Sluggish Menus

[RobDMB]

I'm using sagetv with the pvr 350 and I am using the tv out function over to my tv. The tv out seems to work pretty well but I have found that the sagetv menu gets extremely sluggish. At times it takes up to 5 seconds after I push the button on the remote to actually make the change on screen. Is anyone else experiencing these problems? Thanks

[dagar]

Have you checked your CPU utilization during such times?

[bluenote]

I've had this problem as have some other people ... pauses, where stored keystrokes will eventually flow through all at once. I believe the cpu utilization is at 100% at these times, but Im not 100% sure.
I dont know that there's a solve, I think people found that one beta version caused it, and another solved it, but Ive only ever run 2.1 so I dont know what to think.

I do want to fix it, but beyond searching the forum it doesnt happen often enough to piss me off yet.

FWIW

Cory

[dagar]

That's when it has happened to me as well. And I was using FFDShow at a higher capability than I had capacity for

[Steve525]

Yes, I've experienced this, too. I made a similar request for guidance here. You check the other thread for details. I did manage to speed things up somewhat, because it turned out my processor was underclocked. (The motherboard manual had a mistake in it).

[cmaffia]

The question is are people who complain about problems with Sage (regardless of version) using STV's or other modifciations? Try duplicating your problems with a virginal installation. I know almost all of my complaints about sage are due to the STV's I am using. Currently the ONLY STV I have had any stability with is the old MLBDUDE2 for 2.0 (and I am even using it in 2.2.1 beta at the moment with no complaints. It's amazing how sageTV varies in performance from one STV to another. Studio developers should be trying to focus more on mods that have stability rather than all the bells and whistles they import.

[ToxMox]

I haven't had any stability issues with any of the STVs that I've used.

[cmaffia]

Originally Posted by ToxMox

I haven't had any stability issues with any of the STVs that I've used.

ROBDMB - Yes I have experienced this as well as two people I work with (I am a SageTV Evangelist at my job! )

TOXMOX - No offense, but I think you might represent a small percentage.

I don't think anyone would dispute that Sage is most reliable "out of the box" so to speak.

I've noticed that with the recent STV's that have every STV out there wrapped up in one, there are performance issues and anomolies that occur specifically with UI performance.

I can't be the only one who has come to this conclusion am I?

I am by no means knocking any of the incredible work and time that has been put into these STV's but as a consumer, the enhancements only go so far when core stability is compromised.

[Cayars]

Try running a couple of these other STVs against a 2.0.20 installation and see if there is any reliability issue. Short of having Comskip turned off and not having a couple of the new 2.1 features present you will see no slowdown/pauses or other reliability issues. Then run the same setup against 2.1/2.2 and see what happens. Then decide for yourself.

[cmaffia]

Originally Posted by Cayars

Try running a couple of these other STVs against a 2.0.20 installation and see if there is any reliability issue. Short of having Comskip turned off and not having a couple of the new 2.1 features present you will see no slowdown/pauses or other reliability issues. Then run the same setup against 2.1/2.2 and see what happens. Then decide for yourself.

So are you implying that it's the versions of SageTV after v2.0.20 that are the cause for unstability? This has not been my experience. What I have experienced is that STV's that state they are for v2.1 or higher make SageTV very flakey. Perhaps you are implying the same? Are you saying if I used your STV and used it in v2.0.20, aside from missing some new features, will it will run better?

[Cayars]

Yes, that is what I'm implying, but it's easy to test yourself without even resorting to "other" STVs. Just run 2.0 out of the box (OriginalV2) and then move up to 2.1/2.2 using OriginalV2 and you'll notice a difference. If you want to try this set up perfmon and setup some counters with logging. Then do the same for 2.1/2.2 and look at the differences in system performance. Much higher in 2.1/2.2.

2.0.20 just ran well and had great reliability. 2.2 just isn't as reliable as 2.0 was (yet) but is better then 2.1. If you don't have a need for the newer features in 2.1/2.2 then you might be better off staying at 2.0 for another point release or upgrade and live with a pause/glitch here and there.

If I do the test mentioned above on a 3.2GHz computer I don't notice much difference on either computer, but if I do the same on a 1.7GHz computer there is a noticable difference in resources.

[cmaffia]

Originally Posted by Cayars

Yes, that is what I'm implying, but it's easy to test yourself without even resorting to "other" STVs. Just run 2.0 out of the box (OriginalV2) and then move up to 2.1/2.2 using OriginalV2 and you'll notice a difference. If you want to try this set up perfmon and setup some counters with logging. Then do the same for 2.1/2.2 and look at the differences in system performance. Much higher in 2.1/2.2.

