Re: a scheduling question

From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde_at_aldan.algebra.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 01:31:12 -0400
On Thursday 20 May 2004 10:24 pm, Jon Noack wrote:
= On 05/19/04 22:34, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
= > Here is a top's snapshot from a dual CPU machine. Two lame encoders
= > compete for the first CPU, while the total idle time is 35.6%. Why
= > is that? Because they are nice? Is niceness really supposed to allow
= > for wasted CPU? Thanks!
=
= I noticed the cdparanoi[a] processes. What is/are the exact command(s)
= you are doing? If you are encoding on-the-fly, are you sure the lame
= processes are not being limited by the ripping rate?

No, the driving process is from audio/abcde -- cdparanoia rips into
trackXX.wav, and -- once a track is completele ripped -- a lame process
is launched. You saw both of the lame processes in the RUN state...

= It would be best if you could come up with a test case for us to see
= if we can reproduce your problem.

Try running two lame encoders in parallel with nice 10...

	-mi
Received on Thu May 20 2004 - 20:31:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:54 UTC