Possible bug in Connect X7 on local drives.
One of the first things I noticed with connect is the huge performance improvements, looks as though they are relying on Microsoft indexing more heavily compared to X6, this is good.
However, I am seeing a huge lag in new files being displayed in connect; this is because it is not displaying files unless they are indexed.
To duplicate, simply create a new .cdr or .cpt file in a folder and see if it appears in connect right after saving. Then wait awhile and you will see it appear after windows updates the indexes.
Also, I noticed a sizable increase in CPU utilization compared to X6 that is not released when closing connect, requiring a restart of the search process.
Can someone verify this?
Anyone?
You are correct about Windows indexing...CONNECT won't show results unit the location is indexed.
Can you give me more details on the CPU issue? Which locations were you searching? How many searches had you preformed? What kind of content (jpg, png...) were you searching for? Any info you can share with us would help us track this one down.
T.
Hmm... This could be a problem with solid-state drives because it's recommended to turn off indexing for SSDs so the drives last longer. Well, it's good to know anyway.
I wonder if this is why I couldn't see the bitmap fills that I downloaded in my Connect tray.
PixelDust said:it's recommended to turn off indexing for SSDs
I've never heard anybody recommend that. Are you thinking of turning off defragmentation? Or is this just a hangover from the SSDs of the previous century?
Logically, turning off indexing will probably if any thing increase the wear on the SSD. When you index the drive, windows indexes the drive once and builds a database of its filenames and keywords so that it can find files many times without the need to search the entire drive again. It then, presumably, keeps track of new files as they are added and modified and only needs to fully reindex occasionally. But if the drive is not indexed, then windows must access the actual drive every time you perform a keyword search, rather than just looking it up in the index database.
It is also slightly questionable to buy an SSD -- supposedly to improve speed -- and then turn off beneficial services to make it less efficient.
harryLondon said: I've never heard anybody recommend that. Are you thinking of turning off defragmentation? Or is this just a hangover from the SSDs of the previous century? Logically, turning off indexing will probably if any thing increase the wear on the SSD. When you index the drive, windows indexes the drive once and builds a database of its filenames and keywords so that it can find files many times without the need to search the entire drive again. It then, presumably, keeps track of new files as they are added and modified and only needs to fully reindex occasionally. But if the drive is not indexed, then windows must access the actual drive every time you perform a keyword search, rather than just looking it up in the index database. It is also slightly questionable to buy an SSD -- supposedly to improve speed -- and then turn off beneficial services to make it less efficient.
The logic here is that a SSD can disk scan faster than a fixed disk, thus not requiring indexing, this may be true when displaying the contents of a directory, as the OS knows where the request location is, it is up to the drive to locate them through NTFS, or in the old days through FAT.
However, I agree with you that an index is best used on searches; this is because the OS doesn’t know where all files with the name you are querying are located, with an index, properties are sorted with location of the file.
Connect is proof positive on my system with a 10RPM raptor that indexing is faster than a file scan on a directory, as I have seen a big improvement on folders with a lot of files, however, it is not an advantage if it takes what seem forever for new files to display.