2.0.20 just ran well and had great reliability. 2.2 just isn't as reliable as 2.0 was (yet) but is better then 2.1. If you don't have a need for the newer features in 2.1/2.2 then you might be better off staying at 2.0 for another point release or upgrade and live with a pause/glitch here and there.

If I do the test mentioned above on a 3.2GHz computer I don't notice much difference on either computer, but if I do the same on a 1.7GHz computer there is a noticable difference in resources.

You should make a 2.0 version of your STV or will it work in 2.0 as is. I love it (minus the UI problems of 2.1)

[bluenote]

I have to agree with Cayars on this one. Im not using any STV's and I get this issue.

Cmaffia: while I see your point (if you customize and DIY things, don't be surprised if you break it) I think you're being a little quick to make assumptions.

As evidenced by at least my experience.

I might try 2.2 tonight and see if it makes a difference.
If anyone else has a surefire fix please post.
thx

Cory

[cmaffia]

Originally Posted by cnovak

I have to agree with Cayars on this one. Im not using any STV's and I get this issue.

Cmaffia: while I see your point (if you customize and DIY things, don't be surprised if you break it) I think you're being a little quick to make assumptions.

As evidenced by at least my experience.

I might try 2.2 tonight and see if it makes a difference.
If anyone else has a surefire fix please post.
thx

Cory

I am not being quick at all with my statement. I came to my conclusion after playing with sage for hours every day for the last 6 months on 2 of my PC's and helping two other friends with their setup. In fact Cayars and I kinda came to the same conclusion from different ends.

On another note I am using the latest beta with MlbDude2.stv and I am not seeing any difference between 2.o and the current beta. My CPU utilization for playing and recording fluctuates between 17%-22%. I am not getting any sluggish menus with the beta so far. Check my specs below if you want to compare basic setup.

[ToxMox]

You should be making your comparisons with older versions of Sage and newer versions while running the corresponding OriginalV2.stv for each version since a lot of changes have occurred in the OriginalV2.stv and since you are testing with mlbdude2.stv it doesn't have the latest updates that the current originalv2.stv has. mlbdude2 was built from the originalv2.stv that was available with 2.0 in July. A lot has changed since then. So it could be something in the later stvs that has changed and is causing your problems since most of the recent ones were built off the latest OriginalV2.stv

[cmaffia]

Originally Posted by ToxMox

You should be making your comparisons with older versions of Sage and newer versions while running the corresponding OriginalV2.stv for each version since a lot of changes have occurred in the OriginalV2.stv and since you are testing with mlbdude2.stv it doesn't have the latest updates that the current originalv2.stv has. mlbdude2 was built from the originalv2.stv that was available with 2.0 in July. A lot has changed since then. So it could be something in the later stvs that has changed and is causing your problems since most of the recent ones were built off the latest OriginalV2.stv

I did my tests with the originalv2.stv and mlbdude2. They were absolutely the same CPU cycles and performance.
I chose to keep using mlbdude2.stv. My feeling too is that it is something with the later STV's because I am using 2.2.1 with an older stv just fine

[ToxMox]

What I'm saying is to help narrow down your problem did you experience any differences in performance with older versions of the OriginalV2 vs the current one?

[cmaffia]

Originally Posted by ToxMox

What I'm saying is to help narrow down your problem did you experience any differences in performance with older versions of the OriginalV2 vs the current one?

Yes thats what I meant I tested both Originalv2 in 2.0 and 2.1/beta and did the same for mlbdude2 and saw no difference in performance.

However, 2.1 STV's .. yes
It seems the more the STV's do the more CPU demanding Sage becomes

MLBDUDE2.STV is on the light side so this may be why I dont have problems with it regarding performance

[mls]

Strange, 2.1 has always been more sluggish than 2.0 on my machines even with their own OriginalV2.stv. However, I will agree that adding more features/functionality in custom STV's does tend to slow things down somewhat more, but I think that's because v2.1 isn't all that good to start with. The custom STV's for v2.0 didn't have quite as noticable slowdown simply because v2.0 was better in that area than v2.1 is.

How much of this is at SageTV's core or in the STV itself I don't know. Only know v2.0 does run much better than 2.1 (and very likely also better then v2.2) at this point in time.

[Opus4]

I might have missed this in the previous posts... has this been tried in the latest beta, currently: v2.2.1? I heard about a bug where the import library would get rescanned too often & would slow things down especially if there is a lot of media to scan. This issue should be improved in 2.2.1 & isn't STV-related.

(As usual, please submit bug reports when trying the beta.)

- Andy