VP9.0c (32) on W7x64.. long nonresponsive periods?

Christian de Godzinsky wrote on 11/14/2009, 7:08 AM

Hi,

I recently uploaded and installed VP9.0c over VP9.0b (both 32 and 64 bit). This upgrade might have fixed a lot of probmes, but causes for me a new headache:

VP9.0c (32bit) goes non-responsive for long periods, and then returns back to normal operation for a while. During these "dead periods" other applications work normally. All other applications work normally. There is NO extra CPU activity during these non-responsive periods, that can last for a minute or so. This behavious is evidetn even during rendering. The render runs (remaining and elapsed time are counting) but the frame advancing has stopped. Then, after this "dead" period everyting advances again normally, for a while... This is SOOOO frustrating.

Anyone else that have experienced something similar??? This is very annoying, rendering this version totally useless. None of the earlier 9.x versions did ever show non-responsiviness like this. My only project that I have tried so far, started out in 9.0 (32bit). Im running on W7 Ultimate 64 bit. I thought that VP9.0c is now officially supported... Will continue testing, but had to ask...

Christian

Back to post

Comments

Porpoise1954 wrote on 11/26/2009, 8:25 AM

Is the common factor here W7x64 or are some experiencing it on Vistax64 too? I haven't experienced this on Vistax64 Ultimate

LoTN wrote on 11/26/2009, 10:23 AM

I have to check again but it seems at least two times, I was able to unfreeze vegas by cycling windows with Alt+Tab. Take this as a guess, I am not sure if it was purely coincidental or not.

JohnAsh wrote on 11/26/2009, 11:36 AM

My problems, as I detailed above, occur with XPx32 VP9.0c. No problems with VP9.0b.

farss wrote on 11/26/2009, 12:14 PM

I've now had this happen with V9.0c under WinXP.
Hourglass for a minute for no apparent reason and then back to normal. Only happened once so far.

Bob.

LoTN wrote on 11/29/2009, 6:57 AM

Got it again today while launching and opening an existing project.
I checked if the windows cycling could cure, it turns it won't.

Watching at CPU times, I/O, page faults and so on did'nt help.

I think it's time to open a ticket.

Christian de Godzinsky wrote on 11/29/2009, 8:21 AM

This is a real problem that now many of us has stumbled over. It's a good idea to opent tickets, as many as possible. This needs to be ironed out NOW. 9.0c is totally useless as it is now, for many of us.

Christian

LoTN wrote on 12/5/2009, 9:44 AM

Update:

SCS is aware of the issue and works on it. The fix should come with a future release.

In the mean time, one can go back to 9b to get rid of this.

Christian de Godzinsky wrote on 12/6/2009, 2:05 AM

Hi lord,

Thanx for the update! Good to know that SCS finally is aware of the issue.

This problem drove me (almost) crazy. I have been able to finish a couple of projects using 8.0c, but with lots of extra work.

Is it due to some added complexity or too little beta testing, but it seems that the quality of releases is slowly degrading?! Compared to V6 that was rock solid and never chrashed, and worked flawlessly... Since then, every new major version has brought some serious issues that needs multiple bug fix releases to be ironed out...

Lets hope that 9.0d will be released rather soone than later...

Christian

LoTN wrote on 12/6/2009, 9:15 AM

I have no detail about the root cause. While time goes, Vegas offers more an more functionality, adding code complexity. Even with a very well known core engine, new features or bug corrections may have some side effect. The more complex is the code the more difficult it is to make it zero flaw. Simply look at Windows story. Even with Seven being less bloated than it's ancestors I believe we will have some "fun" with it.

9.0 was out with several serious issues. I am confident that they already have improved their Q&A process.

JohnAsh wrote on 1/20/2010, 5:13 AM

Having reverted to 9.0b (32) for reasons detailed above, I then installed more RAM, bringing me up to 4Gb so I thought I'd try 9.0c again.

No improvement.

An example of non-responsiveness this morning was to undo a scene drop onto timeline. Time to undo this (in my HDV project) was over 60 secs.

That was enough for me. Back to 9.0b, I thought. Not so easy. This time, having uninstalled 9.0c and re-installed 9.0b, it would not load. Got most of the way and then crashed out with error report. After much heartache, time and gnashing of teeth, plus a 2 weeks-back System Restore, 9-0b is now working. I tried undoing the same scene drop onto timeline and it was about 3 secs. Not 60 secs as in 9.0c!

Another reason for reverting was to see if I was really going mad. It struck me that in 9.0c I was having real difficulties in getting the fade-offset to appear at the end of a scene in order to drag it. It seemed very fussy where the pointer was.

It may be me and it may be I am going mad, but in 9.0b it's a doddle picking up the fade offset. Anyone else noticed this?

jrazz wrote on 1/20/2010, 5:45 AM

I know that this does not necessarily fit this situation but it may be good for someone who stumbles on this thread. I was having severe lag when using Vegas 9. I would click on the timeline and be forced to wait. I would press play and be forced to wait. I couldn't figure out what the issue was.

One day when I had enough I decided to weed out every piece of hardware and test with the basics... that's when I found out what my issue was. I had a RAID setup with the page file located on it along with my captured media. I moved the page file in hopes of gaining better speeds and to keep it off the Windows drive and then I kind of put it out of mind. Once I moved the page file all was well again. I also disabled the Raid first just to make sure it was not that and it wasn't.

So, even though this is not your issue, it could apply to someone who stumbles on this thread.

j razz

Christian de Godzinsky wrote on 1/20/2010, 6:10 AM

Hi,

Thanx 4 the comments and hint. I have no RAID, but my page file is on a secodary internal sata HD. Will try to move it back to C: and see if it has any impact.

Christian