ArcPro: Some Performance (or lack therof) Stats

817
19
05-27-2019 01:53 PM
Highlighted
Occasional Contributor III

Just tried to use Pro 2.3.3 on MacBook Pro 2015, 8G, windows 10. All known patches installed.

I start Pro: it takes 3mins 32 secs (3:32) to even ask me what project I wish to open.

I click the project I want: 6:10 later it finishes drawing a map; not the map I actually want from the project; it isn't done yet though. Task Manager shows the CPU running at 100% for a good 2:00 even after there is no discernable change to the display. I choose the map I actually want display, go and make tee... and it still isn't done 5:00 later.

There are words for software like this. The most polite is unusable.

19 Replies
Highlighted
MVP Esteemed Contributor

Something is wrong.

18.42 seconds from the time I clicked the ArcGIS Pro shortcut on my desktop, I selected a project and it opened.

Microsoft Surface Book II

Reply
0 Kudos
Highlighted
MVP Esteemed Contributor

I see you have a related rant

ArcPro -- were it any slower it would run backwards 

Could be with the machine

Are you using Boot Camp ? and following the recommendations in the help?

Run ArcGIS Pro on a Mac—ArcGIS Pro | ArcGIS Desktop 

Reply
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Esri Notable Contributor

Dan and Tom's questions are very important.  Please let the thread know if you're running Bootcamp or other:

Reply
0 Kudos
Highlighted
MVP Frequent Contributor

At 8 GB of Ram, you're in the "Recommended" hardware range (https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/get-started/arcgis-pro-system-requirements.htm), which means Pro will simply start. However, 8 GB is not enough for Pro to actually do anything (e.g open a project, save, etc...). From ESRI "The system requirements listed for ArcGIS Pro are the minimum requirements to open and run the software. "

It has been our experience that 16 GB of RAM barely runs Pro, 32 "get's the job done", and if you spend your entire day doing GIS, sport for 48 or 64. 

If you're using the same machine as in this post (https://community.esri.com/thread/164355), I'm pretty confident that your video card (driver) is no longer compatible. 

Highlighted
Occasional Contributor III

I can't speak to Macs, but on PC desktop 16GB has been our minimum configuration for years.  I opened a random project and am now using 6GB ram already before even doing anything.  Only part of this is Pro, but everything eats resources nowadays, just Windows and business apps eats 4GB all by themselves.  We do have an Apple running Desktop in a VM and it suffers due to running two OS' at once.

Our new workstations run 64GB ram, and this seems suitable for intensive work.

Reply
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Esteemed Contributor

Have you tried installing ArcMap 10.x on this machine to compare it's performance?  It seems at the least you will need to up your hardware budget for machines running Pro that worked fine with ArcMap (dedicated graphics card).  This increased cost could be problematic for all, but especially for small shops with very limited budgets.

Highlighted
Occasional Contributor III

Yes, have had arcmap installed for years. I wouldn't call that blindingly fast either. But, aside from these ESRI products,  windows is doing no other user tasks. Arcmap is a 32 bit app (still, isn't it?) and so we surely cannot gain very much performance by installing more memory, can we?

Reply
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Occasional Contributor III

It depends.  Ram is (relatively) cheap, your time is presumably not.  While it may not make a difference right now, as soon as you run out of memory and start hitting pagefile (caching applications to hard drive) and getting the dreaded disk chatter and slowdown from Days Of Yore.  (Good times running processes overnight on tiny Pentium Celerons)

It also depends on what you're doing.  We process in FME, Modeller and Bentley with big data.  For production efficiency some users run two or even three(!) ArcMaps side by side, or ArcMap plus Pro.  That's before you even open other business apps.  

Don't get me started on Adobe and Apple software which I believe are borderline malware and banned from my PC.

Having more ram is like having a bigger battery.  You won't need it until you do, but when you do, you will need it.

Reply
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Occasional Contributor III

I use Parallels to run a windows VM. That Pro 2.3 cannot run with such a configuration was a bit of a bombshell. But I have experienced plenty of performance problems with 2.2. However, I have a bootcamp partition to hand, and will report back on my experience using it on both 2.2 and 2.3

I am stunned when I read that 32G is needed for this product, and that even 48 or even 64G is advisable! Basically, then, this product cannot run on any but the highest end machines. But how is it, then, that when I run task monitor on windows I never see that memory used go about about 3.6 G? I simply do not understand, given that observation, how install ten times as much memory will make any difference!?

Rob Stevens

Reply
0 Kudos