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 chris635, March 04, 2015, 08:25:05 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Collake on March 15, 2015, 02:44:54 PMThe BF4 issue would be non-critical at best. I can deduce what is likely occurring with reasonable certainty, and don't consider it a real concern (other than user perception).The only other possibility of a PID ever appearing to change would be if the GUI (Process Lasso in this case), somehow had a delayed reaction to a new instance of that process.Otherwise, it's relaunching itself, or another Gaming Mode process, and causing Gaming Mode to toggle off/on during the same iteration. This will be low priority, just for business/time sake.I am not sure about SmartTrim never operating when 'No Limits' is specified. There may be additional variables at work there. Still analyzing it.
Quote from: chris635 on March 15, 2015, 04:49:16 PMOn my main rig smart trim is working again with letting it decide with no limits. The only thing changed was my monitoring program for temperatures etc. I'll check my lap top soon.
Quote from: chris635 on March 15, 2015, 01:17:49 PMIf I open it in notepad it is spaced all over the place. If I open it with excel, it's a little difficult to read.
Quote from: chris635 on March 16, 2015, 12:49:28 PMSmart trim, letting it decide with no limit seems to be working well!
Quote from: chris635 on March 16, 2015, 12:54:02 PMwe'll it's a good thing I'm a lifetimer.
Quote from: Jeremy Collake on March 16, 2015, 12:57:19 PMUnfortunately for Bitsum, I don't get the recurring revenue most software companies get from their loyal user bases. I'm working on a way to solve that.
Quote from: chris635 on March 16, 2015, 01:05:38 PMwell that sucks, I'll gladly do what I can, hopefully soon (3 kids eat up everything...LOL!). There is you and one other guy that I want to help a little more than just buying their products.
Quote from: Jeremy Collake on March 16, 2015, 01:21:18 PMThat's noble of you, but, if there is one thing the world has taught me -- it's this: You (me), and you alone, have the capacity to earn. Begging, donations, or just doing all the good will in the world will *never* pay your rent. Thus, I try to strike a reasonable compromise, while at the same time *producing*.
Quote from: Jeremy Collake on March 17, 2015, 11:47:44 AMI'll know more in final testing here. I'll discover then if any problems remain.I've set a tentative release date of the 21st.
Quote from: edkiefer on March 17, 2015, 04:27:48 PMok, It did just trim Palemoon with 95%/256mb setting .Palemoon runs around 750-1gig memory load and system load is around 30% .
Quote from: Jeremy Collake on March 18, 2015, 10:28:28 AMThe confusion may be whether the two settings are an AND or an OR.Does it take both to match, or just one? This is something I'll make clear soon.
Quote from: chris635 on March 17, 2015, 08:01:36 PMGuys, it will probably be Friday before I can test some more on my end. Work has gotten really busy for me.
Quote from: edkiefer on March 18, 2015, 11:03:15 AMyes, The per process values seems to working ok .I had it set to just under 1 gig and my browser only got trimmed when it went past it ,so like (13trims)4hrs of 0trim and then 1 trim once past .Now I think the ram load global% should if right work if many smaller app add up to past threshold% .I have to test this part , not sure how easy it will be .
Quote from: edkiefer on March 18, 2015, 01:14:03 PMThat would be good , right now it looks like per-processes x MB function ,doesn't matter as to what the load value is .I had browser set to trigger and minload ram was way above my overall system usage and it still trimmed once browser went over per-processes MB value .
Quote from: Jeremy Collake on March 18, 2015, 01:15:45 PMRight. They are independent of each other, but I'm considering whether I desire such or not. Should they be tied together? Opinions?
Quote from: Jeremy Collake on March 18, 2015, 11:17:58 AMWell then, you're fired! Just kidding, always wanted to say that. You don't need to explain anything to us. Disappear for weeks at a time if you choose, we all know how life is.
Quote from: chris635 on March 18, 2015, 04:55:33 PM Don't fire me yet...please sir! Got some time here. So far trim seems to be working great. Manually entering numbers, using the slider and using arrow keys to move numbers up and down work just fine. Working set is triming good. I'll test on my end for greater than 25% ram usage tonight.Chris
Quote from: edkiefer on March 18, 2015, 05:27:20 PMThe top slider min_ram% is not working for me, the bottom per-process xMb does work here .
Quote from: chris635 on March 18, 2015, 05:41:14 PMhey ed, I checked again, and the ram% slider moves up and down adjusting the percentage numbers and stays to where I assign it. Is the the issue?
Quote from: edkiefer on March 18, 2015, 05:52:38 PMNo, I don't mean that way, both sliders work and save proper values in ini file .What I mean is how trim works by changing the sliders .here try this put bottom slider to 25mb , set top slider to way over your ram load, like 75% (in this case I still get a trim ).Now set top slider to 20% (much lower than ram load) and set bottom per=process to higher than any process (2000mb) and see what you get in each case .In this case I get no trim .So in these examples I don't think top slider is working right , but bottom works no matter what top slider is .Now like we were saying, there 2 ways for it to be coded , either independently for each slider or need both sliders to be true before trim works .Jeremy says it should be independently .
Quote from: Jeremy Collake on March 18, 2015, 07:08:51 PMYea, it's a logic design issue. Do both values have to match before a trim, or only one. I'm going with both for future versions.
Quote from: chris635 on March 18, 2015, 07:24:16 PMokay I see now. As you can see, my ram load was over 10% and it did not trim.
Quote from: edkiefer on March 18, 2015, 07:26:01 PMright, that is what I meant .Anyway Jeremy going to alter it so should be fine then .