Anderton

Adq
But if you do clone 10 or 20 repetitions without plug-ins, with 10 plug-ins on track but without properties, and finally with 10 plug-ins and with properties, the time in former case would be much more than sum of first two. That is what i see.

Interesting, that's not at all what I see:
 
10 or 20 repetitions without plug-ins but with properties = fastest
10 plug-ins on track but without properties = almost as fast
10 plug-ins and with properties = clearly slower
 
Those are the kind of results I'd expect. I'm using an i7 on a laptop, though.

I'm very sorry, not former, I mean last case.
Yes, it is what I'm talking about.
Why do you think it is normal behavior?

Adq
Why do you think it is normal behavior?

If SONAR clones tracks without effects and properties, then I assume it doesn't need to capture effects/properties data and then populate the clones it's constructing with that data. Maybe what you're saying is that if it takes X amount of time to clone with effects but not properties, and Y amount of time to clone with properties but not effects, then if you clone with effects and properties then it should take X+Y amount of time. I don't know enough about computer programming to judge whether that's always the case or not. It might be more like X times Y. Maybe someone who knows code can weigh in. 
 
I did notice your processor doesn't meet the recommended minimum system requirements if you're using SONAR 2015. Maybe that has something to do with the difference?
 
Because I use SONAR for music and video projects, if cloning 20 tracks each with 10 Breverbs took a year, I'd never find out because it's not something I would ever do. I clone tracks all the time and have never thought once that the process took too long. I'm used to computers taking some time to think...I don't begrudge them that, given how long it takes me to think . 

Anderton

Adq
Why do you think it is normal behavior?

If SONAR clones tracks without effects and properties, then I assume it doesn't need to capture effects/properties data and then populate the clones it's constructing with that data. Maybe what you're saying is that if it takes X amount of time to clone with effects but not properties, and Y amount of time to clone with properties but not effects, then if you clone with effects and properties then it should take X+Y amount of time. I don't know enough about computer programming to judge whether that's always the case or not. It might be more like X times Y. Maybe someone who knows code can weigh in. 
 
I did notice your processor doesn't meet the recommended minimum system requirements if you're using SONAR 2015. Maybe that has something to do with the difference?
 
Because I use SONAR for music and video projects, if cloning 20 tracks each with 10 Breverbs took a year, I'd never find out because it's not something I would ever do. I clone tracks all the time and have never thought once that the process took too long. I'm used to computers taking some time to think...I don't begrudge them that, given how long it takes me to think . 

I doubt the difference in speed has anything to do with minimum requirements. It would just be proportionately longer. However I did ask in posts #11 and #12 for the OP to try something and it would be nice to have some feedback with this.
 
As far as the time it should be taking..
 
If
X = amount of time to clone with effects but not properties
and
Y = amount of time to clone with properties and not effects
and
Z = amount of time to clone with neither.
 
Then the time it should take is X+Y-Z.

Anderton
If SONAR clones tracks without effects and properties, then I assume it doesn't need to capture effects/properties data and then populate the clones it's constructing with that data. Maybe what you're saying is that if it takes X amount of time to clone with effects but not properties, and Y amount of time to clone with properties but not effects, then if you clone with effects and properties then it should take X+Y amount of time. I don't know enough about computer programming to judge whether that's always the case or not. It might be more like X times Y. Maybe someone who knows code can weigh in. 

Yes, it is hard to say without looking to code. But there are symptoms of disease. It just can't be more than X+Y if it is coded properly, because it is not properties of plug-ins. It is just name, in-outs, volume, pan, not so much. All effects settings, envelopes and so on are copied and without "Clone Properties". Anyway cloning must be faster in any case, you can try it in other DAW, and I bet it would be faster. One of my supposes was that it could be in some connection with mix recall, it would be nice if it could be compared with some of old Sonar version.

Anderton
I did notice your processor doesn't meet the recommended minimum system requirements if you're using SONAR 2015. Maybe that has something to do with the difference?

It is coincidence, but I've already upgraded to i7 5820k. One core of Q6600 is in fact only two times slower than one core of modern CPU. Anyway, it is not about workaround for me. I just want to say that there are problems. So it is more like bug report, and want this bug to be confirmed.

Anderton
I clone tracks all the time and have never thought once that the process took too long. I'm used to computers taking some time to think...I don't begrudge them that, given how long it takes me to think . 

So even if it is slower than it could be, you don't care?
 

Doktor Avalanche
I doubt the difference in speed has anything to do with minimum requirements. It would just be proportionately longer. However I did ask in posts #11 and #12 for the OP to try something and it would be nice to have some feedback with this.
 

No, it not the case, everything is fine with SSD, HDD, and so on.

Doktor Avalanche
As far as the time it should be taking..
 
If
X = amount of time to clone with effects but not properties
and
Y = amount of time to clone with properties and not effects
and
Z = amount of time to clone with neither.
 
Then the time it should take is X+Y-Z.

Sorry, didn't understand this.

Adq
 
So even if it is slower than it could be, you don't care?

 
I don't code or design SONAR, I'm a musician and voiceover/narration talent who uses it to do projects. When I clone a track, including properties and sends, with a soft synth and a couple of effects, it takes maybe 500 milliseconds. If it was 300 milliseconds my life would not be quantitatively or qualitatively better. 
 
Something practical that actually affects me would be different. If I notice something in the course of doing work that feels "slow," then I care. I don't care about something that's slow in theory (I don't clone 20 tracks with 10 Breverbs) but which I never use in practice.
 
Benchmarks don't matter to me as long as a program does what I need/want it to do, and does so expeditiously. I know some people get all excited if they can load 152 instances of a compressor in one program compared to 132 instances in a different program, but AFAIC, in either case that's 100 compressors too many anyway 

it is not about 0.5s vs 0.3ms.
It is about X seconds vs 0 seconds.

Adq
it is not about 0.5s vs 0.3ms.
It is about X seconds vs 0 seconds.

Fair enough, then let me re-phrase what I said. 
 
When I clone a track, including properties and sends, with a soft synth and a couple of effects, it takes maybe 0.5 seconds. If it was 0.0 seconds my life would not be quantitatively or qualitatively better.
 
I just can't get upset about about the length of time it would take me to do something I would never do, e.g., clone 20 tracks of 10 reverbs. If cloning lots of tracks with lots of CPU-hungry effects is essential to the art you create, then of course it's important to you and I can understand why you would be upset. Just don't expect me to be upset.

However..the time it takes for Windows to boot up...I do find that upsetting. 
 
But even that pales next to "Preparing to Configure Windows - Do not turn off your computer," followed by "Applying update 26 of 87,544,296. Do not turn off your computer, although this would be a good time to catch a movie."

At Adq, you subtract Z to compensate for doing the cloning twice in the equation (X+Y) when in fact you are only doing it once. X+Y-Z is the time it SHOULD take cloning properties+effects. In simplistic terms. Sorry can't explain it any clearer than this.

Also you missed my comments about arm monitoring.