Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Gentoo: User

I want to play movies without hangs

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Gentoo user RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


mikemol at gmail

May 13, 2012, 11:12 AM

Post #51 of 64 (310 views)
Permalink
Re: I want to play movies without hangs [SOLVED, sort of] [In reply to]

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
> [1] .avi files are notorious for this shit. It's what happens when you
> are Microsoft and you release any old crappy format without consulting
> the other experts out there (who will always outnumber you)

Which better container formats were available at the time AVI was
released (1992)? The only contemporary container format I'm aware of
is RIFF, which came out in 1988. MPEG-1 didn't come out until 1993,
which was the same year the Ogg project started. Real's stuff didn't
come out until 1995. Matroska was announced a decade later, in 2005.

Matroska, MP4 and even OGG are nicer container formats, sure, but they
weren't around yet. And even with any of them, it's perfectly possible
to accidentally get A/V desync or stuttering if you don't mux your
streams properly.

(This post draws heavily on Wikipedia for date information, and dates
may be considered only as accurate as Wikipedia...)

--
:wq


alan.mckinnon at gmail

May 13, 2012, 1:53 PM

Post #52 of 64 (308 views)
Permalink
Re: I want to play movies without hangs [SOLVED, sort of] [In reply to]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:12:04 -0400
Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Alan McKinnon
> <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
> > [1] .avi files are notorious for this shit. It's what happens when
> > you are Microsoft and you release any old crappy format without
> > consulting the other experts out there (who will always outnumber
> > you)
>
> Which better container formats were available at the time AVI was
> released (1992)? The only contemporary container format I'm aware of
> is RIFF, which came out in 1988. MPEG-1 didn't come out until 1993,
> which was the same year the Ogg project started. Real's stuff didn't
> come out until 1995. Matroska was announced a decade later, in 2005.
>
> Matroska, MP4 and even OGG are nicer container formats, sure, but they
> weren't around yet. And even with any of them, it's perfectly possible
> to accidentally get A/V desync or stuttering if you don't mux your
> streams properly.
>
> (This post draws heavily on Wikipedia for date information, and dates
> may be considered only as accurate as Wikipedia...)
>

You missed the essence of my post entirely.

--
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon [at] gmail


mikemol at gmail

May 13, 2012, 2:01 PM

Post #53 of 64 (309 views)
Permalink
Re: I want to play movies without hangs [SOLVED, sort of] [In reply to]

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:12:04 -0400
> Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Alan McKinnon
>> <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
>> > [1] .avi files are notorious for this shit. It's what happens when
>> > you are Microsoft and you release any old crappy format without
>> > consulting the other experts out there (who will always outnumber
>> > you)
>>
>> Which better container formats were available at the time AVI was
>> released (1992)? The only contemporary container format I'm aware of
>> is RIFF, which came out in 1988. MPEG-1 didn't come out until 1993,
>> which was the same year the Ogg project started. Real's stuff didn't
>> come out until 1995. Matroska was announced a decade later, in 2005.
>>
>> Matroska, MP4 and even OGG are nicer container formats, sure, but they
>> weren't around yet. And even with any of them, it's perfectly possible
>> to accidentally get A/V desync or stuttering if you don't mux your
>> streams properly.
>>
>> (This post draws heavily on Wikipedia for date information, and dates
>> may be considered only as accurate as Wikipedia...)
>>
>
> You missed the essence of my post entirely.

Anti-Microsoft snark? I thought I was calling you on it.

--
:wq


alan.mckinnon at gmail

May 13, 2012, 2:33 PM

Post #54 of 64 (308 views)
Permalink
Re: I want to play movies without hangs [SOLVED, sort of] [In reply to]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:01:07 -0400
Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Alan McKinnon
> <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:12:04 -0400
> > Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Alan McKinnon
> >> <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
> >> > [1] .avi files are notorious for this shit. It's what happens
> >> > when you are Microsoft and you release any old crappy format
> >> > without consulting the other experts out there (who will always
> >> > outnumber you)
> >>
> >> Which better container formats were available at the time AVI was
> >> released (1992)? The only contemporary container format I'm aware
> >> of is RIFF, which came out in 1988. MPEG-1 didn't come out until
> >> 1993, which was the same year the Ogg project started. Real's
> >> stuff didn't come out until 1995. Matroska was announced a decade
> >> later, in 2005.
> >>
> >> Matroska, MP4 and even OGG are nicer container formats, sure, but
> >> they weren't around yet. And even with any of them, it's perfectly
> >> possible to accidentally get A/V desync or stuttering if you don't
> >> mux your streams properly.
> >>
> >> (This post draws heavily on Wikipedia for date information, and
> >> dates may be considered only as accurate as Wikipedia...)
> >>
> >
> > You missed the essence of my post entirely.
>
> Anti-Microsoft snark? I thought I was calling you on it.
>

