Re: Re: Welcome to the "Flac" mailing list
Brian Willoughby <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.audio.compression.flac.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
You're brilliant, Harry. Lame MT running on 2 threads runs at 120% while Lame (standard) running on 2 processes runs at 200%. If you still prefer only 120% over 200%, then you can continue to believe that multithreading this kind of algorithm is "smart" - I guess you weren't paying attention when folks on this mailing list suggested that you are far better off running FLAC multiple times on a multiprocessor machine compared to any small speedup you might get from multithreading. Brian On Nov 2, 2007, at 06:23, Harry Sack wrote: 2007/11/2, Brian Willoughby <[email protected]>: I worked for Microsoft for 4 years, and have been programming audio software for 25 years (starting many years before WAV or RIFF was invented). haha, that explains why you give such stupid answers like 'making the encoder support multiple threads won't speed it up' while other encoders (like LAME MT) have nice speed boosts when doing this ... _______________________________________________ Flac mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac