someday. I just don't have time now, and sometimes money is a trade-off for time. And I know more memory doesn't FIX the memory leak, but it would give me more time between reboots, which would save me time. And I have to get a new motherboard anyway since my old one died, so I might as well get one loaded to the max with memory. Even if I didn't have a memory leak I'd do that. There will always come a time in the future when some app I rely on will need it and take advantage of it.
BTW, even if I can find the memory leak among all my apps, all that would do is tell me who to blame and probably leave me as frustrated as before, because if it's a bug in some app I use and rely on, I can't stop using it and all I can do is report it to them and hope they fix it someday.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
BTW, even if I can find the memory leak among all my apps, all that would do is tell me who to blame and probably leave me as frustrated as before, because if it's a bug in some app I use and rely on, I can't stop using it and all I can do is report it to them and hope they fix it someday.
I expected you already knew about the memory columns (that default off), but I really just like playing with the yellow highlighter pen!
OK on wanting to be a user rather than a geek. Logos4 has got so many cool things to play with, its easy to forget to stop and read something, rather than report its typos or yet another crash. Reminds me - I got to report a new one in NIV and Lookups ...
0 -
Jonathan Burke said:
The simplest method is always best. I would try a symbolic link, the way I always do if I want to change the location of a system directory or special folder. It should work fine.
Use a hard link, not a symbolic. I've tried it both ways and a symbolic link wouldn't work. If you create a hard link using the junction command, it is 100% transparent to the OS and apps. You can move your Users folder, your Program Files folders, and whatever else you want to a second drive, create hard links from C:\Users to
\Users and C:\Program Files to \Program Files (or whatever) and everything just works, you never have to think about it again (and the OS and apps don't know the difference.) When you install something in Program Files, it thinks it is going into C:\Program Files as it normally does, but in reality, it is being installed in \Program Files. I had my previous computer set up this way for years and never had a single problem, it truly is completely seamless.0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Oh man, that is a whole area I need to learn more about and do better at. I haven't done any disk imaging for backups yet at all. I just make full backups of the whole C:\ directory structure onto an external drive. But I recently bought a standalone disk duplicator (to recover the data from my dead PC), and you're giving me new hope and impetus to get on the ball so I'll be able to get back up and running more quickly in the future should this happen again.
I use shadowprotect (http://www.storagecraft.com/) its easy, convertible to a VM (vmware) very flexible... I have had very good success transferring images to totally different hardware, servers to desktops etc. Great in a pinch.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
What are the trusted names in SSD makers? I know Western Digital and Seagate in the hard disk world, but am completely unfamiliar with who makes the fastest and most reliable SSDs.
Intel, OCZ, Crucial, Corsair, GSkill, all reliable manufacturers. Differences in drives are the result of different memory controllers and architecture. See here. Drive performance differs, and 'fastest' depends on what you want most, througput (Crucial C300), or IOPS (OCZ Vertex 2). See here.
Win 7 x64 | Core i7 3770K | 32GB RAM | GTX 750 Ti 2GB | Crucial m4 256GB SSD (system) | Crucial m4 256GB SSD (Logos) | WD Black 1.5 TB (storage) | WD Red 3 TB x 3 (storage) | HP w2408h 24" | First F301GD Live 30"
0 -
Ron Keyston Jr said:
Use a hard link, not a symbolic.
Yeah, I realised later that I should have written 'hard link', since that's what I actually used.
Win 7 x64 | Core i7 3770K | 32GB RAM | GTX 750 Ti 2GB | Crucial m4 256GB SSD (system) | Crucial m4 256GB SSD (Logos) | WD Black 1.5 TB (storage) | WD Red 3 TB x 3 (storage) | HP w2408h 24" | First F301GD Live 30"
0