I said .avi is a crappy format, and it is, that much is obvious to
anyone who understands the simple basics of what a container should do.
It would have been obvious to the .avi developers then. And yet it
somehow made it's way to market and got used extensively

You asked what alternatives were available. That is not a question I
asked. It matters nothing that the public used .avi so much (they had
precious little in the way of choice). So whether they had
alternatives or not is irrelevant.

The entire gist of my post was about how .avi as it stands is crappy
and should never have been released by an entity with the engineering
clout of Microsoft as they don't have the excuse of being one dude in
Mom's basement who didn't know better. They really should have known
better.


--
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon [at] gmail


mikemol at gmail

May 13, 2012, 3:03 PM

Post #55 of 64 (309 views)
Permalink
Re: I want to play movies without hangs [SOLVED, sort of] [In reply to]

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:01:07 -0400
> Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Alan McKinnon
>> <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:12:04 -0400
>> > Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Alan McKinnon
>> >> <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
>> >> > [1] .avi files are notorious for this shit. It's what happens
>> >> > when you are Microsoft and you release any old crappy format
>> >> > without consulting the other experts out there (who will always
>> >> > outnumber you)
>> >>
>> >> Which better container formats were available at the time AVI was
>> >> released (1992)? The only contemporary container format I'm aware
>> >> of is RIFF, which came out in 1988. MPEG-1 didn't come out until
>> >> 1993, which was the same year the Ogg project started. Real's
>> >> stuff didn't come out until 1995. Matroska was announced a decade
>> >> later, in 2005.
>> >>
>> >> Matroska, MP4 and even OGG are nicer container formats, sure, but
>> >> they weren't around yet. And even with any of them, it's perfectly
>> >> possible to accidentally get A/V desync or stuttering if you don't
>> >> mux your streams properly.
>> >>
>> >> (This post draws heavily on Wikipedia for date information, and
>> >> dates may be considered only as accurate as Wikipedia...)
>> >>
>> >
>> > You missed the essence of my post entirely.
>>
>> Anti-Microsoft snark? I thought I was calling you on it.
>>
>
> I said .avi is a crappy format, and it is, that much is obvious to
> anyone who understands the simple basics of what a container should do.

The MPEG group had only been formed four years prior to AVI's release,
and didn't release their first standard until a year later. Meanwhile,
Microsoft needed a video file format that:

1) Was a file format that sat on disk
2) Synchronized audio and video
3) Integrated cleanly with their being-developed operating system (AVI
is very closely related to the Video for Windows API. It's worth
noting that WMF, another Microsoft format from this time, is
essentially a serialized form of their drawing primitives.)
4) Ran smoothly on an 80386 at 33MHz with a 16-bit, 8MHz data bus
between the CPU and persistent storage.

With the exception of perhaps (3), those are the "basics." Consider
that this was released in 1992, and then consider that it had probably
been under development for at least a couple years prior.

I won't disagree that AVI is a crappy format by today's standards, and
that it should be avoided where possible, but what you consider simple
and obvious today was *new* at the time, and so not simple and
obvious.

> It would have been obvious to the .avi developers then. And yet it
> somehow made it's way to market and got used extensively
>
> You asked what alternatives were available. That is not a question I
> asked. It matters nothing that the public used .avi so much (they had
> precious little in the way of choice). So whether they had
> alternatives or not is irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant if you want to consider whether not the
expertise to come up with a 2012-modern format *existed* in the
lead-up time to 1992.

>
> The entire gist of my post was about how .avi as it stands is crappy
> and should never have been released by an entity with the engineering
> clout of Microsoft as they don't have the excuse of being one dude in
> Mom's basement who didn't know better. They really should have known
> better.

Seriously, why? Why do you think that the entire engineering clout of
a company which hadn't yet taken over the desktop market(!) would be
focused on perfecting AVI, one piece of a large,
already-late-to-market product? They had a bunch of difficult things
to pay attention to, such as mixing protected-mode and real-mode
applications on hardware in a task-switching environment, and working
around compatibility for programs whose developers still assumed they
had full run of the system. On a 386.

