On Mon, 2004-06-21 at 11:26 -0400, Richard Ellis wrote: > > That should be more than enough, as long as you've not got something > in the background consuming 40.06MB/sec of read bandwidth, or > something else writing loads of data to disk at the same time.
Right.
> Your original command line was writing the sox output to /dev/null.
Right but since then I have simplified the test to just lav2wav sucking.
See my previous e-mail:
$ time lav2wav file.eli > file.wav
INFO: [lav2wav] WAV done
0.58user 12.01system 1:49.86elapsed 11%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (204major+938minor)pagefaults 0swaps
> That shouldn't be a time consumer, but as a quick check, switch to
> writing to a read file on disk instead. Does that change anything?
As above, the lav2wav alone takes almost 2 minutes.
> Also, you might want to try running a buffer between the two
> processes, that might help as well.
Right, once lav2wav is taking all of the CPU I can throw at it and the
pipeline to sox still sucks, I will. But right now, lav2rec seems to be
the bottleneck.
b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
