On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Romain Beauxis<[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed, this encoding allows a seperate process to perform the encoding > operations, which are clearly a bottleneck for liquidsoap's load. This could > allow a smoothest liquidsoap run while encoding is done in a different > process.
Let me develop a bit. OCaml has a famous limitation: its threads are never ran concurrently (the garbage collector imposes a global lock). As a result, liquidsoap cannot exploit multi-core machines although its a threaded application. Some exceptions (maybe not so minor) are when liquidsoap is running a long/blocking section of C code (e.g. lame decoding) or when it spawns a sub-process. > However, my tests on running ~10 instances on a dual core did not really show > a difference, so I was interested to know if it makes a difference in your > situations. Perhaps not so surprisng. With one liquidsoap process consuming 100% of one core, outsourcing the output to an external process can move an important part of the computation to another core which was free before. However, if you are running several instances, they already spread over several cores, there is no remaining space for outsourcing computations. -- David ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ Savonet-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/savonet-users
