andyg;513008 Wrote: > I think some people are concerned about low CPU usage from the scanner? > I think this is completely normal, the reason is the scanner is waiting > for IO requests. This just means the scanner is more efficient. :) > > For some of my tests I've been scanning about 1000 tracks from a USB > disk on my Mac. The first time I run the scan it hits the disk and goes > fairly slowly, around 25 tracks/second with 5-10% CPU. The second time > I run, the light on the drive does not even blink and the scan is > upwards of 200 tracks/second with CPU at 80+%. The OS has cached all > the data needed by the scanner and it doesn't have to hit the disk at > all.
Nearly all scans in the real world are done without the benefit of cached files. I might only add music once a week, and expect to scan once after a session of ripping new tracks. Scans are either disk I/O constrained or CPU constrained, but what the user cares about is the total time to complete a scan or do a re-scan. -- dsdreamer ---------------------- "Dreamer, easy in the chair that really fits you..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ dsdreamer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12588 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74700 _______________________________________________ beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/beta
