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>