FM 10 still doesn't use multiple cores?

[Mark Welch]

I've been surprised to find that FileMaker Pro cannot use multiple cores (e.g. dual-core or quad-core CPUs). I noticed this while testing FileMaker Pro 9 last month, and today I installed FileMaker Pro 10 Advanced, and still notice only a 50% CPU utilization. I'm using Windows XP SP3 on a dual-core 2.8GHz Intel CPU with 4GB RAM.

I'm working on a project to propegate a company's inventory data (about 40,000 products) into Google AdWords keywords (about 80,000 keywords) and text ads (about 30,000 text ads, after excluding certain inventory items based on specific criteria).

My current script sequence takes about 3-4 hours to run, when maxed out at 50% as shown by Windows Task Manager. If I'm using the computer for other tasks, I often see FileMaker's utilization drop to 15% to 30%, so it takes much longer.

An obvious question would be, if I decide to buy a new, faster computer, what factors will be most important for FileMaker performance? I assume that raw CPU speed is important; how important would factors like bus speed and cache size be for FileMaker performance? Is there any chance that performance might be better if I use Vista?

Hopefully I will soon find ways to optimize my scripts to reduce the execution time, but I'd appreciate any feedback, suggestions, etc.

Thanks!

Edited January 14, 2009 by Guest

[Dave Graham]

I've been surprised to find that FileMaker Pro cannot use multiple cores (e.g. dual-core or quad-core CPUs).

FM Pro can't but FM Server can. That said, individual tasks are likely not threaded so you may find that one long operation pegs only a single core regardless of whether you are using Server or Pro.

My current script sequence takes about 3-4 hours to run, when maxed out at 50% as shown by Windows Task Manager.

I'd really think about ways to optimize the routine, or let it run after hours.

An obvious question would be, if I decide to buy a new, faster computer, what factors will be most important for FileMaker performance? I assume that raw CPU speed is important; how important would factors like bus speed and cache size be for FileMaker performance?

The most important factor is disk speed, and using a RAID is the way to go. CPU comes next; the faster the better. Memory is cheap and FileMaker can only use so much of it. I wouldn't upgrade your memory much farther than the stock config. Anything over 3-4 GBs is likely going to be wasted unless you are doing other stuff that hogs resources.

Is there any chance that performance might be better if I use Vista?

I suspect you'll have a better chance of sprouting wings and flying to the moon than to get better performance out of Vista.

[Genx]

I suspect you'll have a better chance of sprouting wings and flying to the moon than to get better performance out of Vista.

Stop hating on vista. It was crap at the beginning but so was XP - I have no complaints whatsoever about its performance since SP1 and wouldn't go back to XP if I was paid.

Provided you actually have a PC that has the right hardware for vista (easily build one for less than $700AUD) - you should never have any problems getting more performance out of it than you would with XP.

[Mark Welch]

I certainly agree with the notion of "running it after hours" -- but that limits me to only one cycle per day, which means many weeks to debug. That's just not acceptable. {I'm also reluctant to insert "limiting code" during the debugging process (for example, "process only the first 500 records in the source file," or "process only every Nth record in the source file") because that adds more debugging time to get that code working properly, and more time later to remove it.}

Making matters worse, my system restarted itself last night (I assume this was the latest auto-update of Windows), interrupting the script and abnormally terminating FileMaker. That's another day wasted.

My question about Vista was serious. In particular, I understand that XP has some limitations on memory usage; I've been told that XP doesn't really benefit from memory above 3GB.

I assume that the reference to RAID is referring to configurations with a hardware (not software) RAID controller that can read/write multiple disks simultaneously, and of course 3+ disks (more=faster), which increases cost further. Once we start talking about these more advanced configurations, we're talking about a substantial extra investment of time to get those set up and learn how they work, and of course if any problems arise that's a further distraction.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Guest

[Dave Graham]

Stop hating on vista.[...]

I don't hate Vista, I just have found it to be generally slower than XP; with or without SP1. Every benchmark that I've seen and my own experience with Vista tells me that it's at best even with XP if you turn off some of the expensive options. I've never seen or heard reported that Vista can actually run faster than XP, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

All that being said, even if you were to eek out a small drop of performance from Vista over XP it still wouldn't solve the problem in this post.

- Dave

[Dave Graham]

My question about Vista was serious. In particular, I understand that XP has some limitations on memory usage; I've been told that XP doesn't really benefit from memory above 3GB.

Both XP and Vista 32-bit both have a 4 GB maximum address space. That said, there are other resources such as video cards whose memory resides within that space as well. So even if you do have 4 GBs of memory, your total available memory could be as low as 3 GBs; it depends on your system.

Even if Vista allowed you to access more memory, 3 GBs is way more than FileMaker Pro can make use of so there's no benefit to be had there.

I assume that the reference to RAID is referring to configurations with a hardware (not software) RAID controller that can read/write multiple disks simultaneously, and of course 3+ disks (more=faster), which increases cost further. Once we start talking about these more advanced configurations, we're talking about a substantial extra investment of time to get those set up and learn how they work, and of course if any problems arise that's a further distraction.

A newer computer without a decent RAID is not likely going to make a huge impact unless your current workstation is underpowered and/or old. If you can't solve the problem with hardware, you're left with optimization techniques.

[Genx]

As a general note, not that I think the extra ram would help, the 64bit versions of vista (and XP) support up to 128GB of ram.

[Dave Graham]

As a general note, not that I think the extra ram would help, the 64bit versions of vista (and XP) support up to 128GB of ram.

I didn't mention it because FileMaker is not 64 bit and if anything would run slower on a 64 bit Windows OS.

[Genx]

I didn't mention it because FileMaker is not 64 bit.

... Yes but the OS is and we weren't talking about the RAM utilization limitations of FileMaker, but of the OS. In any case, as I said before, its irrelevant, just thought it was a fun fact.

[KirkR]

My current script sequence takes about 3-4 hours to run, when maxed out at 50% as shown by Windows Task Manager.

Mark,

Kirk here again - what is this script that takes 3-4 hours to run? Don't necessarily need to see code, but what is the function performed.

Again, I think there are simple design changes that might make massive performance improvements.