Major lagging when copying

Hi :slight_smile:

I don't know if it's just me, but Dopus 10 generates major lagging when I copy or move folders. My system becomes virtually unuseable :frowning:

FYI I am running several RAID-systems. Don't know if that might have some interest for the devs.

Anyone else having this problem?

Best regards from Copenhagen:)

Does it stop if you minimize the progress dialog?

Chances are either your anti-virus or your hardware drivers are doing something wrong, unless the hardware really can't keep up.

I run into this all the time and it's a Windows problem. I have it happen on every Windows system, DOpus or not. For some reason when copying large files Windows starts pushing everything in memory out to the paging file. If you let a copy run for more than a few minutes, then try to do something else, the hard drive will start working like crazy and it'll take forever to get anything done. For example, I can copy a 4 GB file from my laptop to my home file server over wireless. It takes a long time because I only get ~5 MB/s but for some reason if I leave for five minutes and come back, then try to start Firefox, the hard drive light will suddenly go from flashing once a second or so to solid on. It'll take Firefox about 20 seconds before the window will even appear.

I don't know what the hell Windows is doing in the background but I wish I could turn it off.

The process/thread(s) "competes" for IO resources, so if more than one process/thread does something with
the same drive at a time, it doesn't seem to give priority to either one.
This makes havoc on the drive as windows switches which process/thread gets to read/write some milliseconds
apart, hence making the drive head(s) first do some of the first, then the next, etc, which creates
lots of lag (I guess ssd's would be more or less excempt due to almost no access/seektime, although I haven't tested).

In other words, copying from C: to somewhere (especially if the source->destination is fast, or C:) while
at the same time starting firefox (which loads from C:) slows down both significantly.

So, if the above is true, then leo's "hardware can't keep up" would be true.

Thanks for all the replies :slight_smile:

Problem is, that I had no problems with Dopus9. And no new software or hardware installed. And I can copy fine with Windows explorer.

Is there some kind of program out there which can check what actually happens in the backround?

Dopus 10 take like 30% of the CPU ressources according to taskmanager. But I suspect some kind of problem between Dopus10 and the Intel Rapid Storage Tech. program.... but it's just a stomach feeling...

Best regards,
Ironhand

Does it stop if you minimize the progress dialog?

In the General slowdown or instability investigation steps FAQ, try the links for Try W0lfdale's suggestion about using Process Explorer to test whether a particular driver is involved with the slowdown.

(Some of the other suggestions may also be worth a try if that doesn't reveal anything.)

@leo: Thanks alot :slight_smile: I'll try that out right away and report back!

Best regards,
Viggo

hmmm, "W0lfdale's suggestions" are more comprehensive than I thought so it will take some time to get through the list.

For now I can confirm, that the problem only arises when I copy from one RAID10 array to another RAID10.

I'll get back if I ever find a solution or something interesting to add :slight_smile:

Until then - thanks :slight_smile:

:slight_smile: On desktop machines, RAID seems to cause more problems than it solves in my experience.

Maybe if you spend a billion dollars on enterprise-quality RAID controllers, or really do your homework on the right cards to buy, it's okay, but my (very) limited experience of consumer RAID put me off bothering with it. Slow, uses lots of CPU, often less reliable on than off, and terrible monitoring/warning/status tools.

it's true Leo...

First I tried with softwarebased RAID (many many years ago) = lost all data
Then I bought a Buffalo NAS drive with RAID = lost all data
Now I got an expensive PROMISE controller-card with 8 HD attached (2 x RAID 10). It's actually ok, but still in the "cheap end". But I haven't had problems with RAID now for 3 years and in that period I've lost 2 HD. Swapping them worked nice and also the re-construction of the damaged HD.

But still - it's not a good sign (and I guess no coincidence) that Dopus9 copied well but 10 makes problems. Doesn't means that dopus 10 is faulty ... but still..

Have you tried going back to Opus 9 and copying the same files to the same places?

Nothing much has changed in the way Opus copies files so I'd be surprised if the version change is more than just a coincidence (unless the different versions are being seen differently by anti-virus or something like that, which is possible).

Changing copy_buffer_size in Preferences / Miscellaneous / Advanced may be worth a try, FWIW.

I'll try the buffersize first and then downgrading dopus for testing.

It sounds strange but first it copies normal.... after one or two minutes ist starts with the laggig.... a few minutes more and I cannot access the DOPUS windows etc. and the system gets slower and slower... and a few minutes more DOPUS crashes:

Problemsignatur:
Problemereignisname: AppHangB1
Anwendungsname: dopus.exe
Anwendungsversion: 4.0.1.15
Anwendungszeitstempel: 4dbe0742
Absturzsignatur: 317a
Absturztyp: 4
Betriebsystemversion: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
Gebietsschema-ID: 1031
Zusätzliche Absturzsignatur 1: 317a2cd853c8cf24a0f549dd4d876802
Zusätzliche Absturzsignatur 2: 8ee9
Zusätzliche Absturzsignatur 3: 8ee9dfc050c49753d980f62b6a0cfeca
Zusätzliche Absturzsignatur 4: 9532
Zusätzliche Absturzsignatur 5: 95327f00597323dcfc1cfe7b9d4ba310
Zusätzliche Absturzsignatur 6: ac10
Zusätzliche Absturzsignatur 7: ac10a0f68c2474f24e099868033901a2

Sorry, stupid question for a newbie, but what's a "good" buffer size? It's on 64 KB by default.

I also had to enlarge the copy buffer size for my FTP and set it to 65536 bytes or else I had serious problems copying anything on my FTP server.

Best regards
Viggo

Try smaller & larger values. The one that works best depends on the hardware/drivers.

Tried all kinds of buffer sizes: 8,16,32,64,128,256 and up to 16384. Nothing worked.

... and then... THE SOLUTION!

Installed a new ATI driver for my GFX-card = problem gone!

Thanks for all your help here in the forum :thumbsup: