@ rowhousepd
Check PMs please
@ rowhousepd
Check PMs please
Update to 6745.
Do you have the same issues:
-when you turn off notecaddy
-when you change the hud options--> config properties--> z-ordering
What are the 4k read speeds of the harddisk?
If you run a benchmark with CrystalDiskMark what are its results (also for sequential and 512k speeds)
Participate in the Beta release of the newest Hold'em Manager version: HM Cloud. Sign-up HERE.
If you would like to leave some feedback to help us improve the quality of the solutions, and/or the support quality you received, - you can do this here
Like I said above, the ~30-40% cpu usage scenario (in that first screen shot above) is just when I'm switching screens & running reports, but without running NC. This for me is a almost more annoying than the ~80% usage when I'm running the HUD at a table because at least I can actually still play effectively on the Merge poker client w/out a lot of free cpu.
Regardless, w/ NC turned off (and 2-4 tabling w/ the HUD running) it is a tad better ... but really just just a tad.
I had Auto Z-ordering ticked before. Are you saying it should run better if it's unticked? (I thought having it ticked would use less cpu). It looks like there's not much difference in the way it runs w/ or w/out z-ordering.
I have no idea what CrystalDiskMark does, but I downloaded it, and ran w/ the default configuration it came w/. Here are the results.
FYI, I'm now running 2.0.0.6745. Thanks in advance for the help.
Last edited by rowhousepd; 04-28-2012 at 05:35 PM.
its not about how many hands they have. i have none, just started the programm and have the same performance issues. and since i installed ur program my overall pc is gone very slow! to load up and when it loads up everything on my desktop is freezing for a bit which it never done before. i7 930 kingston 6gb ram gtx580 win7 64 < a monster.
im sorry i think i have to get my money back. cant pay so much for a none working product :/
@wikked. The long startup time is normal.
It will even be much, much longer when you do have a lot of hands in your database. Though we're working on a fix for that where you can control how many hands are pre-cached.
Startup time for 60 seconds is normal for a regular harddisk.
Around 25-30 seconds is normal for a SSD.
Also read:
http://forums.holdemmanager.com/mana...ease-tips.html, and http://hm2faq.holdemmanager.com/ques...+is+lagging%3F
---
@rowhousepd
How many hands are in your database?
-CPU 30-40% spikes when you switch reports,... or click on buttons in HM2 is normal. Though it shouldn't result in freezing up other programs. (that's where changing the z-ordering can help)
-Overall -what some users call- 'unresponsiveness' (compared to HM1) in HM2 is also normal.
(1) Though -you called it sluggishness- this happens when switching reports, or clicking on buttons
(2) The actual TIME it takes to RUN / LOAD a report does fully rely on harddisk speed and the size of your database.
Once a report is loaded---> if you select a different report--> then go back to the first report---> it will be loaded instantly.
Not having a SSD is causing these long startup time and load times. (worst case scenario it even causes HUD lag)
-
Note: HM1 and PokerTracker4 are faster in "1" (responsiveness), but PT4 is a lot slower than HM2 in "2" (time to run reports when the database has at least 500.000 hands)
As stated to @wikked, we're working on many of these issues: startup time (allowing you to choose how many hands are cached), and CPU Usage, etc. And an SSD will speed up startup/report-loading times.
But none of those will magically fix the responsiveness, as PT4 is build in visual basic, and HM2 is build in .net framework (the same language Windows itself uses)
...which will always make HM2 more resource hungry (using more CPU/RAM)... also HM2 will be bigger in size.
Participate in the Beta release of the newest Hold'em Manager version: HM Cloud. Sign-up HERE.
If you would like to leave some feedback to help us improve the quality of the solutions, and/or the support quality you received, - you can do this here
Since i have a couple of machines, one with an SSD, another with two 7200rpm mechanical disks in RAID 0 i can say this:
There is ZERO, absolutely no difference AT ALL in the start-up speed with an SSD vs two mechanical 7200rpm hard disks in RAID 0.
I only have 143k hero hands in my database and it takes exactly the same time to load.
- I7 2630qm (quad core), 8GB of ram, crucial 128gb M4 SSD: 18s
- e8400@3600mhz (dual core), 4GB of ram, two mechanical disks in RAID 0: 18s
Open HM2 with an empty database:
- I7, SSD, 8GB: 16s
- E8400, raid, 4GB: 16s
- I7, SSD, 8GB, loading HM2/postgresql/HMdatabase from a RAMdisk: 16s
Loading a report with 143k hands:
- I7, SSD, 8GB: 2s
- E8400, raid, 4GB: 2s
Importing Microgaming hands:
- I7, SSD, 8GB: 434h/s
- E8400, raid, 4GB: 393h/s
The only big difference in this two machines, running HM2, is that the I7 machine can handle HM2 and every other software you can imagine at the same time and runs smoothly (It only uses like 30% of the CPU). E8400 not so much! HM2 + browsing and a movie it starts getting slow (it uses almost 100% of the CPU). But if i use HM1 instead i have no problem at all with multiple software running.
