Hallo > I was doing some testing of both the older version (1.6.1.90) and the > newer version of mpeg2enc (1.6.1.92). First off, the .92 was somewhat > faster to begin with. However, in both cases, after multiple tests and > trying different things, I can't get the SMP modes to be fast at all. In > fact, they're slower than the non-SMP modes. With slower, I hope you mean "mpeg2enc needs more time to encode the movie". And not the time the encoding need in the "realtime".
> When encoding with the -M 0 with .92, I get around 19fps. When I use -M > 2 or -M 3, I get around 14fps. The CPU utilization sits at about 60 to > 70% across both CPUs, but hits 99.9% when using just one. Thats really strange. Which programm dod you use for monitoring your CPU utilisation ? top and/or xosview ? If you used time for knowing what amout of time is used, the important value for you use the "real" line, and not the "user" line. The user line reports the time the command needed on both CPUs. On a dual machine that has nothing other things to do, the real time is lower than the user time. The "overhead" you need for 2 threads incresses the user time a litte, but lowers the real time. > I installed 'buffer', set it up with a 32MB buffer and put it in the > stream, and it didn't make any difference at all. It would be nice to > use mpeg2enc on two CPUs to it's full speed, which would net me faster > than real-time, but thus far I haven't been able to. What was your full comand ? When I use lav2yuv files | mpeg2enc -f 8 -o test.m2v. My system (the 2600 Athlon MP I mentioned in howto) mpeg2enc needs nearly 100% of one cpu and lav2yuv nedds another 5-10%. Encoding of 1000 frames takes that mount of time: 2m16.944s When I add -M 2 The speedup is nice, mpeg2enc has two thread eac needing about 65-70%, lav2yuv needs about 15%. Encoding of 1000 frames takes that mount of time: 1m37.881s Adding buffer to a simple command line does not speed up anything. buffer helps if you have a pipeline with serveral stages like: lav2yuv | yuvdenoise | yuvscaler | mpeg2enc > Has anyone found a way around this, or is it time to look at the source > and see what's up? I have no need, because I think it works properly. > And for reference, it's a dual Athlon MP 2100+, which is below the > '2600' that the Howto references as fast. > > Of course the -M 3 changes to 2 and 0 in testing. I also tested it with > and without the buffer program in the list. Another notable thing, is > that with the newest version .92, -M3 causes three 33% usage processes > to exist (leaving an entire CPU idle), while M2 causes two 60% processes > to exist. With .90, -Mx causes 2 50-70% processes and the rest never do > anything. Just for the fun, I have tested it with -M 3, and than I saw 3 mpeg3nc thread each using about 45-50%, that improved the needed time compared to -M 2 by another 10 seconds. -M 4 didn't cange much at all, only a 4th process needing about 10%. I use the 2.6.0-test8 kernel. Maybe that changes the situation. The percent numbers reported by top have to be read carefully. At least my top reports them fo a single CPU, so you can have processes using up to 200% and then both cpus have full load. But in the task/cpu stats line 100% utilisation are for both CPUs !!!! Sorry if the mail is a bit confusing, auf hoffentlich bald, Berni the Chaos of Woodquarter Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.lysator.liu.se/~gz/bernhard ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Mjpeg-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
