From: Yannick L. <yan...@gm...> - 2012-08-05 15:33:41
|
Hi all ! Since upgrading liquidsoap from 1.0.0-beta1 to 1.0.1, liquidsoap process raised from average 70% to average 85% cpu load. Is it 'normal' ? Is there any tweak ? Cheers Yann |
From: Martin K. <mar...@so...> - 2012-08-05 17:21:56
|
How are you using Liquidsoap? What formats are you transcoding to? Martin On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Yannick Lutz <yan...@gm...> wrote: > Hi all ! Since upgrading liquidsoap from 1.0.0-beta1 to 1.0.1, liquidsoap > process raised from average 70% to average 85% cpu load. Is it 'normal' ? > Is there any tweak ? > Cheers > > Yann > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Savonet-users mailing list > Sav...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/savonet-users > > -- Open source radio in the cloud. Get yours now! ---> http://airtime.pro Martin Konecny Software Developer, Sourcefabric mar...@so... 720 Bathurst St. Suite 203 M5S 2R4, Toronto, ON, Canada +1 (416) 892-8420 (Cell) Skype: martin.konecny15 http://www.sourcefabric.org http://www.twitter.com/Sourcefabric |
From: Renaud <re...@ra...> - 2012-08-09 16:47:37
|
On Sun, 2012-08-05 at 13:14 -0400, Martin Konečný wrote: How are you using Liquidsoap? What formats are you transcoding to? > > > Martin > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Yannick Lutz <yan...@gm...> wrote: > Hi all ! Since upgrading liquidsoap from 1.0.0-beta1 to 1.0.1, liquidsoap process raised from average 70% to average 85% cpu load. Is it 'normal' ? Is there any tweak ? > Cheers > > Yann > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Savonet-users mailing list > Sav...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/savonet-users > > > > > > -- > Open source radio in the cloud. Get yours now! ---> http://airtime.pro > > > Martin Konecny > Software Developer, Sourcefabric > mar...@so... > > 720 Bathurst St. Suite 203 > M5S 2R4, Toronto, ON, Canada > +1 (416) 892-8420 (Cell) > Skype: martin.konecny15 > > http://www.sourcefabric.org > http://www.twitter.com/Sourcefabric > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Savonet-users mailing list > Sav...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/savonet-users > Hi, I've been testing Liquidsoap 1.0.0 for some time now. I've made some tests with the latest version from the sourceforge repository (1.0.1) and I've been comparing it to the Debian Package on the official wheezy repositories (1.0.0-4) and I noticed a huge performance gap between those two. With the 1.0.1 I compiled, I could barely run 150 liquidsoap processes, with the 1.0.0-4 from the Debian repos, I could run 245 easily. I then tried the 1.0.1 package on the Debian Sid repositories (because I I thought my compilation was at fault) and I noticed the exact same performance gap. Is that behavior considered as normal regarding the code changes between those versions ? Do you need more data from me (or me to do specific tests) to try and understand this ? Kind regards, Renaud |
From: Romain B. <to...@ra...> - 2012-08-09 17:03:48
|
2012/8/9 Renaud <re...@ra...>: > Hi, Hi! > I've been testing Liquidsoap 1.0.0 for some time now. > I've made some tests with the latest version from the sourceforge > repository (1.0.1) and I've been comparing it to the Debian Package on > the official wheezy repositories (1.0.0-4) and I noticed a huge > performance gap between those two. > With the 1.0.1 I compiled, I could barely run 150 liquidsoap processes, > with the 1.0.0-4 from the Debian repos, I could run 245 easily. > I then tried the 1.0.1 package on the Debian Sid repositories (because I > I thought my compilation was at fault) and I noticed the exact same > performance gap. > > Is that behavior considered as normal regarding the code changes between > those versions ? > Do you need more data from me (or me to do specific tests) to try and > understand this ? I don't think that liquidsoap 1.0.1 introduced any change that would induce a performance loss compared to 1.0.0. I would instead look for the architecture, compiler and encoding libraries that you are using. In particular, most processing time it spent encoding, so you should look first at (I suppose) the libmp3lame used in each case. What version? What provider? What compilation options? etc.. BTW, you may also want to test our new fixed-point mp3 encoder: https://github.com/savonet/shine It is supported in the latest HG repository and I suspect that it can lead to small improvements that would be significant when scaling up. Romain |
From: Renaud <re...@ra...> - 2012-08-13 20:03:43
|
