From: John R. <jj...@dc...> - 2001-09-22 19:44:08
|
I agree. There is SO many performance improvements between the 2.2 and the 2.4 kernels I simply can not resist the newer stuff. Not only disk but my NAT boxes. Whew! what a difference. ----- Original Message ----- From: <br...@zi...> To: "cola" <col...@zo...> Cc: "MJPEG Users" <mjp...@li...> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 1:28 PM Subject: [Mjpeg-users] Audio problems/optimisations? > >>>>> "cola" == cola <col...@zo...> writes: > > cola> I would like to know wich optimisations you people use, as I > cola> still run into problems during capturing: on a non loaded > cola> system, I usually start to drop frames after about 30 secs, > cola> when doing lavrec -q 75 -d 1 -w test.avi Do I expect too much > cola> from the quality? I use 'hdparm -d1 c3' for my 7200 rpm > cola> 100ATA disk wich still isnt good enough. I capture on a ext2 > cola> partition... > > You really need to run bonnie to see what your harddisk performance > is. I can run -q100 for several minutes without a single dropped > frame and my board & disk only supports ata-66. My performance under > linux is better than windows (using the dc10plus tools). I find that > very amusing. The windows tools CANNOT capture at max quality ! > > The biggest problem is dma support from the motherboard. I was > getting very marginal disk performance until I upgraded to 2.4.9 (from > 2.2.x). My disk performance went from about 6MB/s to about 18MB/s. > Be very sure that your kernel supports DMA for the chipset you are > using. > > hdparm -t is also a reasonable indicator of speed, but you should > really run bonnie. > > Brian > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mjpeg-users mailing list > Mjp...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users > |