NOTICE: This forum is mostly an archive, though new posts are allowed. Registration may require manual admin activation. After registering visit https://bitsum.com/contact/ to request account activation.
Started by Unico, October 05, 2019, 12:28:02 PM
Quote1 The "performance mode" management with automatic recognition (steam) that actually does its duty, but only for recognition, manually selecting the "performance mode" is not activated the same mode manually, in simple terms: automatically from steam the game it is pumped to the maximum (priority, etc.), for games that are not part of the aforementioned platform and with manual selection this does not happen.
Quote2 with the "jolly" characters (*) it is possible to enter complete routes, this is excellent, but it only works for the "performance mode" option, this does not work with the "cpu" "priority and affinity" options (otherwise manually I would solve the question of point 1)
Quote3 the saddest point, watchdog rules on lowering cpu or the cpu limiter function are useless, for what reason: Watchdog: if you set an application that reaches a % cpu, for must use less cores, even if you then release power, the aforementioned application will not recover anymore, remaining always low. Cpu limiter: even if you set a limit % cpu you cannot decide on which cores to act because the choice is automatic.
QuoteI think that if you add the "check every xxx time" function to watchdog, you will not need to have the cpu limiter function.
Quote"set a second Watchdog rule to restore the process's CPU affinity when it is under the target threshold", it is a paradox? We end up "playing ping-pong" with the application settings?
QuoteThe solution would be to be able to set the rule on the global % CPU option and not on the used % Cpu of the application
Quote- Or (another crazy idea XD) to be able to set in the rules that: with the start of a path/* or application the xxxx applications have activated the rules (lowering priorities, cores, etc.) Practically cross-cutting rules.
Quote from: Unico on October 16, 2019, 05:46:39 AMThank you for your diligent and exhaustive answer.After several tests I reduced the "previous responsiveness question" to the minimum by manually and more intervening on the "priority class" options.Bearing in mind that the "Real Time" setting is rightly not recommended and therefore not to be used, and that "idle" is for really static processes (practically applications are active but completely stopped, so better not to do manually), keeping a "detached, between groups" setting as I have shown in the image, there is a marked improvement
Quote from: Unico on October 17, 2019, 02:14:55 PMSpecific that, if in the aforementioned groups, a path "*" is placed, which shows that there is a system service or application, the aforementioned services or applications unfortunately are not excluded.
Quotein the ..0.11 version I noticed that the text in the graph does not change any more the color of the energy's profile title.
Quote from: Unico on October 31, 2019, 01:15:08 AMClarification: In the graph the color of the text regarding the energy profile, no more change like the rest, now it always remains black (custom theme, custom colors).I find it very difficult to use watchdog rules or cpu limiter, because they don't interpret the "global cpu", so I don't use them. O_TMy priority rules are quite essential, but unfortunately many applications have parallel paths, manage them one by one, active or inactive etc etc, "it is to pull heads to the wall", better to simplify with "paths *"
QuoteClarification: In the graph the color of the text regarding the energy profile, no more change like the rest, now it always remains black (custom theme, custom colors).
Quote from: Unico on November 02, 2019, 06:14:50 AMA question, the function in the options: "Main-Performance Mode enabled" is practically the setting: "Options-Power .." and therefore only manages the energy profile or does it have other "its" additional functions to increase performance, if yes, which one are they?Thank you in advance.
Quote from: Unico on February 04, 2020, 08:58:30 PMKindly ask a question, which is mostly a curiosity about possible settings:Creating manual rules on system applications (example: exclude from balancing) and still having the "do not act on system service" setting active, doesn't it create problems?How any rules that "intersect" doing the "same thing"?I sincerely thank you in advance
Quote from: Unico on April 20, 2020, 01:11:25 PMI specific: Applications set with an affinity different from normal (normal=pc standard all cores) become excluded by ProBalance? I thank.