--
:wq


alan.mckinnon at gmail

May 13, 2012, 4:27 PM

Post #56 of 64 (307 views)
Permalink
Re: I want to play movies without hangs [SOLVED, sort of] [In reply to]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 18:03:59 -0400
Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Alan McKinnon
> <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:01:07 -0400
> > Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Alan McKinnon
> >> <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:12:04 -0400
> >> > Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Alan McKinnon
> >> >> <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
> >> >> > [1] .avi files are notorious for this shit. It's what happens
> >> >> > when you are Microsoft and you release any old crappy format
> >> >> > without consulting the other experts out there (who will
> >> >> > always outnumber you)
> >> >>
> >> >> Which better container formats were available at the time AVI
> >> >> was released (1992)? The only contemporary container format I'm
> >> >> aware of is RIFF, which came out in 1988. MPEG-1 didn't come
> >> >> out until 1993, which was the same year the Ogg project
> >> >> started. Real's stuff didn't come out until 1995. Matroska was
> >> >> announced a decade later, in 2005.
> >> >>
> >> >> Matroska, MP4 and even OGG are nicer container formats, sure,
> >> >> but they weren't around yet. And even with any of them, it's
> >> >> perfectly possible to accidentally get A/V desync or stuttering
> >> >> if you don't mux your streams properly.
> >> >>
> >> >> (This post draws heavily on Wikipedia for date information, and
> >> >> dates may be considered only as accurate as Wikipedia...)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > You missed the essence of my post entirely.
> >>
> >> Anti-Microsoft snark? I thought I was calling you on it.
> >>
> >
> > I said .avi is a crappy format, and it is, that much is obvious to
> > anyone who understands the simple basics of what a container should
> > do.
>
> The MPEG group had only been formed four years prior to AVI's release,
> and didn't release their first standard until a year later. Meanwhile,
> Microsoft needed a video file format that:
>
> 1) Was a file format that sat on disk
> 2) Synchronized audio and video


This is the part they got wrong.

Would you not agree that this is the second-most important feature
required, where the ability to actually play the audio/video at all is
the first?

Getting that wrong is to me akin to building a car and forgetting to
provide it with an adequate means of stopping. There are many other
things that can be forgiven where one would need a predictive crystal
ball, but needing time sync information in the container is just simply
self-evident.




> 3) Integrated cleanly with their being-developed operating system (AVI
> is very closely related to the Video for Windows API. It's worth
> noting that WMF, another Microsoft format from this time, is
> essentially a serialized form of their drawing primitives.)
> 4) Ran smoothly on an 80386 at 33MHz with a 16-bit, 8MHz data bus
> between the CPU and persistent storage.
>
> With the exception of perhaps (3), those are the "basics." Consider
> that this was released in 1992, and then consider that it had probably
> been under development for at least a couple years prior.
>
> I won't disagree that AVI is a crappy format by today's standards, and
> that it should be avoided where possible, but what you consider simple
> and obvious today was *new* at the time, and so not simple and
> obvious.

I'm not talking about today's standards. I'm talking about 1992
standards.

It's not reasonable to expect MS devs to anticipate algorithms that did
not exist then, or hardware that was 10 years away, or even that the
internet would be what it is. I do expect devs to get right aspects of
their software that will be used right at the time it is released.

>
> > It would have been obvious to the .avi developers then. And yet it
> > somehow made it's way to market and got used extensively
> >
> > You asked what alternatives were available. That is not a question I
> > asked. It matters nothing that the public used .avi so much (they
> > had precious little in the way of choice). So whether they had
> > alternatives or not is irrelevant.
>
> It's entirely relevant if you want to consider whether not the
> expertise to come up with a 2012-modern format *existed* in the
> lead-up time to 1992.

Again, I'm not talking about 2012

>
> >
> > The entire gist of my post was about how .avi as it stands is crappy
> > and should never have been released by an entity with the
> > engineering clout of Microsoft as they don't have the excuse of
> > being one dude in Mom's basement who didn't know better. They
> > really should have known better.
>
> Seriously, why? Why do you think that the entire engineering clout of
> a company which hadn't yet taken over the desktop market(!) would be
> focused on perfecting AVI, one piece of a large,
> already-late-to-market product? They had a bunch of difficult things
> to pay attention to, such as mixing protected-mode and real-mode
> applications on hardware in a task-switching environment, and working
> around compatibility for programs whose developers still assumed they
> had full run of the system. On a 386.
>

No, I expect them to get the basics right. Cars and brakes.

