Bug#446643: saned is started twice with the same priority, one copy gets in the way of another c

Nobody requires the behaviour to be generalized to other scanner drivers and other scanner. To claim that something is a bug, it suffices to give one counterexample of bad behaviour, for one configuration. Here is one. (Well knowing that MS Windows allowed even a faster scanning, even many

Bug#446643: saned is started twice with the same priority, one copy gets in the way of another c

sasha mal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Nobody requires the behaviour to be generalized to other scanner drivers and other scanner. To claim that something is a bug, it suffices to give one counterexample of bad behaviour, for one configuration. Here is one. (Well knowing that MS Windows

Bug#446643: saned is started twice with the same priority, one copy gets in the way of another c

sasha mal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Probably the idle copy of saned doesn't give away its time slice It's *NOT* an idle copy. It's actually the saned process you started, the one which beams back the data to your frontend. when it has nothing better to do. Well, renicing is not help a

Bug#446643: saned is started twice with the same priority, one copy gets in the way of another c

reopen 446643 Probably the idle copy of saned doesn't give away its time slice when it has nothing better to do. Well, renicing is not help a bit, it's help a lot. The same scanning task was performed twice (computer has a 2GHz processor). Without renicing : 20 minutes 17 seconds. Giving