Pokertracker load time

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
i haven't seen any evidence presented that nightly defrags will damage a drive, and the dvr argument presents compelling evidence that 24/7 use (not just spinning) isn't a death knell for desktop-class drives. defragging is much less intense than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) i haven't seen any evidence that radiation is bad for me... the fact that "you don't have evidence" is more than enough for me to simply ignore your arguement. i have evidence... disks fail after a certain amount of USE, not of being parked or turned off.

2) show my any DVR that runs 24/7. people maybe watch 3-4 hours a day (as sad as that is.) even if the DVR recorded all the shows while they weren't watching other shows, that is 6-8 hours a day.

you are wrong.

astroglide is horrible at poker. i don't have evidence, but it is true.

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
2) show my any DVR that runs 24/7. people maybe watch 3-4 hours a day (as sad as that is.) even if the DVR recorded all the shows while they weren't watching other shows, that is 6-8 hours a day.

[/ QUOTE ]

My PVR runs 24/7. It records shows throughout the day (usually records 3-4 hours worth per day) and spends the off peak hours compressing the file into a better format than MPEG-2.

Compressing 3-4 hours worth of MPEG-2 recordings (approximately 6-8 GBs) will take about 6-10 hours.

However, I never had and probably never will defrag more than once a year the partition I use to record TV shows. There is no point to defragging a bunch of large movie files that's on a second physical hdd, it's not going to speed up my computer any noticeable amount.

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
if you can afford $100, there is never a problem with too much ram

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel dirty saying it, but I agree with Ed here. PT is a memory- and disk-hog. Throw it a bone.

If you could afford $500, I'd say just get a new computer...

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you can afford $100, there is never a problem with too much ram

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel dirty saying it, but I agree with Ed here. PT is a memory- and disk-hog. Throw it a bone.

If you could afford $500, I'd say just get a new computer...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a laptop, and I don't want a desktop. This one's only about 6 months old, and there's nothing wrong with it, except the PT thing. I'd have to blow at least a thousand to get a new one, and it wouldn't be much better than what I have now. Anyway, it's not a question of whether I can afford it, it's a question of whether it's worth it. I'm not a techno-geek, so I don't buy technology for it's own sake.

I have to do something about PT, though. It's already ridiculous, and it keeps getting worse.

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a laptop

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops, missed that bit, sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
I have to do something about PT, though. It's already ridiculous, and it keeps getting worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Segregate your databases; archive each month or two. More memory will help. Check out the PT forums for more specific advice.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
show my any DVR that runs 24/7. people maybe watch 3-4 hours a day (as sad as that is.) even if the DVR recorded all the shows while they weren't watching other shows, that is 6-8 hours a day

[/ QUOTE ]

tivos are recording 24/7. you have to unplug them to turn them off. standby mode only disables output to the tv, it still records shows. if they are not recording scheduled programming, they are recording recommendations. if they are not recording recommendations, they are recording the 30 minute rewind buffer for whatever channel it is presently tuned into.

you were doing yourself a favor when you had ceased responding in the thread.

[astroglide]

PT with a 150k hand db fully open here only uses 25MB of ram. it only spikes 1MB while calculating position stats, for example, and then goes back down. i would always want more than 192MB of ram, but i would suspect your cpu and laptop hard drive as the MAIN culprites. lots of value-class notebooks use p4-based celeron cpus which are more or less abysmal. 2.5" drives are notoriously slow, it's probably 4200rpm. the initial calculations are a lot more cpu-bound than people are giving it credit.

as for things you can actually upgrade on a laptop, i would expect a 60gb 2.5" 7200rpm hitachi 7k60 to improve your performance in PT more than additional ram, but it depends on your usage patterns and i haven't done any formal profiling of PT to see where it's juicing during database loads. i know it could do a lot better with more results caching, it repeats itself constantly.

what functions are you referring to on the slowdown? i don't see a huge need to use it DURING PLAY with advanced notes exporting, and you can minimize the initial load if you look at (for example) only that current month's results. loading everything up will still take a while, but "full analysis" only needs to be done so often.

to determine whether or not you need more ram, just run your system for a long time nonstop (no restarts/shutdowns). hit ctrl-shift-esc to launch the task manager, and click on the 'performance' tab. look at the 'commit charge' section and note the 'peak' number. if it is less than the 'total' number under 'physical memory' you are completely running out of ram, and it is using your (infinitely slower) hard drive as a substitute when it overflows. dividing the numbers by 1024 will tell you the numbers in megabytes.

