<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Brian Wood <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:beww@beww.org">beww@beww.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 04:11:52 pm Steve Smith wrote:<br>
> This list really has changed. 3 years ago when i first started using<br>
> myth people were glad to help each other out. Esoteric hardware was<br>
> seen as a challenge. Stupid remarks like that were not seen.<br>
> Yes I know my hardware is a bit long in the tooth. I'm not that daft.<br>
> So what? I'm trying to keep this old hardware going and save some<br>
> landfill. Quite frankly if a p3 is not fast enough for sd then myth is<br>
> getting too fat. Perhaps i should look to microsoft for something<br>
> leaner?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I see no reference at all to how your system is configured with regards to tuners, etc. A P3 900MHz was considered to be low-end 5 years ago for MythTV, and the code has changed since. You can't make assumptions of expected CPU load without knowing what the user is trying to do with the CPU. If you expect us to make that assumption for you, then your box is useless for other than a space heater. That will be the answer given. If you want a better answer, you should at least identify what your backend box is attempting to do. What kind of tuners, how many, etc.</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I'd settle for an answer to the original question, How many backend threads should we expect?<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thread count is irrelevant. The CPU usage is not proportional to the number of threads (most of which are idle, blocked on something). As a data point, my backend (running trunk) right now has 43 threads, and sits at 2% CPU usage... And that's with a lot of inputs configured, and two are actually active.</div>
<div><br></div><div>There is no challenge involved to try to use ancient hardware. Use old versions that worked well on it, or upgrade if it's not performing to your liking... or actually build your own with profiling, and profile where the CPU usage is, and perhaps it can be made slimmer. Perhaps.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
I agree a fast P3 *should* be able to handle SD, without concurrent transcoding or commflagging, which should niceable to<br>
reduce system load.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Depends on what you are trying to do with it. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
mythtv-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mythtv-users@mythtv.org">mythtv-users@mythtv.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users" target="_blank">http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>