Re: [Encode2mpeg-users] direct mode problesm

[Giacomo C. <enc...@li...>]

On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 08:52:09AM -0400, Osmany Guirola Cruz wrote:
> Hi again 
> 
> i found the problem with mpeg2enc ...the problem is with -M option
> in my enviroment is set to 8 i have 2 intel Xeon dual core 
> but in the man page of mpeg2enc i read 
> 
> 
> Setting -M 0 disables all multithreading.  This is sometimes useful for
> debugging  or  to  achieve  maximum CPU efficiency on a shared machine.
> Setting -M 3 on a dual-CPU machine will produce slightly faster results
> than -M 2 at the price of slightly less CPU efficiency.  This is useful
> if nothing else needs to be done on the encoding machine.  In  practice
> there  is  little point setting -M greater than 4 even if the CPU's are
> available due to the fairly coarse-grained  parallelism  used.   Indeed
> there is a hardcoded limit of 4 worker threads.
> 
> The default has been changed to be 0 instead of 1 to avoid the crash at
> end of encoding:
> 
> INFO: [mpeg2enc] Signaling last frame = 499
> mpeg2enc: seqencoder.cc:433: void SeqEncoder::EncodeStream(): Assertion `pass1coded.size() == 0' failed.
> Abort
> 
> then i change M 8 to -M 0 and works perfectly
> 
> that's the problem
> 
> Osmany

I don't have the the crash with -M 8, but my system is 32-bit.
I wonder if I should remove totally the option -M from mpeg2enc,
I have never seen any speed gain with mpeg2enc with 2 cpu.
On the other hand, in Mpeg Mode you should see a real speed boost.
Compare the encoding time using the option -cpu 1 and not using
the option at all (using all the cpu available).

Giacomo