--
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon [at] gmail


mikemol at gmail

May 13, 2012, 4:54 PM

Post #57 of 64 (313 views)
Permalink
Re: I want to play movies without hangs [SOLVED, sort of] [In reply to]

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 18:03:59 -0400
> Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Alan McKinnon
>> <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:01:07 -0400
>> > Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Alan McKinnon
>> >> <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:12:04 -0400
>> >> > Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Alan McKinnon
>> >> >> <alan.mckinnon [at] gmail> wrote:
>> >> >> > [1] .avi files are notorious for this shit. It's what happens
>> >> >> > when you are Microsoft and you release any old crappy format
>> >> >> > without consulting the other experts out there (who will
>> >> >> > always outnumber you)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which better container formats were available at the time AVI
>> >> >> was released (1992)? The only contemporary container format I'm
>> >> >> aware of is RIFF, which came out in 1988. MPEG-1 didn't come
>> >> >> out until 1993, which was the same year the Ogg project
>> >> >> started. Real's stuff didn't come out until 1995. Matroska was
>> >> >> announced a decade later, in 2005.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Matroska, MP4 and even OGG are nicer container formats, sure,
>> >> >> but they weren't around yet. And even with any of them, it's
>> >> >> perfectly possible to accidentally get A/V desync or stuttering
>> >> >> if you don't mux your streams properly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (This post draws heavily on Wikipedia for date information, and
>> >> >> dates may be considered only as accurate as Wikipedia...)
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > You missed the essence of my post entirely.
>> >>
>> >> Anti-Microsoft snark? I thought I was calling you on it.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I said .avi is a crappy format, and it is, that much is obvious to
>> > anyone who understands the simple basics of what a container should
>> > do.
>>
>> The MPEG group had only been formed four years prior to AVI's release,
>> and didn't release their first standard until a year later. Meanwhile,
>> Microsoft needed a video file format that:
>>
>> 1) Was a file format that sat on disk
>> 2) Synchronized audio and video
>
>
> This is the part they got wrong.
>
> Would you not agree that this is the second-most important feature
> required, where the ability to actually play the audio/video at all is
> the first?

You're going to have to go into detail. Last I checked, old versions
of Windows shipped with AVI files for their animations, and those AVI
files played fine. So it _sounds_ like they're able to play video, at
least.

And my largish collection of AMVs and videos I've put together myself
suggest that AVI can play synchronized audio and video.

> Getting that wrong is to me akin to building a car and forgetting to
> provide it with an adequate means of stopping. There are many other
> things that can be forgiven where one would need a predictive crystal
> ball, but needing time sync information in the container is just simply
> self-evident.

Only if you anticipate your audio and video streams deviating from
intended usages. AVI is used for far more things than it was designed
to do. Reading deeper into its history, it sounds like it was embraced
and extended by entities outside of Microsoft to do things it wasn't
designed for in the first place. So expecting it to handle VBR audio
or video with predictive frames is kinda like putting a supercharger
in a Pinto and complaining when it winds up sitting on its own roof.

>
>
>
>
>> 3) Integrated cleanly with their being-developed operating system (AVI
>> is very closely related to the Video for Windows API. It's worth
>> noting that WMF, another Microsoft format from this time, is
>> essentially a serialized form of their drawing primitives.)
>> 4) Ran smoothly on an 80386 at 33MHz with a 16-bit, 8MHz data bus
>> between the CPU and persistent storage.
>>
>> With the exception of perhaps (3), those are the "basics." Consider
>> that this was released in 1992, and then consider that it had probably
>> been under development for at least a couple years prior.
>>
>> I won't disagree that AVI is a crappy format by today's standards, and
>> that it should be avoided where possible, but what you consider simple
>> and obvious today was *new* at the time, and so not simple and
>> obvious.
>
> I'm not talking about today's standards. I'm talking about 1992
> standards.

_Those standards didn't exist._ That's been my key point.

Yes, there was SMPTE, but that's for video recording and production
houses, and that was certainly not a planned usage for AVI.

