djstevieray
I am currently in the process of switching over to a new MBP i7 Quad, and I am currently scanning my tracks for BPM, and monitoring the systems CPU usage.
I stated this about 2 years ago, that VDJ needs to take advantage of Multi Threading, and I was told by one of the devs that it was optimized for multi CPU's. Well I am watching the BPM scanning process (I have almost 40,000 tracks), and VDJ is only using 1 thread on 1 Core of my processor, and please don't tell me it is a Mac version, or i7 issue, as I have done this on a phenom II, same result, Turion II, Core II Duo, on Windows and now on Mac, and they all do the same thing.
This sucks because running the BPM scan is going to probably take a full day or 2, where if it was taking advantage of all 4 cores, and hyperthreading, then it could be processing 8 tracks simultaneously. I know this is possible, because I use DB Power Amp, for ripping and converting audio files, and it will do as many tracks simultaneously, as you have CPU cores (Virtual or real CPU cores).
Please make this a priority in the next release. I am also watching my CPU usage while doing playback and loading of tracks, and it is still only using 1 core, so I just sank a ton of money into a quad core CPU for the sole purpose of running VDJ, and it only uses 1 core :(
Secondly, please start thinking about porting the app over to run as a 64bit app, it currently runs as a 32 bit app.
I stated this about 2 years ago, that VDJ needs to take advantage of Multi Threading, and I was told by one of the devs that it was optimized for multi CPU's. Well I am watching the BPM scanning process (I have almost 40,000 tracks), and VDJ is only using 1 thread on 1 Core of my processor, and please don't tell me it is a Mac version, or i7 issue, as I have done this on a phenom II, same result, Turion II, Core II Duo, on Windows and now on Mac, and they all do the same thing.
This sucks because running the BPM scan is going to probably take a full day or 2, where if it was taking advantage of all 4 cores, and hyperthreading, then it could be processing 8 tracks simultaneously. I know this is possible, because I use DB Power Amp, for ripping and converting audio files, and it will do as many tracks simultaneously, as you have CPU cores (Virtual or real CPU cores).
Please make this a priority in the next release. I am also watching my CPU usage while doing playback and loading of tracks, and it is still only using 1 core, so I just sank a ton of money into a quad core CPU for the sole purpose of running VDJ, and it only uses 1 core :(
Secondly, please start thinking about porting the app over to run as a 64bit app, it currently runs as a 32 bit app.
Inviato Tue 22 Mar 11 @ 9:39 am
djstevieray
Am I the only one who is experiencing this? PS, I still have about 12,000 tracks to BPM scan, I think the process would have been faster if it was utilizing all 4 true cores. It has just been running on 1 core at 99%-130% for over a day now.
This is a new MBP 15" with the quad i7 2.2, but as I have stated, I noticed the same thing on Windows, with Core 2 Duo, Phenom, and Turion Ultra X2's, none of these systems ever use more than 1 core with VDJ.
This is a new MBP 15" with the quad i7 2.2, but as I have stated, I noticed the same thing on Windows, with Core 2 Duo, Phenom, and Turion Ultra X2's, none of these systems ever use more than 1 core with VDJ.
Inviato Wed 23 Mar 11 @ 9:50 pm
JoshTorresDJ
I totally understand your frustration.
I just got the MBP 13", the reason I didn't go for the 15" was cuz I read that even if you get quad core VDJ will still only use one. So, why spend the extra money?
So, I went with dual i7. I have only about 10k songs, and it has taken all day to scan bpm and it still wasn't finish so I had to quit it so I could do other stuff.
I just got the MBP 13", the reason I didn't go for the 15" was cuz I read that even if you get quad core VDJ will still only use one. So, why spend the extra money?
So, I went with dual i7. I have only about 10k songs, and it has taken all day to scan bpm and it still wasn't finish so I had to quit it so I could do other stuff.
Inviato Thu 24 Mar 11 @ 12:39 am
SBDJ
For the record VDJ *does* use multiple cores/processors and is very much multi threaded, however some tasks are currently limited to running on a single core. Anyone who says VDJ only ever uses one core/processor is incorrect I'm afraid!
Also you're really better off posting in the wishes & new features forum as thats where requests such as this belong. If you want I can move it there where it will receive more views and input?
Also you're really better off posting in the wishes & new features forum as thats where requests such as this belong. If you want I can move it there where it will receive more views and input?
Inviato Thu 24 Mar 11 @ 3:29 am
djstevieray
SB,
Yeah it's cool to move it. The reason I brought it up, is that as I said it needs some optimization. The BPM scanner put out by mixmeister, will use all cores simultaneously. It's just one of those annoyances.
Yeah it's cool to move it. The reason I brought it up, is that as I said it needs some optimization. The BPM scanner put out by mixmeister, will use all cores simultaneously. It's just one of those annoyances.
Inviato Thu 24 Mar 11 @ 6:02 am
SBDJ
Moved and retitled.
I agree, faster scanning through utilisation of all available power when not playing and you are doing a bulk analysis would be a good thing.
I agree, faster scanning through utilisation of all available power when not playing and you are doing a bulk analysis would be a good thing.
Inviato Thu 24 Mar 11 @ 3:41 pm
BuckyBunny
I'm probably not even allowed to post here;
However, is there any work being done on this? This is a serious issue. There really is no excuse for hyperthreading and multi-core support one one of the most time consuming and essential tasks for the program.
Even a stand alone program that would scan selected folders and write to the VDJ DB would be acceptable, in-fact, since most people would much prefer to just let a program scan and log the files while they used their computer, this would be ideal, no need to hold the memory for the virtual DJ program if your not even using it.
Just wondering if anything is being done on this, and if we will see support some time this year.
However, is there any work being done on this? This is a serious issue. There really is no excuse for hyperthreading and multi-core support one one of the most time consuming and essential tasks for the program.
Even a stand alone program that would scan selected folders and write to the VDJ DB would be acceptable, in-fact, since most people would much prefer to just let a program scan and log the files while they used their computer, this would be ideal, no need to hold the memory for the virtual DJ program if your not even using it.
Just wondering if anything is being done on this, and if we will see support some time this year.
Inviato Tue 03 Jan 12 @ 3:19 pm
SBDJ
Features and updates are not generally revealed in advance.
There is however a major version update coming so who knows what we will see?
There is however a major version update coming so who knows what we will see?
Inviato Tue 03 Jan 12 @ 4:10 pm
BuckyBunny
That's a sexy wink for me.
Anyway, was toying around with Process Hacker* a bit while scanning FXXING 3.4 TB of music. (Yeah, gonna be at least 2 days)
I found that if you go into the process and VirtualDJ's affinity to a virtual core(CPU4-7) then set the I/O priority of the process to high, it seems to double the speed at least.
Process Hacker: http://processhacker.sourceforge.net/
Anyway, was toying around with Process Hacker* a bit while scanning FXXING 3.4 TB of music. (Yeah, gonna be at least 2 days)
I found that if you go into the process and VirtualDJ's affinity to a virtual core(CPU4-7) then set the I/O priority of the process to high, it seems to double the speed at least.
Process Hacker: http://processhacker.sourceforge.net/
Inviato Tue 03 Jan 12 @ 6:32 pm
SBDJ
No wink implied, I've no more information than anyone else as to VDJ8 at present!
Inviato Wed 04 Jan 12 @ 4:55 am