On 9 January 2016 at 01:37, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> On 1/8/2016 2:19 PM, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
>> I will come on Monday if that's okay... could setup a time that works
>> for you. I'm based in Melbourne Australia
>
> Most of the channel is usually around during daytime GMT/CET hours.
>
Happy
On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 03:10:48AM +1100, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> On 9 January 2016 at 01:22, compn wrote:
>
> > i think mozilla should share one test page with the hundred elements so
> > that we can see first hand the destruction.
>
> here is a simple one:
> http://people.mozilla.org/~cpear
On 9 January 2016 at 01:22, compn wrote:
> i think mozilla should share one test page with the hundred elements so
> that we can see first hand the destruction.
here is a simple one:
http://people.mozilla.org/~cpearce/stress/
For our test page:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/raw-file/tip
Web applications are fast becoming more and more complex, it's no surprise. I
do mainly sever side work but a bit client side. The amount of data in a web
page's DOM can be huge.
Many applications use videos in several places, this isn't a theoretical
problem. And with people having 30 tabs open
On 1/8/2016 11:22 AM, compn wrote:
> does this also happen with webp ? e.g. if all images are vp8 webp and if
> you used libavcodec to decode them?
Firefox doesn't (yet) support webp. There's a very old bugzilla ticket
about it.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing
On 1/8/2016 2:19 PM, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> I will come on Monday if that's okay... could setup a time that works
> for you. I'm based in Melbourne Australia
Most of the channel is usually around during daytime GMT/CET hours.
- Derek
___
ffmpeg-deve
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:51:39 +0100
wm4 wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:42:52 + (UTC)
> Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>
> > wm4 googlemail.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:55:38 +1100
> > > Jean-Yves Avenard gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > One of the issues we've faced was with our
On 9 January 2016 at 00:39, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> This seems to be a rather contentious subject. Would you be amenable to
> perhaps joining #ffmpeg-devel to discuss in real time? In my experience,
> stuff gets cleared up a lot faster, and with few misunderstandings / large
> mailing list flame
On 1/8/2016 6:55 AM, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> We originally had configured AVCodecContext::thread_count to 0, which
> on the machines running the tests would end up creating 8 threads per
> decoder.
> On windows 32 bits, that would amount in thousand of threads being
> created for that particular
On 8 January 2016 at 23:43, wm4 wrote:
> Sorry, the problem you're trying to solve is just too ridiculous.
Welcome to the world wide web ! :)
> Threads might be the heaviest resource here, but no matter what you do,
> having hundreds of objects active at the same time (bring back geocity
> websi
On 8 January 2016 at 12:43, wm4 wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 23:28:20 +1100
> Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
>
>> On 8 January 2016 at 23:24, wm4 wrote:
>> >
>> > A global thread pool sounds like an extremely messy and unclean
>> > solution. The state of a library is not supposed to affect anything
>>
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 23:28:20 +1100
Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> On 8 January 2016 at 23:24, wm4 wrote:
> >
> > A global thread pool sounds like an extremely messy and unclean
> > solution. The state of a library is not supposed to affect anything
> > else in the same process.
>
> The point of my
On 8 January 2016 at 23:27, wm4 wrote:
> Then don't create 30 threads.
This was just a silly example...
There are time when you do want to use multiple threads, because
someone is playing a single high-def video and a single thread
wouldn't cut it.
The conditions could change dynamically too:
Sa
On 8 January 2016 at 23:24, wm4 wrote:
>
> A global thread pool sounds like an extremely messy and unclean
> solution. The state of a library is not supposed to affect anything
> else in the same process.
The point of my message was to start a discussion, not to receive
immediate answer ridiculin
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 23:20:40 +1100
Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> On 8 January 2016 at 20:51, wm4 wrote:
> > Anyway, as another point I would argue:
> > - discouraging web devs from creating too many video elements, and
> > introducing a static "reasonable" limit (maybe a dozen elements)
>
> You
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 23:15:11 +1100
Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> On 8 January 2016 at 20:28, wm4 wrote:
> > Do I understand right that only your tests do this? And that there are
> > no real world sites which do this? And that you want us to change our
> > architecture so that your tests actually ru
On 8 January 2016 at 21:35, Andrey Turkin wrote:
> example. I ended up disabling MT everywhere I can to fix that (which was a
> right thing to do anyway since my program was already multithreaded and it
> could use all the cores anyway). This thread-pool idea sounds reasonable to
> me; more reason
On 8 January 2016 at 20:51, wm4 wrote:
> Anyway, as another point I would argue:
> - discouraging web devs from creating too many video elements, and
> introducing a static "reasonable" limit (maybe a dozen elements)
You're kidding right? So what, you just don't display the video
because really
On 8 January 2016 at 20:42, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> I may have misunderstood myself but I believe the
> issue actually only happens on Windows XP;-)
>
> Carl Eugen
Well the issue is mostly important on 32 bits system, particularly on
windows where a user process can only use up to 2GB of RAM.
On 8 January 2016 at 20:28, wm4 wrote:
> Do I understand right that only your tests do this? And that there are
> no real world sites which do this? And that you want us to change our
> architecture so that your tests actually run?
I thought I had explained the problem in rather plain words easy
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 01:35:02PM +0300, Andrey Turkin wrote:
> 2016-01-08 12:42 GMT+03:00 Carl Eugen Hoyos :
>
> >
> > I may have misunderstood myself but I believe the
> > issue actually only happens on Windows XP;-)
> >
> >
> I've encountered this issue a while back when trying to do about 20
2016-01-08 12:42 GMT+03:00 Carl Eugen Hoyos :
>
> I may have misunderstood myself but I believe the
> issue actually only happens on Windows XP;-)
>
>
I've encountered this issue a while back when trying to do about 20
simultaneous transcodings with some video filters. It was on a high-end CPU
wit
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:42:52 + (UTC)
Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> wm4 googlemail.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:55:38 +1100
> > Jean-Yves Avenard gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > One of the issues we've faced was with our reftest
> > > tests, with pages creating hundreds of small vide
wm4 googlemail.com> writes:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:55:38 +1100
> Jean-Yves Avenard gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One of the issues we've faced was with our reftest
> > tests, with pages creating hundreds of small video
> > elements (the test change orientation, sizes,
> > transparency and the lik
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:55:38 +1100
Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> One of the issues we've faced was with our reftest tests , with pages
> creating hundreds of small video elements (the test change
> orientation, sizes, transparency and the like and check that there's
> no regression on how things are
Hi
This is a discussion you guys may already have discussed about this, I
apologise in advance if that is the case (and thank you for pointing
me to it if that's the case).
I work for Mozilla, in the media playback team of gecko.
In Firefox, we've finally moved to use ffvp9 and ffvp8 in place of
26 matches
Mail list logo
