Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
On Thursday 04 January 2007 01:49, Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms': Incidentally, I just did a similar comparison on my machine between audacious and amarok, and found that amarok consistently uses at least 2.2 times the amount of memory that audacious does. And I've never heard anyone call amarok a resource-hog. While I am a proud amaroK user, it does tend toward being resource-heavy and do-everything. [But, with my monster system, that's what I like. :)] -- If there's one thing we've established over the years, it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest clue what's best for them in terms of package stability. -- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh pgpPMNkO4ia8t.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
IMHO audacious is using a perfectly reasonable amount of resources, OP here. My original problem was that xmms wouldn't play wmas and mplayer, which does, sputtered whenever the hard drive was active. Following the thread led me to audacious which I hadn't even heard of. So far it's performed well and I like the xmms-like gui that allows lots of different file manipulation options. Maxim __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:43:48 +0100 Robert Cernansky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:05:18 +0200 Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious being a resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single one of them is wrong and this myth really needs to be debunked. Here's why: I agree. I'm still using xmms so I can compare. Here are few lines from top (displaying a Mem window - 'Shift+g 3'). Both players were playing same mp3 file. PID %MEM VIRT SWAP RES CODE DATA SHR nFLT nDRT S PR %CPU COMMAND 8810 10.9 172m 62m 109m 1620 108m 9104 7790 S 15 0.0 X 11170 9.7 308m 210m 97m 80 129m 19m 8970 S 15 0.0 firefox-bin 7750 2.0 164m 143m 20m 480 41m 11m 1170 R 15 0.0 audacious 7810 1.8 49940 30m 17m 1524 9m 5016 720 S 15 0.0 emacs 7739 1.1 149m 138m 11m 984 59m 7816 490 R 15 0.0 xmms Although audacious eats twice more resident memory than xmms, I think it's not that bad to call it 'resource hog'. You can see real resource hogs on the first two lines. :-) Btw, how do you guys get so little virtual memory? :-O Robert thanks, nice to have some terminal ouput sent along to substantiate this discussion! i like the 'mem window' a lot. top is cool... -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
RE: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
-Original Message- From: Daniel Barkalow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 December 2006 05:28 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, maxim wexler wrote: Will audacious not work for you? Haven't tried yet. Fellow down the list says it's a resource hog like mplayer. I don't have xmms any more to compare against, but audacious seems to be almost identical to it as far as I can tell. As far as memory usage, it's much less than, say, firefox. It is presently at the top of my CPU usage, but it's still only taking 1% of the CPU, so it's hard to complain. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list I moved to amarok, I might give audacious a shot. What about noatun for a smallish player? Not sure on it's RAM usage. Also look at Quod Libet or Banshee which are meant to be similar in features to amarok but lighter in terms of resource usage (or so I hear). David Note: These views are my own, advice is provided with no guarantee of success. I do not represent anyone else in any emails I send to this list. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 15:17, Nelson, David (ED, PARD) wrote: I moved to amarok, I might give audacious a shot. What about noatun for a smallish player? Not sure on it's RAM usage. Also look at Quod Libet or Banshee which are meant to be similar in features to amarok but lighter in terms of resource usage (or so I hear). David David, this reply isn't directed at you. You just happen to be the most recent post and a convenient reply point. Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious being a resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single one of them is wrong and this myth really needs to be debunked. Here's why: Look at the libs it links against: nazgul ~ # ldd `which audacious` linux-gate.so.1 = (0xe000) libaudacious.so.4 = /usr/lib/libaudacious.so.4 (0x440bf000) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0x43c9d000) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0x4401d000) libatk-1.0.so.0 = /usr/lib/libatk-1.0.so.0 (0x47ad) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 (0x47a3e000) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 = /usr/lib/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 (0x4409c000) libcairo.so.2 = /usr/lib/libcairo.so.2 (0xb7ed8000) libgthread-2.0.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgthread-2.0.so.0 (0x480d5000) libpango-1.0.so.0 = /usr/lib/libpango-1.0.so.0 (0x47b29000) libgobject-2.0.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 (0x47a0) libgmodule-2.0.