Hi!
How much does memory matter for transcoding? Would 1 GB be enough for a second system to transcoding or would I need to get 2 GB?
I have run without Page file enabled (or at least turned it off in system properties) and right now I am up in around 800 MB on my main system. When I run the old system I had the same amount of memory, but probably less background like .NET for catalyst driver and other stuff running.
Would it still be enough to use 1GB or is 2Gb needed for a machine that is supposed to do only transcoding and other stuff that isn't needed on my main system?
Can I skip a video card on a motherboard that normally would need discrete video, if want to control it all by a gigabite network (computer to computer)?
I am in the process to evaluate if want to use spare part from my old system which was an Athlon64 3400+@2400Mhz single core skt 754 or to start all over with an AM2 and I would appreciate some help and advice on this matter.
I have two main road which I will discuss later, but for now I would like to know how much memory do I need?
___
Windows XP x64 edition is what I use and want to use for the second system.
A couple of random thoughts:
transcoding is mostly CPU and I/O intensive so I would have thought that 1GB should be plenty, although this depends on what app you use to do the transcoding I suppose.
is the cpu a sempron?
If the CPU does not support the SS3 extensions, I suspect will be almost as poor at transcoding as my Athlon XP. The AM2's have SS3 I believe but a core2duo would be even better.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Prod...04,00.html
* SSE3 support is available only with the Rev. E and later products in Socket 754, as well as socket AM2 products
I transcode with 512mb and 1gb of ram and don't have a problem with either. The specs of both PCs are in my sig.
gEd Wrote:A couple of random thoughts:
transcoding is mostly CPU and I/O intensive so I would have thought that 1GB should be plenty, although this depends on what app you use to do the transcoding I suppose.
is the cpu a sempron?
If the CPU does not support the SS3 extensions, I suspect will be almost as poor at transcoding as my Athlon XP. The AM2's have SS3 I believe but a core2duo would be even better.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Prod...04,00.html
* SSE3 support is available only with the Rev. E and later products in Socket 754, as well as socket AM2 products
-Oz- Wrote:I transcode with 512mb and 1gb of ram and don't have a problem with either. The specs of both PCs are in my sig.
That is good to know that even 1 GB should be enough to run transcoding.
About those SSE3 extension. I made a check in MEncoder when it run with irs verbose windows open and it only detects (=make use of) all other extension, but not SSE, SSE2 or SSE3. I think MEncoder said somewhere that they have not compiled this version of MEncoder with SSE support due to some problem with SSE extension.
Is it possible use a local network to control a second computer without connecting it to a keyboard and CRT to do transcoding? Windows have some tool for remote desktop, but I have never used it. Would that work for waht I want to do?
About I/O intensive task. Would it be better to have two small harddisk (2 x 250 GB) instead of one large one to do transcoding faster?
Do anybody have experience to build with barebone computer instead of the ordinary ATX standard? Do Asus (what I can find is the largest vendor on this field) offer any good barebone to make a rather silent computer that can work 24/7?
I think that it's right that ram isn't the real issue. Windows itself really performs better with a swap file. (But I use a mem tweak that makes Windows use RAM for all core functions.
Certainly my Sempron OCd to 2.2 GHz with 1G RAM preforms better than my Athlon XP OC'd to 2.1 GHz I G RAM. This is with MEncoder or FFMpeg...
The specs of your cpu is something I would die for. I GB of ram would be fine...
Definitely not an issue to remote control your Transcoding machine. I do it all the time
blizard Wrote:Is it possible use a local network to control a second computer without connecting it to a keyboard and CRT to do transcoding? Windows have some tool for remote desktop, but I have never used it. Would that work for waht I want to do?
Yes, you can use Windows Remote Desktop for this, I do it all the time - I don't have a keyboard/mouse/monitor hooked to my GBPVR server. There may be issues of "locking the screen" if it's also sending video out to a TV.
I have used VNC (actually TightVNC and UltraVNC) in the past but the refresh rates aren't as quick as Remote Desktop, but it doesn't "lock" the screen.
i stopped using remote desktop as it always reset the res on the pvr machine from 720x576 to 800x600. presumably as RD doesn't know about this res so chooses something else....mind if you are running the server just for transcoding this won;t be a problem and is probably the best way to go.
now I use Ultravnc to administer the machine but not for watching shows!
the good thing about remote desktop however is that with a hack of one of the dlls, you can get 2 users running concurrently on the machine (with seperate login names). So if the pc auto-login as user gbpvr, the family can carry on using gbpvr whilst you login as user fred.
http://www.kood.org/terminal-server-patch/
Quote:About I/O intensive task. Would it be better to have two small harddisk (2 x 250 GB) instead of one large one to do transcoding faster?
humm not sure. if source is on one disk and destination on the other, then possibly, if the cpu is trancoding fast enough. however modern high capacity/high density disks are pretty fast and should not really be a bottleneck.
