Multi-tasking performance

[tmw]

I have XP Home on a laptop, and it seems when it multi-tasks, the performance drops off a cliff. I'm not talking about extensive multi-tasking, but just simple things.

For example, if copying media from a 2 GB SD card, and writing to an external hard drive, the two tasks (in series) take like 2 minutes each. But, if I start one then start the other, the combined tasks take like 20 minutes. It's like the computer just sits there thinking what should I do instead of doing anything.

Anyone else every observe this? It's also true for tasks like exporting files, running internet explorer, or basically anything. Things that in series go reasonably quickly seem to take forever when done in parallel with something else.

Is this particular to Win XP home? I have all the latest Microsoft updates.

Thanks!

[poisondeathray]

The bottleneck might be CPU (e.g. single core, or dual core) and/or hard drive related. It might help if you added more information to your profile.

[tmw]

I updated my profile, fwiw. CPU is not maxed out (watch in process explorer), and neither is hard drive. Laptop is an Acer TM290.

If something like that were limiting, doing two different jobs eaching taking 2 minutes each in series would end up taking 4 minutes total. What I experience is that doing the 2 minute jobs in parallel actually takes 20 minutes.

Any better guesses?

[aedipuss]

what you are experiencing sounds like i/o bus congestion. when you are trying to move multiple things at the same time with the same priority the i/o bus controller will start one job stop it start another stop it on and on, wasting lots of cycles. kind of like two way traffic on a single lane road with a minimum wage hardhat directing traffic. it's got nothing to do with windows or the cpu, just the i/o bus and the motherboard controller.

[edDV]

Centrino 1.3Ghz ???

[tmw]

Centrino 1.3Ghz ???

Yeah, it's like 5 years old, but still works. The 40 GB hard drive was a total challenge, but it makes the 120 GB seem wonderful. To quote the sticker (still on it)

Blazing Fast Intel (r) Pentium (r) M Processor 1.30GHz

It does have a DVD burner, at 2x.

So, is this just the crappy Intel motherboard issue? Is there any like updates until I finally upgrade?

[redwudz]

If you only have 512MB RAM on that computer, it may help to upgrade that to 1GB. This is more common a problem if your RAM is minimal and the OS is using the page file to make up for it. Easy enough to spot. Try a fairly RAM intensive program and see if your hard drive light flickers a lot. Then added RAM may help. RAM is fairly cheap at present and it certainly won't hurt to upgrade it.

Most major RAM suppliers, like Crucial, Kingston, and others have online configuration programs to tell you exactly what you need if you tell them your brand and model. Once you know what type you need, you can also shop for it for a good price online.

[jagabo]

The situation you're describing, two processes copying files around, will be drive limited. You may not be using all the possible bandwidth the drive can support but a bunch of seeking by two process on the same drive will slow it down to a crawl. Especially slow laptop drives.

[tmw]

Redwudz, I'm pretty aware of the RAM issue, and I totally agree the upgrade wouldn't hurt. However it happens for non-memory intensive operations too.

One example includes when running vob2mpg. Doing that in parallel with copying files to a USB drives makes the two tasks take 5-10 times longer than it would otherwise.

My hard drive access doesn't seem to be the limiting factor, because it's not speed of operations. It's more like it can't decide what to do, so it does everything at a very, very slow pace. aedipuss' description sounds the most accurate--although least actionable.

Thanks everyone, and let me know if you have ideas on a fix, other than the RAM upgrade, and training the user.

[jagabo]

One example includes when running vob2mpg. Doing that in parallel with copying files to a USB drives makes the two tasks take 5-10 times longer than it would otherwise.

Again, unless you are talking about operations involving 4 separate drives, you are describing a situation that is drive (seek) speed limited. Once two processes are accessing different parts of a drive the heads have to seek back and forth. That can reduce throughput by an order of magnitude.

[guns1inger]

Bare in mid to that this will most likely be a 5400 rpm laptop 2.5 " drive, so it is slow to begin with, and being asked to do two disc intensive tasks at once. It has to time share itself between the two tasks, hence the delays. If you are patient and run the tasks consecutively instead of concurrently, you will probably find that they actually take less time.