This issue is also reported as # 512098.  I marked that bug as a
duplicate of this one.  My comments below:


The original bug from 2006 still labeled unconfirmed in Rhythmbox.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358770

There are dozens forum posts in google search on this item all
redirecting people to use alternative programs to rip CDs.



Used TOP with "show threads" option to display the rythmbox threads during 
extract.

The top most CPU bound thread was priority 20 (the nice level for
background threads) using ~30% of a CPU core (my laptop is 1.5Ghz dual
core Intel x86).

The top IOWait was 0.

Therefore, the process was likely neither CPU or disk bound.

I noticed that the BOINC background worker threads were getting
significant CPU time, so I hit "pause" to stop background processing of
workloads. This therefore left completely idle CPU on my computer.

Afterwards, the extract performed more quickly, but was still not using
100% CPU or causing IOWaits.

iostat reported no IOWait, similar to top.

In conclusion, it is likely the thread design of the background threads
is using a far too aggressive "nice" setting and should be bumped up in
both priority and IO nice level so that the extract takes advantage of
the available hardware.

It should be obvious that if a user has deliberately clicked on a button
to extract a CD, they would prefer that operation take precedent over
other background tasks on the computer which they have not necessarily
performed a manual and specific action to perform (BOINC is a good
example).

This behavior was consistent for both Ubuntu 10.04 and Ubuntu 10.10.


** Bug watch added: GNOME Bug Tracker #358770
   https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358770

-- 
Very poor performance when extracting audio CDs
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/355565
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is a bug assignee.

-- 
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs

Reply via email to