Ever since the new Emerald update, my client has been running extremely slowly if I keep it open for more than an hour or so. Its memory usage gets as high as 900,000k, almost 1GB, and CPU usage is unusually high too. It gets so slow to the fact that if I lower all the graphics settings to minimum (except I still keep "nearby local lights" on), it's about as laggy as if I keep all graphics to maximum when running a normal client. Camera viewing is a tremendous pain in the butt and eyes too, since the dangerously low framerate makes it impossible to zoom into anything even with alt-zoom.
Is everyone else experiencing this? Or do I need a reinstall or something? o.x
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Memory usage for Emerald viewer |
|
|
Suki Hirano
冬の温暖
Join date: 30 May 2008
Posts: 172
|
10-21-2009 17:31
_____________________
空想の旋律
|
|
Raudf Fox
(ra-ow-th)
Join date: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 5,119
|
10-21-2009 17:47
Know, some others are experiencing it, from reading the Emerald Viewer's forums. I haven't let it run long enough to cause the leak to show for me, however.
Also another issue that I found the answer for is that for some reason, under preferences/network, the maximum bandwidth is set to 50, resulting in slow texture and object loading times. Setting it to 500 resolves that part. _____________________
DiamonX Studios, the place of the Victorian Times series of gowns and dresses - Located at http://slurl.com/secondlife/Fushida/224/176
Want more attachment points for your avatar's wearing pleasure? Then please vote for https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-1065? |
|
Lindal Kidd
Dances With Noobs
Join date: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 8,371
|
10-21-2009 17:47
I don't seem to have this problem
_____________________
It's still My World and My Imagination! So there.
Lindal Kidd |
|
Ceka Cianci
SuperPremiumExcaliburAcc#
Join date: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 4,489
|
10-21-2009 17:54
i'm pretty stable myself..i've been on for a couple of hours and i'm at 472,180k..
_____________________
|
|
Suki Hirano
冬の温暖
Join date: 30 May 2008
Posts: 172
|
10-21-2009 17:57
Know, some others are experiencing it, from reading the Emerald Viewer's forums. I haven't let it run long enough to cause the leak to show for me, however. Also another issue that I found the answer for is that for some reason, under preferences/network, the maximum bandwidth is set to 50, resulting in slow texture and object loading times. Setting it to 500 resolves that part. Mine is always at 500. But I notice that is only the tiny portion of the bar. Would it help if I set it in the thousands? _____________________
空想の旋律
|
|
LittleMe Jewell
...........
Join date: 8 Oct 2007
Posts: 11,319
|
10-21-2009 18:20
Mine is always at 500. But I notice that is only the tiny portion of the bar. Would it help if I set it in the thousands? _____________________
♥♥♥
-Lil Why do you sit there looking like an envelope without any address on it? ~Mark Twain~ Optimism is denial, so face the facts and move on. ♥♥♥ Lil's Yard Sale / Inventory Cleanout: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Triggerfish/52/27/22 . http://www.flickr.com/photos/littleme_jewell |
|
Alvaro Zapatero
O.o
Join date: 7 Jun 2008
Posts: 650
|
10-21-2009 18:56
Ever since the new Emerald update, my client has been running extremely slowly if I keep it open for more than an hour or so. The most recent update (Emerald Viewer 1.23.5 (950)) has proved to be significantly faster than my previous version. It has been a most welcome update. Mac OS X 10.6.1 _____________________
O.o
C |
|
LittleMe Jewell
...........
Join date: 8 Oct 2007
Posts: 11,319
|
10-21-2009 21:45
I monitored my Emerald resource usage this evening -- logged on for about 3 hours, with one crash. My cpu usage normally stayed around 50-60%, only sometimes spiking. My memory usage averaged at 1.1-1.2 gb, with a peak of 1.4 gb -- BUT I do have my cache set to 1000 mb and I'm guessing that is part of the memory usage number.
