Don't bother unless you know c++. The changes to the code make (unnecessary) use of win32 api calls. In addition patches are needed to compile pas2cmdline with gcc 4 which are not applied to this source, in case you were using that.ferno wrote:any one got this compiled and running on Linux? Or i is just win32?
How about multicore par?
Forum rules
Help us help you:
Help us help you:
- Tell us what system you run SABnzbd on.
- Adhere to the forum rules.
- Do you experience problems during downloading?
Check your connection in Status and Interface settings window.
Use Test Server in Config > Servers.
We will probably ask you to do a test using only basic settings. - Do you experience problems during repair or unpacking?
Enable +Debug logging in the Status and Interface settings window and share the relevant parts of the log here using [ code ] sections.
Re: How about multicore par?
Re: How about multicore par?
Yep,jcfp wrote:Don't bother unless you know c++. The changes to the code make (unnecessary) use of win32 api calls. In addition patches are needed to compile pas2cmdline with gcc 4 which are not applied to this source, in case you were using that.ferno wrote:any one got this compiled and running on Linux? Or i is just win32?
I figured, I got all kind of compile errors.
The funny thing is that the configure script atually generated a make file.
Re: How about multicore par?
Switch's post above has benchmarks I performed a month or so ago. Multi-core Par only helps with creation / repair, not verification. And since repair requires you to do a full verification run first, you'll never really see a speed increase on the order of doubling.Delirium wrote:I haven't got any figures to support it but it seems the par stage is twice as fast as before with this multi core par.
I don't believe multi-core unrar would be beneficial whatsoever since it's strictly i/o bound whereas par2 has some areas where multi-core operations can introduce some speed gains.Delirium wrote:Is the unrar already multicore?
Re: How about multicore par?
maybe my nick comes into play here...inpheaux wrote:Multi-core Par only helps with creation / repair, not verification. And since repair requires you to do a full verification run first, you'll never really see a speed increase on the order of doubling.Delirium wrote:seems the par stage is twice as fast as before
But I'll definitely want to do some benchmarking before I agree on that
So the algorithm is so simple that the diskspeed is the bottleneck?inpheaux wrote:I don't believe multi-core unrar would be beneficial whatsoever since it's strictly i/o bound whereas par2 has some areas where multi-core operations can introduce some speed gains.Delirium wrote:Is the unrar already multicore?
Then I don't see why they always post unrar speeds in cpu benchmarks...
-
nzb_leecher
- Full Member
- Posts: 211
- Joined: January 22nd, 2008, 1:38 pm
Re: How about multicore par?
Does B4 has the new and faster par build in or do we have to import them oursefl?
Re: How about multicore par?
No, same as before. Haven't had time to look at it properly.
-
neographikal
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: March 30th, 2008, 6:36 am
Re: How about multicore par?
I just installed the multi threaded version and damn, yes it's faster. I use a core2 Q9300 at 3.0 ghz and one of my downloaded dvd's took 45 minutes to repair at first. Now is was less than 15 minuten (didn't time it exact).
The nice thing of having 8GB of RAM is that once the verification run has been done, the disk I/O is down to a minimum (disk cache) and the cores can be kept busy quite efficiently. Really, you should use this in some next version, it's great
The nice thing of having 8GB of RAM is that once the verification run has been done, the disk I/O is down to a minimum (disk cache) and the cores can be kept busy quite efficiently. Really, you should use this in some next version, it's great