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 (0x47a39000) libdl.so.2 = /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x4f44f000) libglib-2.0.so.0 = /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0x4797) libglade-2.0.so.0 = /usr/lib/libglade-2.0.so.0 (0x440a6000) libxml2.so.2 = /usr/lib/libxml2.so.2 (0x4b9db000) libz.so.1 = /lib/libz.so.1 (0x4f56) libm.so.6 = /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x4f429000) libstdc++.so.6 = /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1/libstdc++.so.6 (0x4f583000) libgcc_s.so.1 = /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x4f6ef000) libpthread.so.0 = /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 (0x4f455000) libc.so.6 = /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x4f306000) libX11.so.6 = /usr/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x4b8be000) libfontconfig.so.1 = /usr/lib/libfontconfig.so.1 (0x4baee000) libXext.so.6 = /usr/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x4b9aa000) libXrender.so.1 = /usr/lib/libXrender.so.1 (0x4bb19000) libXi.so.6 = /usr/lib/libXi.so.6 (0x4bb3a000) libXrandr.so.2 = /usr/lib/libXrandr.so.2 (0x4bb35000) libXcursor.so.1 = /usr/lib/libXcursor.so.1 (0x4bb23000) libXfixes.so.3 = /usr/lib/libXfixes.so.3 (0x4bb2e000) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 = /usr/lib/libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 (0x47aeb000) libfreetype.so.6 = /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6 (0x4f682000) libdirectfb-0.9.so.25 = /usr/lib/libdirectfb-0.9.so.25 (0xb7e61000) libfusion-0.9.so.25 = /usr/lib/libfusion-0.9.so.25 (0xb7e5a000) libdirect-0.9.so.25 = /usr/lib/libdirect-0.9.so.25 (0xb7e4c000) libglitz.so.1 = /usr/lib/libglitz.so.1 (0x48191000) libpng12.so.0 = /usr/lib/libpng12.so.0 (0xb7e29000) librt.so.1 = /lib/tls/librt.so.1 (0x4f8a8000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x4f2e8000) libXau.so.6 = /usr/lib/libXau.so.6 (0x4b9a5000) libXdmcp.so.6 = /usr/lib/libXdmcp.so.6 (0x4f559000) It's those libs that are using the memory, not audacious. Those are shared libs, meaning many other apps on the system use them and the total memory they consume is used by all apps that use the libs. And, every one of those libs (apart from libaudacious) can reasonably be expected to be in use already on any desktop machine running X Here's 'free' before and after I started audacious in another session: nazgul ~ # free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 20769841844696 232288 0 246056 1220848 -/+ buffers/cache: 3777921699192 Swap:0 0 0 nazgul ~ # free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 20769841851528 225456 0 246060 1222324 -/+ buffers/cache: 3831441693840 Swap:0 0 0 So starting audacious consumed an extra 6M of memory - that's nowhere near the 240M other posters are incorrectly stating it uses. Top shows me this for audacious while playing a song: PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND 9077 alan 15 0 62112 16m 11m R 0.3 0.8 0:01.00 audacious It's using 62M of VIRTUAL memory, shared with every other app that uses the same libs. It uses 16M of resident memory (i.e. stuff in RAM), which is the 6M it used at start up, plus 10M for the song that's playing. It's a 5.5M mp3 which needs to be decompressed so any music player will use that much. Finally audacious is using 11M of shared memory, probably via /dev/shm - but that
Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:05:18 +0200 Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious being a resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single one of them is wrong and this myth really needs to be debunked. Here's why: I agree. I'm still using xmms so I can compare. Here are few lines from top (displaying a Mem window - 'Shift+g 3'). Both players were playing same mp3 file. PID %MEM VIRT SWAP RES CODE DATA SHR nFLT nDRT S PR %CPU COMMAND 8810 10.9 172m 62m 109m 1620 108m 9104 7790 S 15 0.0 X 11170 9.7 308m 210m 97m 80 129m 19m 8970 S 15 0.0 firefox-bin 7750 2.0 164m 143m 20m 480 41m 11m 1170 R 15 0.0 audacious 7810 1.8 49940 30m 17m 1524 9m 5016 720 S 15 0.0 emacs 7739 1.1 149m 138m 11m 984 59m 7816 490 R 15 0.0 xmms Although audacious eats twice more resident memory than xmms, I think it's not that bad to call it 'resource hog'. You can see real resource hogs on the first two lines. :-) Btw, how do you guys get so little virtual memory? :-O Robert -- Robert Cernansky E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 23:43, Robert Cernansky wrote: On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:05:18 +0200 Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Throughout this thread many people have commented on audacious being a resource hog of monumental proportions. Every single one of them is wrong and this myth really needs to be debunked. Here's why: I agree. I'm still using xmms so I can compare. Here are few lines from top (displaying a Mem window - 'Shift+g 3'). Both players were playing same mp3 file. PID %MEM VIRT SWAP RES CODE DATA SHR nFLT nDRT S PR %CPU COMMAND 8810 10.9 172m 62m 109m 1620 108m 9104 7790 S 15 0.0 X 11170 9.7 308m 210m 97m 80 129m 19m 8970 S 15 0.0 firefox-bin 7750 2.0 164m 143m 20m 480 41m 11m 1170 R 15 0.0 audacious 7810 1.8 49940 30m 17m 1524 9m 5016 720 S 15 0.0 emacs 7739 1.1 149m 138m 11m 984 59m 7816 490 R 15 0.0 xmms Ah, a real comparison - I don;t have xmms anymore so couldn't do the same in my post. These numbers are interesting, although audacious is using more resident memory, xmms is using way much more for DATA. IMHO audacious is using a perfectly reasonable amount of resources, considering what it's being asked to do - decode and play an mp3 file which is probably about 5M or so. Incidentally, I just did a similar comparison on my machine between audacious and amarok, and found that amarok consistently uses at least 2.2 times the amount