_____________________
♥♥♥
-Lil Why do you sit there looking like an envelope without any address on it? ~Mark Twain~ Optimism is denial, so face the facts and move on. ♥♥♥ Lil's Yard Sale / Inventory Cleanout: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Triggerfish/52/27/22 . http://www.flickr.com/photos/littleme_jewell |
|
LittleMe Jewell
...........
Join date: 8 Oct 2007
Posts: 11,319
|
10-21-2009 21:46
Suki -- Are you running the optimized version or the regular one? Some people have actually had better performance running the regular one. And did you install the extra performance pack on top of it?
_____________________
♥♥♥
-Lil Why do you sit there looking like an envelope without any address on it? ~Mark Twain~ Optimism is denial, so face the facts and move on. ♥♥♥ Lil's Yard Sale / Inventory Cleanout: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Triggerfish/52/27/22 . http://www.flickr.com/photos/littleme_jewell |
|
Briana Dawson
Attach to Mouth
Join date: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 5,855
|
10-21-2009 22:42
I run Emerald with everything at Max, including hardware graphic settings and it runs around 900megs.
_____________________
|
|
Conifer Dada
Hiya m'dooks!
Join date: 6 Oct 2006
Posts: 3,716
|
10-22-2009 01:53
I've found that Emerald seems to freeze up more than the normal viewer but seems less likely to crash as a result. Until yesterday, that is, when I found it had a new problem, when I was at a busy place. This was that when I started typing in chat, I froze completely and had to turn off the computer at the button and restart it from scratch. That happened several times.
Another thing I noticed with Emerald is that when the frame rate freezes up, the sound stream stops too - in the normal LL viewer the sound continues when I freeze. _____________________
|
|
DanDaMan Cuttita
Registered User
Join date: 10 Sep 2008
Posts: 1
|
Virgin Post
 10-23-2009 04:32
The most recent update (Emerald Viewer 1.23.5 (950)) has proved to be significantly faster than my previous version. It has been a most welcome update. Mac OS X 10.6.1 Ive been on SL for 2 years now and just installed the Emerald viewer. WOW, its blows my mind that LL would be the ones with the antiquated viewer..? and thanks to the residents posting this kind of infomation ! |
|
Suki Hirano
冬の温暖
Join date: 30 May 2008
Posts: 172
|
10-23-2009 07:21
Suki -- Are you running the optimized version or the regular one? Some people have actually had better performance running the regular one. And did you install the extra performance pack on top of it? Yes I am running the regular one. I also installed the only other file available for download, something about syncing voice functions, which is what you mean right? _____________________
空想の旋律
|
|
LittleMe Jewell
...........
Join date: 8 Oct 2007
Posts: 11,319
|
10-23-2009 08:39
Yes I am running the regular one. I also installed the only other file available for download, something about syncing voice functions, which is what you mean right? What is your OS? The Windows download page gives 3 files: Windows * Download the optimized windows binary here. o http://greenlifeemeraldviewer.googlecode.com/files/Emerald_Viewer_1.23.5.950.Windows.Opto.exe * If that crashes on you, download the normal version here. o http://greenlifeemeraldviewer.googlecode.com/files/Emerald_Viewer_1.23.5.950.Windows.Norm.exe * For voice capabilities, and overall faster performance, download the extra pack here. o http://greenlifeemeraldviewer.googlecode.com/files/Emerald_Viewer_1.23.5.x.Windows.Voice.exe The last one is the voice & performance pack. The first two are the actual viewer -- one is optimized for new machines. If you are running the 'normal' version, you could try the 'optimized' one. You can always install the other version into a new directory so that you don't lose the current one. _____________________
♥♥♥
-Lil Why do you sit there looking like an envelope without any address on it? ~Mark Twain~ Optimism is denial, so face the facts and move on. ♥♥♥ Lil's Yard Sale / Inventory Cleanout: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Triggerfish/52/27/22 . http://www.flickr.com/photos/littleme_jewell |
