Re: OT: performance problems.
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 11:48:41PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
| also sprach dman <dsh8290@rit.edu> [2002.01.06.2127 +0100]:
| > | i even went as far as to renice xmms to -20 *and*
| > | rsync/bzip/gzip/make-kpkg to 20, but it doesn't really help.
| >
| > Well, kernel compilation is very CPU intensive, and bzip2 can do lots
| > of computation as well. What you have is several (not just two) CPU
| > intensive processes going, and one process that needs real-time CPU
| > access. Unix is a time-sharing, but not real-time OS. xmms just gets
| > lucky if it doesn't skip. This is true for the general case of any
| > process that needs real-time-like scheduling. Of course, the less
| > load you have on your machine the more likely it is that xmms will be
| > scheduled often enough.
|
| but any process with nice value -20 should take absolut precedence over
| other processes at higher nice levels, especially when the
| resource-hog-process runs at nice level +20!!!
That makes sense, but ...
Other people had some suggestions too.
I also realized that perhaps it isn't that xmms lacks cpu, but perhaps
it lacks disk to read the next bit of the music? You can test this by
using separate disks, or running a disk-instensive thing that barely
touches the cpu.
-D
--
Whoever gives heed to instruction prospers,
and blessed is he who trusts in the Lord.
Proverbs 16:20
Reply to: