[lug] dvd::rip and transcode

Ed Hill ed at eh3.com
Tue May 14 21:48:16 MDT 2002

On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 17:11, D. Stimits wrote:
> j davis wrote:
> > 
> > has been running for 13 hours and claming another 15 is still needed. Is
> > this normal?
> > dvd::rip and transcode are also deinterlacing and running "nice 10". Is it
> > the nice 10 that is killing me? I have looked at the chapters that are
> > already done...look good and they work!
> Can't say for sure, but you are doing cpu-intense work, and telling it
> to offer almost no cpu time to the task. With audio/video, you would
> actually be risking gaps if the app doesn't know how to deal with it.
> I'd be tempted to run it at -1, and just try it out.

I don't do dvd ripping so I have no idea what typical times are...

However, I can say that if you have only *one* cpu-bound process running
on your system then the priority will have a negligible effect on the
cumulative time it takes the process to complete.  So ignore Dan's
advice.  Go ahead and run your ripper with normal or even nice-ed
priority.  If you are simultaneously using the machine for interactive
tasks (email, web browsing, whatever), then running the process with a
lower priority (as you did) is generally a good idea as it will tend to
improve system responsiveness for interactive tasks.

The reason why priority has essentially no effect in this case is
because, given just only one cpu-bound process, there is no significant
competition for the cpu cycles.


Edward H. Hill III, PhD    |  Email:       ed at eh3.com, ehill at mines.edu
Post-Doctoral Researcher   |  URLs:        http://www.eh3.com
Division of ESE            |   http://wasser.mines.edu/people/edhill.php
Colorado School of Mines   |  Phone:       303-273-3483
Golden, CO  80401          |  Fax:         303-273-3311
Key fingerprint = 5BDE 4DA1 66BE 4F7B BC17  3A0C 932B 7266 1E76 F123

More information about the LUG mailing list