From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May 20 19:24:27 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F95916A4CE
	for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmsrelay01.mx.net (cmsrelay01.mx.net [165.212.11.110])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0104543D46
	for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from noackjr@alumni.rice.edu)
Received: from uadvg137.cms.usa.net (165.212.11.137)
  by cmsoutbound.mx.net with SMTP; 21 May 2004 02:24:25 -0000
Received: from optimator.noacks.org [70.240.201.34] by uadvg137.cms.usa.net
	(ASMTP/noackjr@usa.net) via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.13N) 
	with ESMTP id 177ieucyw0228M37; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:24:22 GMT
X-USANET-Auth: 70.240.201.34   AUTH noackjr@usa.net optimator.noacks.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by optimator.noacks.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C149616E;
	Thu, 20 May 2004 21:24:21 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from optimator.noacks.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (optimator.noacks.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with LMTP id 65883-01; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:24:20 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from compgeek.noacks.org (compgeek [192.168.1.10])
	by optimator.noacks.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B60616D;
	Thu, 20 May 2004 21:24:20 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by compgeek.noacks.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4L2OD7Z011173;
	Thu, 20 May 2004 21:24:19 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from noackjr@alumni.rice.edu)
Message-ID: <40AD684D.9020200@alumni.rice.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 21:24:13 -0500
From: Jon Noack <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040518)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@corbulon.video-collage.com>
References: <200405200334.i4K3YlGU027751@corbulon.video-collage.com>
In-Reply-To: <200405200334.i4K3YlGU027751@corbulon.video-collage.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at noacks.org
cc: current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: a scheduling question
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: noackjr@alumni.rice.edu
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 02:24:27 -0000

On 05/19/04 22:34, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> Here is a top's snapshot from a dual CPU machine. Two lame encoders
> compete for the first CPU, while the total idle time is 35.6%. Why is
> that? Because they are nice? Is niceness really supposed to allow for
> wasted CPU? Thanks!

I noticed the cdparanoi[a] processes.  What is/are the exact command(s) 
you are doing?  If you are encoding on-the-fly, are you sure the lame 
processes are not being limited by the ripping rate?

It would be best if you could come up with a test case for us to see if 
we can reproduce your problem.

Jon Noack