[LinusKS]

The commit charge peak is roughly 300MB. The physical memory total is 195MB. You said, "if it (peak commit charge) is less than the 'total' number under 'physical memory' you are completely running out of ram."

Did you mean the other way around? Because if so, I'm completely running out of RAM. Otherwise I'm fine.

PT takes forever importing, and takes forever loading. It's even got to the point where it doesn't like it when I change from one tab to another. And I've only got around 62k hands.

I've got about fifty billion processes running, most of which I don't even know what they are. On earlier incarnations of Windows I used to kill all of the useless crap Microsoft puts in your startup menu, but XP doesn't seem to want to let me do that.

I play sngs, not ring games, so I don't auto-import. And I usually always have at least one game going whenever I've got my computer on, so when PT is going I've also got a game window plus internet explorer + my inbox + yahoo IM as well. Plus I use two monitors when I'm at home.

The CPU is an Intel Celeron 2.6GHz.

Thank you.

[astroglide]

yeah, i meant the other way around [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] in your case you would probably want 384MB total or higher, 512MB is obviously still desirable for spikes. how far you can go depends on how many sodimm slots you have and what their respective limits are. there is usually one, sometimes two slots on the bottom of your laptop. sometimes the other ram is soldered to the board, sometimes it is in a slot under the board.

importing is largely cpu if you're referring to reading 100-hand histories. i still don't understand why it wouldn't be preferrable to autoimport the hhs off the hard drive while you're playing.

the cpu you have is very, very weak but you shouldn''t be able to upgrade it.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
sucked back in...

bottom line: the general public does not understand how computers work, or use their own computer to it's fullest potential.

the computer i am on right now is "x86 family 6 model 8 stepping 6" with 256 MB of ram. running NT and a novel client. this thing is old. after i turned off all the unneccessary stuff, and OS feature ram hogs, it is "zippy" no resonse delays at all. i play 3 tables of UB at once while i argue with you morons. no delay whatsoever.

total ram usuage with about 15 icons in the dock such as virus shield, AOL IM, 4 novel tools, MSN messenger etc, on top of the OS, and a few IE windows and total RAM usage is 107MB.

you're making up stats to prove a point that:

1) doesn't matter.
2) is wrong.

look at your numbers... block size 4K, average file size 3,000K, average fragments per file 3.

?!?!?! do you not understand that that is ideal?!?! you're "example to prove me wrong" did just the opposite. the most commonly used files only need to do a seek after 250 HITS, and on average only 3 times per FILE request.

on hard drives full of MP3s (which is usually the case when 250GB drives are full), they could be 100% fragmented, and the disk would STILL not require to be defragmented. i don't think you understand what cases defragmenting benefits, or you certainly would not have posted your data.

again, i'll try to be done with this. how about you do the same.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't the one talking about defragmenting in the first place.

I was the one relating my experiences on this computer, my 1.7 P4 with a gig of RAM and a 7200 rpm HD, and many others going back to the 80s, that the HD does indeed get written on quite frequently with something like a crummy 256 megs of RAM.

Try loading some NEW applications on your wheezy old machines before telling us how great your old computers run their old applications. That couldn't be less relevant. People going to the store now can't even find those applications or those versions of them on the shelves. What they find now is Windows itself gobbling up big chunks of RAM and most programs written not be optimized very much at all, as used to the be case in the good ole days when memory was extremely expensive and you could only pack a machine with 16 megs of it.

Your vaunted "understanding" of computers is cutting short any of your common sense.

When I tell you that I've been working on computers for long enough to know a hard disk write, and that I experience the same on computers without much RAM, you spit your theories back at me. I'm talking about lived epxerience though. I don't care what your ideas are that my hard disk isn't writing; I'm telling you it's writing. I HEAR it. I SEE the HD light flashing. I NOTICE the slowdown.

I have no idea what your problem is with that. You must be the most blinkered, stubborn person on earth.

Your recommendations on what other people should do does them no favors whatsoever. You're too busy listening to yourself and priding yourself on your "knowledge" to have any common sense or ability to listen to others.