On 08/09/12 19:03, Romain Beauxis wrote: > 2012/8/9 Renaud <re...@ra...>: >> Hi, > Hi! > >> I've been testing Liquidsoap 1.0.0 for some time now. >> I've made some tests with the latest version from the sourceforge >> repository (1.0.1) and I've been comparing it to the Debian Package on >> the official wheezy repositories (1.0.0-4) and I noticed a huge >> performance gap between those two. >> With the 1.0.1 I compiled, I could barely run 150 liquidsoap processes, >> with the 1.0.0-4 from the Debian repos, I could run 245 easily. >> I then tried the 1.0.1 package on the Debian Sid repositories (because I >> I thought my compilation was at fault) and I noticed the exact same >> performance gap. >> >> Is that behavior considered as normal regarding the code changes between >> those versions ? >> Do you need more data from me (or me to do specific tests) to try and >> understand this ? > I don't think that liquidsoap 1.0.1 introduced any change that would > induce a performance loss compared to 1.0.0. I would instead look for > the architecture, compiler and encoding libraries that you are using. > > In particular, most processing time it spent encoding, so you should > look first at (I suppose) the libmp3lame used in each case. What > version? What provider? What compilation options? etc.. > > BTW, you may also want to test our new fixed-point mp3 encoder: > https://github.com/savonet/shine > It is supported in the latest HG repository and I suspect that it can > lead to small improvements that would be significant when scaling up. > > Romain > Hello Romain, Indeed, I upgraded the packages containing the plugins when I upgraded to Liquidsoap 1.0.1 (I've only used official Debian repositories, wheezy and sid, for my tests). I'm using Lame to encode, I might try shine as I've seen it's working beautifully on the Raspberry. :) Thanks for the tips ! Renaud |
From: Martin K. <mar...@so...> - 2012-08-13 22:14:25
|
It's strange that the newer packages Liquidsoap depends on would induce a 2x increase in CPU time. I think Debian package maintainers would be interested if you filed a bug with your findings. Martin On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Renaud <re...@ra...> wrote: > On 08/09/12 19:03, Romain Beauxis wrote: > >> 2012/8/9 Renaud <re...@ra...>: >> >>> Hi, >>> >> Hi! >> >> I've been testing Liquidsoap 1.0.0 for some time now. >>> I've made some tests with the latest version from the sourceforge >>> repository (1.0.1) and I've been comparing it to the Debian Package on >>> the official wheezy repositories (1.0.0-4) and I noticed a huge >>> performance gap between those two. >>> With the 1.0.1 I compiled, I could barely run 150 liquidsoap processes, >>> with the 1.0.0-4 from the Debian repos, I could run 245 easily. >>> I then tried the 1.0.1 package on the Debian Sid repositories (because I >>> I thought my compilation was at fault) and I noticed the exact same >>> performance gap. >>> >>> Is that behavior considered as normal regarding the code changes between >>> those versions ? >>> Do you need more data from me (or me to do specific tests) to try and >>> understand this ? >>> >> I don't think that liquidsoap 1.0.1 introduced any change that would >> induce a performance loss compared to 1.0.0. I would instead look for >> the architecture, compiler and encoding libraries that you are using. >> >> In particular, most processing time it spent encoding, so you should >> look first at (I suppose) the libmp3lame used in each case. What >> version? What provider? What compilation options? etc.. >> >> BTW, you may also want to test our new fixed-point mp3 encoder: >> https://github.com/savonet/**shine <https://github.com/savonet/shine> >> It is supported in the latest HG repository and I suspect that it can >> lead to small improvements that would be significant when scaling up. >> >> Romain >> >> Hello Romain, > > Indeed, I upgraded the packages containing the plugins when I upgraded to > Liquidsoap 1.0.1 (I've only used official Debian repositories, wheezy and > sid, for my tests). > I'm using Lame to encode, I might try shine as I've seen it's working > beautifully on the Raspberry. :) > > Thanks for the tips ! > > Renaud > > -- Open source radio in the cloud. Get yours now! ---> http://airtime.pro Martin Konecny Software Developer, Sourcefabric mar...@so... 720 Bathurst St. Suite 203 M5S 2R4, Toronto, ON, Canada +1 (416) 892-8420 (Cell) Skype: martin.konecny15 http://www.sourcefabric.org http://www.twitter.com/Sourcefabric |
From: Romain B. <to...@ra...> - 2012-08-14 15:29:39
|
