On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:56:59 -0700 Markus Kesaromous <remotestar@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 19:34 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote: >> Craig White wrote: > > pulse audio is little more than a collection layer for audio from > > various sources. I am fairly convinced that most of the griping I > > see on this list about pulse audio has less to do with pulse audio > > than people having trouble getting their Intel motherboard audio to > > work properly. Pulseaudio just seems to be a convenient spot to > > focus one's blame. > > Well, not entirely true. I had to stop pulseaudio because it was > slowing down my machine quiet a lot. Top showed it was using between > 20 and 38% of cpu bandwidth. Believe it or not, even after the audio > track stopped playing!! I DO NOT need a CPU killer audio deamon, > thank you. > I'm probably not the person to be defending pulse, because I leave it installed but disabled. However, a sound server like pulse will *always* have the potential to use a lot of cpu because it has to ensure that all sounds it mixes match the frame rate of the device at the rate for which it has opened it. This can require on-the-fly rate conversion, which, while getting faster, is still compute intensive if done to any quality level. If the sound server is at 44100 Hz (CD quality) and you are playing 48000 Hz (movie) sound, this is going to require conversion. So, if you don't want pulse to use a lot of cpu, make sure you only play sounds at the frame rate of the sound server. :-^ I can't explain the fact it did this after the track stopped though. Did you check after a few seconds of stoppage. It should have cleaned up at that point and gone back to sleep. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