SSD bench:
RAID 0 bench (lol):
RAM Disk bench:
Patvs, your experience is difference then this? Because you stated that there is a HUGE jump in HM2 performance (not talking about overal system performance) with an SSD vs mechanical 7200rpm disk (mine are in raid, yes, but they are bad as you can see in the bench (and old and full)). Not only i don't see that, i even tested with an RAM Disk that is soooooo much faster then an SSD.
The slow UI in HM2 is caused, i think, by WPF. You find a TONE of discussion about this if you Google this issue, and i have.
FWIW, i don't think HM2 is slow to start-up. I only posted this because i STRONGLY disagree that the hard driver can be the bottleneck when we talk about HM2+postgresql in a average/good system. Unless it's a 5400rpm disk, or something like that.
The UI transitions/rendering/etc are in fact bad/slow, it gives a bad first impression for me at least, i like snappy software, and unfortunately HM2 will never be like HM1/PT3/PT4 in this regard (hope i'm wrong, fingers crossed). But on the other hand, it imports lightning quick.
Last edited by Hilips; 04-29-2012 at 03:46 AM.
For me anyway, my problem isn't with the start up time. On an average day that I play poker, I'm really only opening HEM once or twice and I just keep it running until I stop using my computer. Personally I'd be content for wait for 5 minutes to load ... if it also meant the software ran smoothly w/out lags when I was actually using it.Originally Posted by Patvs
Any btw, yes I've read the performance tips thread, and the FAQ Huds ... many many times. Sigh.
As I mentioned above I pared down the current database to a whopping 200k hands total. There really isn't that much difference between the slimed down db I'm using now and the full 1 mil db I would ideally like to be using. And when I made a test microcosmic 10k total hand db, it was pretty much the same. Again, this all leads me to be believe it's not the db size, or my configuration, or pretty decent machine.
I realize that a bigger, more robust program like HM2 is certainly going to run differently than the comparatively streamlined & simpler HM1, and I fully expected there to be a noticeable change. But this difference is really way more than I and (as I get the sense from a lot of other posters in the forums) many other users expected.
So what do the results of the CrystalDiskMark test I posed above tell us? (Sorry, I have no idea how to read it.) Is my hard drive really that horribly slow?
If I had a sub-standard machine (which I really don't think is the case) I'd be willing to let this whole issue/complaint go and just admit that it's probably time to upgrade my old Windows XP computer w/ 2MG of Ram that I bought 6 years ago and get something better. But we also shouldn't be expected to have a SSD to run this program w/out the kind of lags many of us seem to experience -- or at least we shouldn't w/out a very clear warning that it's a recommended hardware, if not perhaps a requirement even for running HM2. SSD's will undoubtedly be standard hardware for every computers in several years from now, but at the moment it shouldn't be expected that we have one/need one.
Also, fwiw, as I've stated before, I really hope Hilips's thoughts isn't the case, even thought I admit this is my suspicion/fear at the moment. Honestly guys, I don't mean for my posts here to sound like I'm nagging or whining. I want to see HM2 become a great program.I'm just genuinely trying to figure out why it feel like I might as well grab a cup of coffee while HM2 is "thinking" about how to switch tabs, run small little reports, and (god forbid) play some hands in the replayer.
Just a quick note, I switched from a quiet old, 4GB Ram normal harddrive laptop to a 8GB SSD one. With all respect, HEM2 is "faster" on the new machine, but I don't feel like the SSD or something else is this magic trick which solves all problems.
Startup time did improve kinda maybe a bit, but I don't think the time to build up the winningsgraphs window or something comparable did really improve.
Actually the "speed" of HEM2 nearly did not improve at all or at least not as much as I would have expected it, it's only able to handle more tables now without getting the computer into trouble while I can even watch a movie and have all kinds of stuff open at the same time.
Last edited by Awesome2012; 05-01-2012 at 09:41 PM.
...which is the kind of thing that's driving me nuts. I don't really care about start up time, and I definitely don't care if I can stream video. I just want a smooth running program, which I really think my particular machine should be able to handle. Sigh.
Posting Permissions