Hi, Cool! Let us know if you find any good hint as to how performance can be enhanced. By the way, I did not say that it cannot be 1.0.1, just that I feel it's less likely that other factors :-) Have a good day, Romain 2012/8/13 Renaud <re...@ra...>: > On 08/09/12 19:03, Romain Beauxis wrote: >> >> 2012/8/9 Renaud <re...@ra...>: >>> >>> Hi, >> >> Hi! >> >>> I've been testing Liquidsoap 1.0.0 for some time now. >>> I've made some tests with the latest version from the sourceforge >>> repository (1.0.1) and I've been comparing it to the Debian Package on >>> the official wheezy repositories (1.0.0-4) and I noticed a huge >>> performance gap between those two. >>> With the 1.0.1 I compiled, I could barely run 150 liquidsoap processes, >>> with the 1.0.0-4 from the Debian repos, I could run 245 easily. >>> I then tried the 1.0.1 package on the Debian Sid repositories (because I >>> I thought my compilation was at fault) and I noticed the exact same >>> performance gap. >>> >>> Is that behavior considered as normal regarding the code changes between >>> those versions ? >>> Do you need more data from me (or me to do specific tests) to try and >>> understand this ? >> >> I don't think that liquidsoap 1.0.1 introduced any change that would >> induce a performance loss compared to 1.0.0. I would instead look for >> the architecture, compiler and encoding libraries that you are using. >> >> In particular, most processing time it spent encoding, so you should >> look first at (I suppose) the libmp3lame used in each case. What >> version? What provider? What compilation options? etc.. >> >> BTW, you may also want to test our new fixed-point mp3 encoder: >> https://github.com/savonet/shine >> It is supported in the latest HG repository and I suspect that it can >> lead to small improvements that would be significant when scaling up. >> >> Romain >> > Hello Romain, > > Indeed, I upgraded the packages containing the plugins when I upgraded to > Liquidsoap 1.0.1 (I've only used official Debian repositories, wheezy and > sid, for my tests). > I'm using Lame to encode, I might try shine as I've seen it's working > beautifully on the Raspberry. :) > > Thanks for the tips ! > > Renaud > |
From: Martin K. <mar...@so...> - 2012-08-22 14:23:06
|
Did you just begin using the soundcard by any chance? We noticed a jump from 10 to 19% on our system after enabling output.ao. On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Yannick Lutz <yan...@gm...> wrote: > Hi all ! Since upgrading liquidsoap from 1.0.0-beta1 to 1.0.1, liquidsoap > process raised from average 70% to average 85% cpu load. Is it 'normal' ? > Is there any tweak ? > Cheers > > Yann > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Savonet-users mailing list > Sav...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/savonet-users > > -- Open source radio in the cloud. Get yours now! ---> http://airtime.pro Martin Konecny Software Developer, Sourcefabric mar...@so... 720 Bathurst St. Suite 203 M5S 2R4, Toronto, ON, Canada +1 (416) 892-8420 (Cell) Skype: martin.konecny15 http://www.sourcefabric.org http://www.twitter.com/Sourcefabric |
From: Romain B. <to...@ra...> - 2012-08-22 19:05:44
|
Correct. We've always experienced an increase in CPU use when using output.ao. No idea why. however, I believe it might be due to libao itself but I'm not sure.. Romain 2012/8/22 Martin Konečný <mar...@so...>: > Did you just begin using the soundcard by any chance? We noticed a jump from > 10 to 19% on our system after enabling output.ao. > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Yannick Lutz <yan...@gm...> wrote: >> >> Hi all ! Since upgrading liquidsoap from 1.0.0-beta1 to 1.0.1, liquidsoap >> process raised from average 70% to average 85% cpu load. Is it 'normal' ? Is >> there any tweak ? >> Cheers >> >> Yann >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Live Security Virtual Conference >> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and >> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions >> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware >> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Savonet-users mailing list >> Sav...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/savonet-users >> > > > > -- > Open source radio in the cloud. Get yours now! ---> http://airtime.pro > > Martin Konecny > Software Developer, Sourcefabric > mar...@so... > > 720 Bathurst St. Suite 203 > M5S 2R4, Toronto, ON, Canada > +1 (416) 892-8420 (Cell) > Skype: martin.konecny15 > > http://www.sourcefabric.org > http://www.twitter.com/Sourcefabric > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Savonet-users mailing list > Sav...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/savonet-users > |