• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

Log File Clean-Up

Vigilante

New Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
16 (0.00/day)
Likes
0
#1
W1zzard, the log file is really getting cluttered with rather useless messages only stating how long Scan for Artifacts has been running. Pages and pages of this kind of useless message build-up.

An example:
2004-08-23 11:46:25 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:25 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:25 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:25 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:25 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:25 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00

I don't know whether you want this kind of report in this forum or the beta one, W1z.
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
17,057 (3.44/day)
Likes
17,961
Processor Core i7-4790K
Memory 16 GB
Video Card(s) GTX 1080
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 7
#2
thanks .. seems to be a bug ..
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
17,057 (3.44/day)
Likes
17,961
Processor Core i7-4790K
Memory 16 GB
Video Card(s) GTX 1080
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 7
#3
hmmm doesnt happen here .. did you try the latest 0.0.22 beta?
 

Vigilante

New Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
16 (0.00/day)
Likes
0
#4
Yes, the .22 beta is where that's from.

And that was just a short amount - I had just done a quick 15 min without artifact test with the .22 , and it ran several pages of that type of entry consecutively before the test finally ended.
 

Vigilante

New Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
16 (0.00/day)
Likes
0
#5
W1zzard - I was testing out the new screesaver on/off feature and had the screensaver selected on at the time. I know you like to run it with the SS off, could that somehow make a difference in the logs?
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
17,057 (3.44/day)
Likes
17,961
Processor Core i7-4790K
Memory 16 GB
Video Card(s) GTX 1080
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 7
#6
shouldnt make a difference .. drop me a message on instant messenger so we can work this out
 

bobo

New Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
31 (0.01/day)
Likes
0
#7
Vigilante said:
W1zzard, the log file is really getting cluttered with rather useless messages only stating how long Scan for Artifacts has been running. Pages and pages of this kind of useless message build-up.

An example:
2004-08-23 11:46:25 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:25 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:25 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:25 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:25 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:25 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00
2004-08-23 11:46:26 Scan for Artifacts running for: 0:00:00

I don't know whether you want this kind of report in this forum or the beta one, W1z.
I'm having this same problem, is there a quick solution to this? if there is could you please let me know it? thanks
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
17,057 (3.44/day)
Likes
17,961
Processor Core i7-4790K
Memory 16 GB
Video Card(s) GTX 1080
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 7
#8
i cant reproduce this .. you just hit scan for artifacts?
 

bobo

New Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
31 (0.01/day)
Likes
0
#9
no when I scan for max core & mem.
but i'd assume it would do the same thing when scanning for artifacts.
i'll try it out and post it here if it does or not.
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
17,057 (3.44/day)
Likes
17,961
Processor Core i7-4790K
Memory 16 GB
Video Card(s) GTX 1080
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 7
#11
i do not get the error when trying
 

bobo

New Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
31 (0.01/day)
Likes
0
#12
hmm... i dunno then.... were you able to help the last guy with this problem?
 

Vigilante

New Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
16 (0.00/day)
Likes
0
#14
Could it be due to the type of card or Catalyst version being used? I'm using a Sapphire 9800 Pro with the 4.9 beta. How about you bobo, W1z?
 

Vigilante

New Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
16 (0.00/day)
Likes
0
#15
BTW, I thought it might be because of Service Pack 2 - I was getting some other problems with it installed and I noticed the log file problem shortly after installing SP2 as well. So I system restored to before installation and that made no difference with the log file problem. I don't know if that's of use or not, but I figure the more info you have the better.
 

bobo

New Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
31 (0.01/day)
Likes
0
#16
I don't think its the catalyst driver.

ATI radeon 9800 Pro 128M - Catalyst v4.8
512MB RAM
P4 3.0Ghz OCed

and I run a windows 2k SP4
 

bobo

New Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
31 (0.01/day)
Likes
0
#17
and one quick question to someone who knows about OCing, im pretty new to it so i dont know whats good and whats not.

my core clocked out at 411.75
mem: 378.00 -- is this a good reading for my 9800 Pro?
and i just installed an arctic cooling vga silencer replacing my stock and that boosted both core and memory about 10-11 each. NIIIIIIICE
 

Vigilante

New Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
16 (0.00/day)
Likes
0
#18
Those are pretty typical results for a 9800 Pro, probably a little lower than most reported results for the core and a little higher for the memory.
 

bobo

New Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
31 (0.01/day)
Likes
0
#19
oh ok, thanks. well im pretty new here so i really appreciate you helping me out on this stuff.
one more thing though, when i check for the max memory, should i have the core at default or should i have it OCed to like 5 below its max or w/e?
 

Vigilante

New Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
16 (0.00/day)
Likes
0
#20
You can try it both ways and see how your results are.

Generally, you'd just test with the core speed at default, but due to your individual card cooling, case temps and air flow around the card, you might get differing results if you test the mem with your core OCed.