Topic: Improve performance with swap file
My computer is always running Pianoteq VST in the background, so that my keyboard is available immediately when I need it (like a real piano).
First off, I know that it's recommended to disable the swap file altogether when running a DAW, but since my computer is not 100% dedicated to music I do need this swap file when running other memory-intensive tasks. I'm sure many Pianoteq users are in this situation.
I do have a lot of RAM so it's usually not a problem as the swap file doesn't actually get used, but unfortunately if I run a lot of programs before two Pianoteq sessions, it sometimes happens that Windows moves part of the memory used by Pianoteq to the swap file. In these situations when I return to Pianoteq there are some crackles at first, which is not a big deal. But the bigger issue is that even after the initial crackles are over and the playback seems smooth, from time to time very nasty crackles appear. It usually happens when I play a rather extreme note, or a note with an unusual velocity. And even if you play for several minutes, some of these crackles will appear from time to time. The only effective solution is to entirely reload Pianoteq (which can be a hassle if you have modified some settings and have to save them to a temporary preset just to reload it).
I can only assume that it is because some tiny samples or precalculated data are required for those notes, and because these cache misses are not predicted they incur a huge latency, hence the crackle. I have no idea how much RAM this precalculated data encompasses, but if it's not a huge amount it would be very helpful to either:
1. tell the OS never to swap the allocated memory (pro: reliable, con: very low-level)
2. refresh the precalculated data periodically (con: might affect performance if not implemented carefully)
3. include a manual reload button (con: less efficient than 1 and 2, needs user interaction)
4. automatically perform a reload if unexpected crackles are detected (pro: easy, con: less efficient than 1 and 2)
Thanks for listening!