303 reputation
18
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 4 months
seen Dec 15 at 23:25

Jun
28
answered Can I mark a folder as mountpoint-only?
Jun
28
revised Parallel processing slower than sequential?
added 609 characters in body
Jun
20
awarded  Commentator
Jun
20
awarded  Cleanup
Jun
20
comment Live Screencast under Linux
5 means a rather choppy frame rate, but 50 is way too much. At most I'd do around 30 (that's roughly what movies usually are), but with his bandwidth restriction, I'd probably not go above 10.
Jun
20
comment Live Screencast under Linux
The answer to your second part is right there: "used the crf option for x264." / "when I change the stuff on the screen a bunch it fails to encode properly." Constant Rate Factor means effectively constant quality. If you do a lot at once, that means you updated it a lot, which means more bandwidth under CRF mode. Constant bit rate is what you probably want to go for.
Jun
20
answered How to install (by hand, not setup) a Linux Kernel (3.xx) in a device and boot
Jun
20
comment Run a shell script in an existing terminal session
If you're making something for deployment, it should, be default, write a log file. If the user wants to view the log, they can exert the effort to do it themselves. Otherwise you're going to end up with people just running yes no | yourscript.sh all the time, which is just a bit extra annoying, and unnecessary. tl;dr: make it non-interactive.
Jun
19
awarded  Supporter
Mar
30
asked Firefox not using cache?
Aug
10
awarded  Teacher
Jul
30
awarded  Scholar
Jul
30
accepted Parallel processing slower than sequential?
Jul
28
comment Parallel processing slower than sequential?
Possibly not, if ImageMagick is spawning 4 threads per copy of itself-- that means they can get in each other's way on every core... I added an example with larger images that works the way I would expect.
Jul
28
revised Parallel processing slower than sequential?
Added another test.
Jul
28
comment Parallel processing slower than sequential?
imagemagick.org/discourse-server/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14307 seems to indicate that this is a problem with imagemagick's SMP code.
Jul
28
comment Parallel processing slower than sequential?
dmidecode says I have 512K of L3, no L2, and 128K of L1, but close enough (also, demidecode has been known to lie). The images in question are 3.1KB(54+32*32*3 bytes), which may be related. Convert -version reports Features: OpenMP. I will retry with a set of 769K images.
Jul
28
awarded  Editor
Jul
28
revised Parallel processing slower than sequential?
Added demonstration without for loop.
Jul
28
awarded  Student