Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 01:31:12 -0400 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> To: noackjr@alumni.rice.edu Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: a scheduling question Message-ID: <200405210131.12626@aldan> In-Reply-To: <40AD684D.9020200@alumni.rice.edu> References: <200405200334.i4K3YlGU027751@corbulon.video-collage.com> <40AD684D.9020200@alumni.rice.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200405210131.12626>