On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 04:07:15 -0700, Malcolm Baldridge wrote: > > > Comparatively, Meterbridge is responsible for blowing _loads_ of CPU > > cycles (as reported by Qjackctl) - Alsaplayer/Ardour graphics aren't > > loading the remote box to anything like the same extent. > > > > I'll try to make some comparative CPU measurements whilst recording and > > report back, but it looks to me as though Meterbridge (probably via a > > library) isn't making as efficient use of X as it might. > > It's very possible that Meterbridge's "waste" isn't in the X calls, but the > way in which it collects information and/or performs I/O in general. Years > ago when I first started to dabble in open source code and came upon a > fairly popular IRC client called "BitchX". The author of that client > decided in his infinite wisdom to basically cpu-spin on non-blocking I/Os > for "petty" network transfers, thereby wasting about 85+% CPU to oversee a > single client-to-client transfer that was probably running at 2-4 > kilobytes/second, tops. It was insanely bad code. That wouldn't affect the CPU load on a remote machine. The current release uses SDL, which problably isn't very romte friendly. - Steve