>
> It's not reasonable to expect MS devs to anticipate algorithms that did
> not exist then, or hardware that was 10 years away, or even that the
> internet would be what it is. I do expect devs to get right aspects of
> their software that will be used right at the time it is released.

The earliest AVI files I'm aware of were sequences of RLE bitmaps, and
the code doing playback knew *exactly* what the framerate was, because
it knew what the video was for. Framerate support was added by
external parties because external parties wanted to extend AVI for
their own purposes. For that matter, AVI was an extension of RIFF.

>
>>
>> > It would have been obvious to the .avi developers then. And yet it
>> > somehow made it's way to market and got used extensively
>> >
>> > You asked what alternatives were available. That is not a question I
>> > asked. It matters nothing that the public used .avi so much (they
>> > had precious little in the way of choice). So whether they had
>> > alternatives or not is irrelevant.
>>
>> It's entirely relevant if you want to consider whether not the
>> expertise to come up with a 2012-modern format *existed* in the
>> lead-up time to 1992.
>
> Again, I'm not talking about 2012

No, but you're talking from the perspective of 2012, with a 20-year hindsight.

>
>>
>> >
>> > The entire gist of my post was about how .avi as it stands is crappy
>> > and should never have been released by an entity with the
>> > engineering clout of Microsoft as they don't have the excuse of
>> > being one dude in Mom's basement who didn't know better. They
>> > really should have known better.
>>
>> Seriously, why? Why do you think that the entire engineering clout of
>> a company which hadn't yet taken over the desktop market(!) would be
>> focused on perfecting AVI, one piece of a large,
>> already-late-to-market product? They had a bunch of difficult things
>> to pay attention to, such as mixing protected-mode and real-mode
>> applications on hardware in a task-switching environment, and working
>> around compatibility for programs whose developers still assumed they
>> had full run of the system. On a 386.
>>
>
> No, I expect them to get the basics right. Cars and brakes.

Pintos and superchargers. AVI does far more than what it was designed
for, and even what you want it to have been designed to do wasn't even
in the forecast in 1992. In 1992, the biggest and most interesting
applications were still conceptual derivatives of VisiCalc. (Actually,
that's probably still true today, but in 1992 there wasn't as big a
base of software developers to work other concepts.)

--
:wq


paul.hartman+gentoo at gmail

May 14, 2012, 3:28 PM

Post #58 of 64 (316 views)
Permalink
Re: I want to play movies without hangs [SOLVED, sort of] [In reply to]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Alex Schuster <wonko [at] wonkology> wrote:
> Finally, I found something. It's Dolphin!
>
> I've done some longer testing, always playing the same video parallel
> with a dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/10G bs=1M count=10000, in mplayer, for a
> minute, several times. When I do this by opening the file in Dolphin, I
> get about 15 interruptions, some for longer than a second. Started on the
> command line, there are very few, I can play the video for minutes
> without a gap. Hooray!
>
> In KDE, I usually play videos by opening them in Dolphin. I exchanged
> 'mplayer %U' by 'xterm -T MPLAYER -e mplayer %U' in the settings, now
> mplayer runs in a terminal, and all is fine. I created a window rule so
> the terminal automatically minimizes. Cool!
>
> It only happens in mplayer and mplayer2. Other players work fine, but I
> like mplayer best, and prefer to run it without any window decoration.
>
> Now, would this be an MPlayer problem, or one of Dolphin?

I wonder if Dolphin is generating thumbnails/preview indexes at the
same time you're trying to play, causing resource contention. I wonder
if you can disable thumbnail generation by Dolphin or remove the
association it has with video files and mplayer.


wonko at wonkology

May 15, 2012, 3:24 AM

Post #59 of 64 (307 views)
Permalink
Re: I want to play movies without hangs [SOLVED, sort of] [In reply to]

Paul Hartman writes:

> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Alex Schuster <wonko [at] wonkology>
> wrote:
> > Finally, I found something. It's Dolphin!
[...]
> > Now, would this be an MPlayer problem, or one of Dolphin?
>
> I wonder if Dolphin is generating thumbnails/preview indexes at the
> same time you're trying to play, causing resource contention.

Sometimes it does that, but that would happen when I play from the command
line, too. And now it even works from Dolphin, when it is set to open
mplayer in a terminal. So this cannot be the problem. And even if it
were, avoiding thumbnails would be a bad workaround only, such operations
should not affect video playback.

