Joerg Schilling wrote:
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]> wrote:
In Run 1 there were several buffer underruns which slowed the DVD recorders
down. In Run 2 the buffer was always at 100% (except for the end of
course) :-).
This seems reasonable, what were the performance numbers for the other
system activity? I'm surprised at the underruns, cdrecord has internal
fifo, and I thought you did, too. With a hacked cdrecord (around a50)
the burn ran almost eight seconds slower, regardless of burn size, and
never dropped below 92% full at the drive, and 70% or so in the fifo.
Hacked how?
Late reply... hacked to use O_DIRECT and some simple monitoring of data
count, etc. Clearly writing data with O_DIRECT can be 3-5% slower than
using system buffers, but the performance of the other applications was
better, no video pauses, all response felt good, generally a better
overall behavior.
--
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
"Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
