Windows Performance Options when frameserving

craftech wrote on 4/25/2013, 9:38 AM

I never thought about this until just today so I was wondering if anyone had any ideas about it.

Under Windows Performance Options (I still use XP Pro but it pertains to Windows 7 as well) there are two choices under Processor Scheduling:

1. Programs

2. Background Services

According to Microsoft,

• Click Programs to assign more processor resources to the foreground program than the background program
• Click Background services to assign equal amounts of processor resources to all programs.

Most everyone I know leaves it set to Programs.

But if you are frameserving Vegas to another program you are actually running TWO programs simultaneously so I wonder if Background Services would not be a better choice.

Any thoughts?

John

To access:
System / Advanced / Performance / Advanced

Comments

fldave wrote on 4/25/2013, 9:42 AM

I always set it to background services. With all of the hundreds of things going on in the machine, with everything trying to talk to each other, I thought it made more sense to even things out. I have no performance numbers to back it up, just a hunch.

craftech wrote on 4/25/2013, 10:01 AM

Well I am also running Vegas 8 which is not GPU dependent like Vegas 10, 11, 12 so maybe it will be harder to compare.

John

ritsmer wrote on 4/25/2013, 10:41 AM

Windows assigns processing time to the running tasks in small time-slices.

Changing from one task to another costs some overhead, of course - i.e the CPU must use many cycles for writing the tasks registers and pointers to the RAM and then read the next tasks registers and pointers from RAM.

Imagine that the time-slices are very, very short - then - theoretically - the CPU might spend more time for the changing-tasks-overhead than for real work.

Having very small time-slices is mandatory for single-core or dual-core processors in order to avoid the feeling that programs lag or stutter when waiting for getting their next time-slice - for a user watching his computers monitor.
But when you have 4 or more cores available it becomes less mandatory to keep the time-slices small - since there is a big probability that a task needing a slice might get it fast.

AFAIK setting Windows to "background" also sets the time slices to be longer - and so wastes less time for the many changes from task to task.

So: for a 4 or more core CPU you get more CPU power for your programs and less for Windows overhead it you set Windows to "background programs".

craftech wrote on 4/25/2013, 1:16 PM

Thanks Einar,

That makes perfect sense.

John

NormanPCN wrote on 4/25/2013, 3:46 PM

Programs simply gives a boost to the foreground process. That boost can be a thread priority boost, or longer time slices. Way back it was a priority boost and at some point it became a slice boost. I don't know what it is these days, but it is whatever MS current thinking is best.

If you have a foreground process communicating with a background process, then you do not need to worry about the background getting starved in any way. If the foreground is waiting on the background for something the "boosted" foreground is waiting, and thus not doing anything, and thus not using CPU cycles, and thus those cycles are available for something else to use.