Mavericks Memory Managment

Hi Everyone,
Does anyone know of a memory management app for mavericks?
I used to use these in SL and Mt Lion.
They worked well with FCPX.
When FCPX sucked up too much memory, you could tell the app to reset the memory.

This way you dont need to shut down FCPX and restart it to clean out memory.
Depending on the project, I can find myself restarting FCPX every 1/2 hour or so.. or worse.
Supposedly mavericks uses memory better... but here I am looking for a memory management app.
2010 mac pro w/ 24GB RAM


thanks
Kurt

I use Memory Clean It is on the very bottom of the link. I have not had any trouble with it.

Dave

On my i7 iMac with 32 Gb RAM FCPX can get hung up by using up to ~97% of available memory. In situations where it's not that bad Memory Clean will keep it going but periodically I have to restart FCPX. Sometimes even my cursor is barely controllable because the lag is so great. In those instances restarting the program will open up lots of memory (like going from 3% available to ~85%).

So in my experience Memory Clean works but only to a point. Hope Apple gets this memory issue sorted - it's a PITA to have to reset the app to keep it working!

I am trying memory clean now.. I think setting the amount to a higher level will keep FCPX running better.. Not sure yet, still testing it out. Now I have the threshold level at 70 with it also auto kicking on..

But yes, shutting down FCPX and restarting it is really the cure all..
ridiculous that its working like this. with 24 gigs of ram I shouldn't be needing to shut down the app at all, nevermind every 15 minutes depending on what is used in the projects..

Kurt

Check out all your 3rd party plugins, if you have any. Those are the most usual cause of memory leaks.

Possible.
Either way Apple should be testing these with FCP

It is the responsability of the plugin developer to keep up with FCPX development, not the other way around. They get an SDK and have to keep up. Part of the SDK agreement.

Apple Should be testing them before 3rd party releases, especially if any of them are on the app store.

When I worked at Avid one of my jobs was to test 3rd party plugins for the Liquid line of products and also Pinnacle Studio. This included Video plugins and audio (smartsound) as well.
From install, to compatibility, all the way through to a final burnt DVD.

Thats an old trick from tech support.. 'you need to uninstall all plugins before I can help you'
Then, 'what else is installed on the system'
Then 'uninstall and re-install'
Then the final best one.. 'you need to re-install the OS'.

If the new norm is that its the 3rd party developers responsibility, then FCPX stability will always be crap.

The reason for Apple to be testing this is this:
3rd party (call them A) works fine with FCPX
3rd party B works fine with FCPX.
But When A and B are both installed on FCPX, problems arise.

At this point it is not the consumers responsibility to have to test this. Its Apple's responsibility.


Kurt

A quick way to clean out memory is to Quick FCP and other applications, open the terminal, and type "Sudo Purge" it will ask for your password and then purge any memory not actually being used.

If Apple tested every 3rd party plugin, we'd never see updates.
Avid is also in a lot of trouble, so I wouldn't use them as a model.
I've worked for several software dev companies (I'm a retired IT engineer) and we never touched 3rd party stuff. Always left it up to them to take care of their own products.

FCPX is for macs only, and only for certain macs at that.
All turnkey.
Unlike windows software, there is no need to have dozens of video cards, audio cards, mother boards, various drivers, various OS's, and various turnkey systems (Dell etc..) all laying around to test with.
Thats what I had to do testing Fast studio products (the Liquid line of editing software), with various plugins included.

There were about a dozen of us in SQA.

There is only a certain level of 'how good things are running' before it goes out the door.
Share holders and the markets decide when the release is. In SQA we hated this, software would get released before its ready.."we can always make a patch/update".

Apple is no different

Seeing how much less hardware is needed to test apple products compared to windows, there is no reason why FCPX should be running so bad. They can easily be testing 3rd party plugins along with FCPX.

I agree non-optimized third-party plugins are a major cause of memory and general performance issues with any NLE.

There are hundreds of plugins for FCP X and not everyone uses or needs the same ones. Nor does everyone buy new plugins every day. Add to this that some plugin versions are troublesome with particular combinations of hardware/OS/other plugins and not with other combinations, and you get a multitude of situations where things can go wrong. So it's not that easy for a company like Apple to test any possible third-party plugin with any possible combination of their hardware/OS and other plugins, nor is it their responsibility.

OTOH it's very easy to test any new plugin for yourself to see if it causes performance issues in your particular setup or not. Before anything new gets added to our workflow, even the smallest piece of hardware or software, I test it carefully before bringing it onto our production bays. I think that's the best way to avoid any problems.

- Ronny

They dont need to test them all, but a "compatible list" or "tested list" of plugins released by apple would help matters.

Sorry, I disagree.
It is apples responsibility to test at least some of these. Apples released turnkey systems (what they list as compatible with FCPX) is all they need to test them on, and this number is very limited. This is very easy, it is in no way like doing the same thing on a windows setup. On the windows setups, there are many companies turnkey systems and many other combinations of various hardware apple don't have to deal with.. All they need to do is test there own turnkey systems with plugins.
Once one is tested and good, install another companies plugin on the same turnkey systems and test away.
Once good, install another companies and continue on..

The end user should not be responsible for this.
Do they have the time to do it?
Do they know how to do it?
Should they waste money buying one just to see it dont work because some other companies plugin is already installed?

I dont see what the big deal is having a certified list of plugins. It would go miles into helping end users with there systems performance with FCPX.
If they have a half dozen SQA team size, then I can see your point, but we are talking about apple here...

As I mentioned earlier, we did this type of testing with windows setups, with around a dozen member SQA team.
Doing it on only apple turnkey system would be a breeze..

Basically what we have now is no one testing combinations of companies plugins on FCPX.
thats crazy.

Kurt

Am I really reading this correctly? We have an editing platform that is fast, powerful, cheap, allows for the creative community to contribute effects (lots for free) and we're complaining because there might be a problem with a wayward plugin here or there?

Would you rather all plugs had to go through the App Store?

Give me a break!

Stupid me.. I know, apple can do no wrong.

Hey Kurt,

That's not what I'm saying. Some plugins (like the ones from ReVision and some from Red Giant) are real memory hogs and even though they work fine when you add one of them to your timeline they can bog down your system when you use multiple instances of them on a longer project. That happens with the same plugins in any NLE. But as they are technically working fine there is no way you can faithfully say wether they are qualified or not.

This said, I agree FCP X can get troublesome when you use many plugins on very long projects. Just like with any other NLE it's better to split up the timeline in such cases. From what I have heard the coming update should bring better performance on longer timelines.

- Ronny

Expecting any software company to test all third party software is unrealistic. Independent developers are solely responsible for their own work. That's fair. Otherwise, no OS developer or app developer would get anywhere. They'd spend all of their time testing other people's work.

Apple has a very long line of computers in many different configurations. The 2012 Mac Pro. All the different brands of RAM, graphics cards, eSATA cards, I/O cards, drives, etc, there's no physical way to configure all of the various combinations, PLUS test all different configurations of all the plugins on top of that. That is flat out unrealistic.

Agreed, one or two wayward, poorly written plugins is nothing to complain about. That is the reality of all pro apps around the world.