Hi Craig-

Not really sure what you need since can't determine where the bottleneck is
based on the information you've provided, but I like what Justin has said.

However, there are multiple things to speed up processing without
having to spend money.

First, I would try to capture system resources using sar and determine
CPU, memory, and I/O utilization

for a period of time. Then compare this information using multiple
points graphing it if you can.

I know this isn't anything new but I would also look to disabling
unnecessary services running on this system.

Depending on your system set up, I would separate physical disks
between the OS and where the video and images

are being written. You can adjust caching / swappiness and change the
I/O elevator to speed up writing of files.

Let us know what you find and how you address it?

-Saul


On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Justin Kremer <justin.kremer at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Craig Smith <craigallynsmith at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > QUESTION
> >
> > Since this is disk-intensive, I trust performance would improve if Jpegs
> > were written-to and read-from solid-state drive (SSD) as opposed to
> > traditional spinning mechanical-platter hard disk (HD).  I plan to
> continue
> > writing the final MP4 to HD.  Looking at RAID for faster reads serving
> the
> > final product.
>
> This may not be true, since your usage case sounds like it would
> actually primarily be transferring your data over ethernet, the
> ethernet will almost certainly be more of a bottleneck than your
> storage device. Since you said something about 5GB/day, neither is
> likely to be an issue.
> I have used HDD for similar types of things without any problems.  At
> this point, spinning disks are still enough cheaper than SSD that cost
> for capacity would be a bigger factor than performance for something
> like this.
> For decent playback performance, HDD drives tend to actually be quite
> good at sequential read performance.  Sequential write is also pretty
> good.  Spinning disks are not so great at random read/write.
> Your MP4 calculation is likely CPU bound, as the input is probably
> mostly sequential and the output would also be sequential.  I would
> guess that if you are using an older CPU, a new generation multi-core
> (and possibly hyper-threaded) CPU would be the best bet for improving
> the conversion performance, and performance of other simultaneous
> processes.  Newer CPUs have a lot of compressed video optimizations.
> The biggest advantage I would see for an SSD would be reliability,
> since decent SSD drives have actually become more reliable than HDD
> drives, which manufacturers just don't seem to take any pride in
> anymore.  (I've had good luck with Samsung drives)
> The type of volume you mention shouldn't cause premature failure of an
> SSD, but could eventually cause degraded performance. Manufacturers
> still say this would take decades, but that might be best case
> scenario.  A higher capacity SSD would take longer to run into any
> possible wear leveling issues.
> - Justin
> _______________________________________________
> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> tclug-list at mn-linux.org
> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20141225/69effe1a/attachment.html>