Maybe this is somehow related to the other problem I had with mplayer2
only, using 100% CPU when idle, only when started from a file manager.

Wonko


wonko at wonkology

May 17, 2012, 6:21 AM

Post #60 of 64 (327 views)
Permalink
Re: I want to play movies without hangs [In reply to]

Michael Mol wrote:

> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Alex Schuster <wonko [at] wonkology>
> wrote:

[about showing which processes use how much swap]

> > Michael Mol writes:
[...]
> >> sys-process/htop
> >
> > Huh? I only see the total amount of swap being used, but no entry per
> > process.
>
> Hit F2, and go down to 'columns'. Anything per-process found under
> /proc can be added as a column.

Whoa! This is amazing, I did not know that htop can do all this. Thanks!

But I still cannot get it to display the swap used by processes. When I
add NSWAP and CNSWAP columns, they are not displayed. I found some
information on that, looks to me like this is not really supported:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/479953/how-to-find-out-which-processes-are-swapping-in-linux
http://wiki.directi.com/display/tu/Understanding+Processes+in+Linux

Wonko


markknecht at gmail

May 17, 2012, 6:51 AM

Post #61 of 64 (307 views)
Permalink
Re: I want to play movies without hangs [In reply to]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Alex Schuster <wonko [at] wonkology> wrote:
<SNIP>
>>> sys-process/htop
>>
>> Huh? I only see the total amount of swap being used, but no entry per
>> process.
>
> Hit F2, and go down to 'columns'. Anything per-process found under
> /proc can be added as a column.
>
> --
> :wq
>

Anything in there show network through-put per process? I've been
looking for a way to monitor what's going to each of my VMs?

Cheers,
Mark


mikemol at gmail

May 17, 2012, 7:13 AM

Post #62 of 64 (312 views)
Permalink
Re: I want to play movies without hangs [In reply to]

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Alex Schuster <wonko [at] wonkology> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>>> sys-process/htop
>>>
>>> Huh? I only see the total amount of swap being used, but no entry per
>>> process.
>>
>> Hit F2, and go down to 'columns'. Anything per-process found under
>> /proc can be added as a column.

> Anything in there show network through-put per process? I've been
> looking for a way to monitor what's going to each of my VMs?

NAFAIK. Though if you get a kernel patch that gets per-process socket
auditing added, then it should show up. :)

I usually use iftop for watching flows. There's another tool I
installed which handles some things (such as IPv6) better, but inara
and kaylee are still down, so I can't peek at their world files to
find out what it was.

--
:wq


markknecht at gmail

May 17, 2012, 9:05 AM

Post #63 of 64 (308 views)
Permalink
Re: I want to play movies without hangs [In reply to]

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol [at] gmail> wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Alex Schuster <wonko [at] wonkology> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>>>> sys-process/htop
>>>>
>>>> Huh? I only see the total amount of swap being used, but no entry per
>>>> process.
>>>
>>> Hit F2, and go down to 'columns'. Anything per-process found under
>>> /proc can be added as a column.
>
>> Anything in there show network through-put per process? I've been
>> looking for a way to monitor what's going to each of my VMs?
>
> NAFAIK. Though if you get a kernel patch that gets per-process socket
> auditing added, then it should show up. :)
>
> I usually use iftop for watching flows. There's another tool I
> installed which handles some things (such as IPv6) better, but inara
> and kaylee are still down, so I can't peek at their world files to
> find out what it was.
>
> --
> :wq
>

Thanks. iftop is interesting but seems more focused on the provider of
the media source and less on the sink. I also use nettop to watch
overall bitrates but I suspect you have that one also.

Assume I have 3 VMs running and they are all streaming media.
VM1->Netflix, VM2->Hulu, VM3->Amazon, etc. What I'm really interested
in is something that would tell me how much bandwidth each VM is
getting. Per-process would almost certainly do that, and maybe that's
what I'll eventually have to do, but I'm hoping to find some little
app that maybe someone has put together.

Thanks,
Mark


wonko at wonkology

May 20, 2012, 2:35 AM

Post #64 of 64 (305 views)
Permalink
Re: I want to play movies without hangs [In reply to]

Mark Knecht writes:

> Anything in there show network through-put per process? I've been
> looking for a way to monitor what's going to each of my VMs?

net-analyzer/nethogs does that.

Wonko

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Gentoo user RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.