of memory that audacious does. And I've never heard anyone call amarok a resource-hog. I think the problem here is that very few folk have any comprehension at all what that VIRT column means and how the kernel has been coded to deal with virtual memory and COW. For an in-depth technical handling of the subject, I recommend the book Understanding the Linux Virtual memory Manager as part of the Bruce Perens Open Source Series Although audacious eats twice more resident memory than xmms, I think it's not that bad to call it 'resource hog'. You can see real resource hogs on the first two lines. :-) Hehe, I see you have a firefox that's probably a) been up for several days and b) is very aggressively caching everything it can lay it's hands on Btw, how do you guys get so little virtual memory? :-O Dunno :-) Right now it's not so lean anymore, X has caused 173M virtual memory to be used, most of it kde-libs related stuff. The *real* resource hog on this machine strangely enough is kontact - memory usage can jump 60M when I start it up. It's probably because it needs most of konqueror loaded to render this other idiotic thing that corporate users seem to love - I believe it's called HTML mail alan -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
On 12/29/06, maxim wexler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi group, mplayer has some problems that xmms doesn't. Whenever a lot of hard-drive activity takes place on my PC, mplayer faulters and sputters. I have to run xmms if I want uninterrupted music. And this is a fairly up-to-date unit with a Gig o' RAM. If I want shuffle mode I must first open xmms, shuffle the playlist and save it before using it in mplayer cause shuffle mode in mplayer only plays a few tunes over and over. With xmms it's easy to cue up as many tunes as I like. Haven't been able to do that in (g)mplayer. xmms has a neat feature that lets you arrange the playlist in the order the dir was filled allowing you to hear your tunes in the order they were acquired. Cause, naturally, I prefer to hear the newer tunes more that the older ones. How do I do that with mplayer? mplayer *can* play wmas, so that's a plus. Maxim __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list Hi, how about media-sound/audacious ? its a nice and lightweight player.
Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
On Friday 29 December 2006 19:23, maxim wexler wrote:
mplayer has some problems that xmms doesn't.
[SNIP]
So why don't you just keep using xmms? Do you have any problems with it?
mplayer *can* play wmas, so that's a plus.
Doesn't the xmms-wma plugin work for you?
$ eix -c xmms-wma
[N] media-plugins/xmms-wma [1] ((~)1.0.5): XMMS plugin to play wma
[1] (layman/zugaina)
Personally I most certainly wouldn't use the zugaina overlay through layman
since it contains a lot of packages that are also in the tree and I really
want to use the official versions of those packages. It is, however, quite
easy to manually pull xmms and the xmms media-plugins from the zugaina overlay.
E.g.:
# mkdir -p /usr/local/xmms-overlay
# rsync -rlp rsync://gentoo.zugaina.org/zugaina-portage/media-sound/xmms
/usr/local/xmms-overlay/media-sound
# rsync -rlp rsync://gentoo.zugaina.org/zugaina-portage/media-plugins
/usr/local/xmms-overlay
# echo 'PORTDIR_OVERLAY=${PORTDIR_OVERLAY} /usr/local/xmms-overlay'
/etc/make.conf
--
Bo Andresen
pgpPQCExmrQSi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 10:23 -0800, maxim wexler wrote: Hi group, mplayer has some problems that xmms doesn't. Whenever a lot of hard-drive activity takes place on my PC, mplayer faulters and sputters. I have to run xmms if I want uninterrupted music. And this is a fairly up-to-date unit with a Gig o' RAM. If I want shuffle mode I must first open xmms, shuffle the playlist and save it before using it in mplayer cause shuffle mode in mplayer only plays a few tunes over and over. With xmms it's easy to cue up as many tunes as I like. Haven't been able to do that in (g)mplayer. xmms has a neat feature that lets you arrange the playlist in the order the dir was filled allowing you to hear your tunes in the order they were acquired. Cause, naturally, I prefer to hear the newer tunes more that the older ones. How do I do that with mplayer? mplayer *can* play wmas, so that's a plus. Maxim Will audacious not work for you? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
So why don't you just keep using xmms? Do you have any problems with it? mplayer *can* play wmas, so that's a plus. Doesn't the xmms-wma plugin work for you? No. It just skips the wmas. $ eix -c xmms-wma [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ eix -c xmms-wma [I] media-plugins/xmms-wma (1.0.5): XMMS plugin to play wma __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
Will audacious not work for you? Haven't tried yet. Fellow down the list says it's a resource hog like mplayer. Maxim __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] I want my xmms
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, maxim wexler wrote: Will audacious not work for you? Haven't tried yet. Fellow down the list says it's a resource hog like mplayer. I don't have xmms any more to compare against, but audacious seems to be almost identical to it as far as I can tell. As far as memory usage, it's much less than, say, firefox. It is presently at the top of my CPU usage, but it's still only taking 1% of the CPU, so it's hard to complain. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