Sorry that I have not replied before now to you guys. Thanks for the suggestion.
gEd Wrote:i stopped using remote desktop as it always reset the res on the pvr machine from 720x576 to 800x600. presumably as RD doesn't know about this res so chooses something else....mind if you are running the server just for transcoding this won;t be a problem and is probably the best way to go.
now I use Ultravnc to administer the machine but not for watching shows!
the good thing about remote desktop however is that with a hack of one of the dlls, you can get 2 users running concurrently on the machine (with seperate login names). So if the pc auto-login as user gbpvr, the family can carry on using gbpvr whilst you login as user fred.
http://www.kood.org/terminal-server-patch/
humm not sure. if source is on one disk and destination on the other, then possibly, if the cpu is trancoding fast enough. however modern high capacity/high density disks are pretty fast and should not really be a bottleneck.
Can be good to know about that hack for other with same idea as me, but my need is only to be able to access a second computer which has to do transcoding locally and when it is finished I just move it to my main computer to watch or I watch it directly form harddisk of the second computer.
There was a second tool that could help bypass limitation of firewall to create virtual tunnel (VPN) that should work great from a site I found when I looked for UltraVNC. It is called Hamachi.
flyswatta Wrote:Yes, you can use Windows Remote Desktop for this, I do it all the time - I don't have a keyboard/mouse/monitor hooked to my GBPVR server. There may be issues of "locking the screen" if it's also sending video out to a TV.
I have used VNC (actually TightVNC and UltraVNC) in the past but the refresh rates aren't as quick as Remote Desktop, but it doesn't "lock" the screen.
My knowledge of using remote desktop or is nill, so that is good to know that it can be some delays ("lock" or freezing) where the computer will not respond to commands. From UltraVNCs web site I found that there should be some kind of plug in that could reduce this problem.
How is it to use Remote Desktop at all? I mean can log in, move around files and then let the remote copmuter CPU do the transcoding work or is it only to access your files on another computer? Window XP 64bit ed (professional) should be better to do these thing as far as I understand as it has even tools for remote registry change.
zehd Wrote:I think that it's right that ram isn't the real issue. Windows itself really performs better with a swap file. (But I use a mem tweak that makes Windows use RAM for all core functions.
Certainly my Sempron OCd to 2.2 GHz with 1G RAM preforms better than my Athlon XP OC'd to 2.1 GHz I G RAM. This is with MEncoder or FFMpeg...
The specs of your cpu is something I would die for. I GB of ram would be fine...
Definitely not an issue to remote control your Transcoding machine. I do it all the time
My specs is not worth to die for. :p It have taken me more then three year just to get where I am now in hardware...so it is really not something I have done easily. Before that I had one Duron 900 for several years....20 GB.
I admire your work on the Zprocess and how you have made the wiki to be very clear (visually and in text) on how to go forward to use that tool and how batch files work. You are really good at explaining your zprocess and the tools that work with it.
Back to topic. Today I only plug an RJ45 (LAN connection) in the wall and I get internet through the building I live. We have ownit.se as ISP as far as I know do I need to get some switch/router or firewall if I am only to connect two computer? I thought it was enough to use the onboard GigaLan from motherboard chipset and then get a second network card. As for now we can use 100 Mbps with internet or locally on or internal network, but I am not sure how this work. Would it be possible to connect both computer by GigaLan and get any better performance then the fast ethernet at 100 Mbps I use today to connect to internet as harddisk can not work faster then 20-30 Mbps on SATA (both 150 and 300 mps transfer are far from real world speed as I understand it)?
Scheme of network:
Computer (OS+Transcoding SW:no tuner) <---GigaLan--->Computer (Main: Analogue tuner/GBPVR -full system) --->WWW:Fast ethernet (100mps)
With this set up I would need to get a second network card, but the question is if it is worth to buy a PCI Fast ethernet (which is cheap) or it would be better to get a PCI express x1 (GigaLAN) (which cost more)? PCI express should offer less problem with IRQ and provide full bandwidth compared to PCI based cards, but I am not sure if it is correct in real world usage.
Quote:My knowledge of using remote desktop or is nill, so that is good to know that it can be some delays ("lock" or freezing) where the computer will not respond to commands. From UltraVNCs web site I found that there should be some kind of plug in that could reduce this problem.
Lol! What I meant by "lock the screen" was that it would put up the login screen on the monitor attached to the computer. If you don't have a monitor attached to it, then it won't matter. Essentially when you use remote desktop or any of the VNC variants, you are "remote controlling" the computer - you'll see the desktop of the remote computer in a window (or full screen) on your computer and all mouse/keyboard commands are sent to that computer when the mouse is in the "remote window".
this only happens when you login to the remote pc using the same login name that the remote is already logged in as.
If you install the patch I mentioned above, you can login with a different username without logging out the current user on the remote pc.