More > JRiver Media Center 30 for Linux
Is MC genuinely usable for video on linux?
bob:
--- Quote from: mattkhan on February 25, 2023, 08:44:05 am ---Thanks I'll try it.
I think the freezing is actually coming from the server, I played the same item from one MC instance vs another, both Win 10, one is a ryzen 3600 and the other is a 5600G so the 5600G should be faster (albeit not by loads). I actually see the 5600G sit at 100% CPU (all on MC) when playing to a linux client whereas the other one (the 3600) is at ~10-15% under the same conditions. One major difference is that the 5600G is a VM.
The linux client connected to a server which isn't trying to melt itself behaves fairly reasonably at first glance. It still doesn't handle multiple seeks too well but otherwise first impressions are positive. Is it receiving each command at jump + x seconds and then has to process each one? or is it coalescing those requests so that e.g. if I press right arrow 3 times while it is seeking then it actually just does one jump for 3x the duration?)
All roads do lead back to "can we have local playback" though :) I moved my server to a VM as the server is always on so that means my HTPC can then go to sleep when not in use in order to save power, relying on my HTPC to stream is therefore not possible. I'll have to look into why it burns so much CPU when running in a VM.
For reference
HTPC (3600) JRMark (version 30.0.68 64 bit): 5701
Server (5600G) JRMark (version 30.0.65 64 bit): 4967
so the HTPC does actually report as faster but not really that much
--- End quote ---
Sounds like it's transcoding. Check the client media network options.
mattkhan:
I used the same client each time so shouldn't each server provide the same format?
the setup in this case is
windows library server running in a VM with local storage
windows HTPC which is a client of the server configured to use local files if available (has those drives mapped) and with media network turned on
linux client with video conversion set to MPEG2-TS 1080p AutoFPS
item played is a standard BD (i.e. 1080p) in BDMV format
shouldn't it mean the windows HTPC and the windows VM server perform the same job and should be put under similar load? i.e. read m2ts and convert to the MPEG2-TS format
if so, it suggests something is wrong with the server in the capabilities it has (as a CPU)
bob:
--- Quote from: mattkhan on February 25, 2023, 03:02:58 pm ---I used the same client each time so shouldn't each server provide the same format?
the setup in this case is
windows library server running in a VM with local storage
windows HTPC which is a client of the server configured to use local files if available (has those drives mapped) and with media network turned on
linux client with video conversion set to MPEG2-TS 1080p AutoFPS
item played is a standard BD (i.e. 1080p) in BDMV format
shouldn't it mean the windows HTPC and the windows VM server perform the same job and should be put under similar load? i.e. read m2ts and convert to the MPEG2-TS format
--- End quote ---
Oh I see you are trying to get it to transcode. It's just CPU intensive on the server.
mwillems:
So do I understand correctly that you're seeing higher CPU usage in the VM server than the bare metal server in your tests? This might be a red herring, but I've seen a similar situation before: in my case the issue was that the bare metal instance was using hardware acceleration for decoding/encoding the relevant codecs, but my VM didn't have access to hardware acceleration because I hadn't configured it correctly to utilize the necessary hardware of the host. Could something like that be your issue?
mattkhan:
--- Quote from: mwillems on February 25, 2023, 03:55:26 pm ---So do I understand correctly that you're seeing higher CPU usage in the VM server than the bare metal server in your tests? This might be a red herring, but I've seen a similar situation before: in my case the issue was that the bare metal instance was using hardware acceleration for decoding/encoding the relevant codecs, but my VM didn't have access to hardware acceleration because I hadn't configured it correctly to utilize the necessary hardware of the host. Could something like that be your issue?
--- End quote ---
yes that's what I'm thinking, I need to compare logs with the HTPC to see what the difference is.
Edit: yes so the htpc uses nvenc but the server uses the CPU only, for now I will test the Linux client against the htpc then to eliminate the CPU bottleneck as a factor.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version