Re: parallel port using lots of CPU

["Icebiker" <icebiker@ca.inter.net>]

Parallel ports generate an interrupt (and so a context switch) for every 
byte that goes out, the hardware provides no buffering as serial ports do 
(and for some reason, the industry never saw the need).

In NT/XP, MS supports parallel ports grudgingly and encourage you to invest 
in a USB device. I imagine it's the same for Linux.

Your printer appears to support USB, why not give it a whirl?

/icebiker

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ross Boylan" <RossBoylan@stanfordalumni.org>
To: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Cc: "Ross Boylan" <RossBoylan@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 13:58
Subject: parallel port using lots of CPU


> When I print graphics my parallel port consumes all available CPU.
> Admittedly the jobs are large (40-90MG), but it seems odd so much
> attention is required.  Is something wrong, or do I just have to live
> with it?
>
> 2.4.26 kernel on Athlon CPU.
> Lexmark Optra E310 is the printer; it speaks postscript natively.
> Gigabyte GA-7IXE4 motherboard; the parallel port is on the board.
>
> Originally I was using lpd in the lpr package.  With that, lpd showed
> as the CPU consumer.  I just switched to CUPS; now parallel:/dev/lp0
> shows as the CPU consumer.  My guess is that it was before, but the
> time was just being attributed to lpd.
>
> P.S. Maybe it is a hardware limitation; under Windows NT the parallel
> got a kind of odd treatment, including the fact that the driver had to
> poll it and some utilities couldn't use it, though they could under
> Win95.  I always thought it was just an NT quirk.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact 
> listmaster@lists.debian.org