[LINUX] xbmc server: possible quick implementation? - Printable Version
+- XBMC Community Forum (http://forum.xbmc.org)
+-- Forum: Development (/forumdisplay.php?fid=32)
+--- Forum: Development (/forumdisplay.php?fid=93)
+--- Thread: [LINUX] xbmc server: possible quick implementation? (/showthread.php?tid=114612)
- Robotica - 2012-01-08 17:41
great! Can you share that solution so it's easier for people to also try this? And did that reduce your CPU usage?
- Odon - 2012-01-08 18:37
Sorry, you have misunderstood me. I still have Cpu issue. Regarding patch, I've just downloaded 11b1 source, patched then compile.
- vikjon0 - 2012-01-08 18:52
and if you run the patched version on a standard HTPC, does the CPU run normal? I mean you may want to isolate the issue since it is not a stable version. and how does the un-patched/patched run in virtual debian WITH GUI?
EDIT: The standard beta also run 1 CPU at 100% constantly on virtual ubtuntu (vmware). Of course, if that is the graphic it doesnt mean anything.
- bladesuk1 - 2012-01-09 11:58
vikjon0 Wrote:and if you run the patched version on a standard HTPC, does the CPU run normal? I mean you may want to isolate the issue since it is not a stable version. and how does the un-patched/patched run in virtual debian WITH GUI?
as far as i can tell, patched/unpatched versions both take up an entire cpu permanently. i suspect that this is likely to be something buried in the code somewhere, but if i get a chance i can start taking a look through it to see what i can find. like i said earlier, all i've really done with this patch is to remove the requirement for the front-end display, so everything else is still running. if there's something that's permanently running and taking up a cpu, then it's still going to be there.
- bladesuk1 - 2012-01-09 12:02
Targettio Wrote:I am sure the devs will work on the full server mode in time, but it isn't likely to be a quick turn around (that's not a pop at the devs, just these things take time). As you say, this is a 'zero cost' temporary solution, which is why it is great.
to be honest, i'm not sure that the devs are interested as it's going to need a full redesign of the way the back end is coded to do it 'properly'.
as to setting it up, the easiest way is to simply copy the settings files across from a known good source. that way, you can use the graphical front-end to do any tweaking that you like, and you're good to go.
- Odon - 2012-01-09 12:24
Something weird is that i had a normal XBMC running on a debian vm, and was able to get down to 20% on 1 vCPU when reduced.
I'll try to give a look to the code too if i have some time.
- vikjon0 - 2012-01-09 12:29
Quote: get down to 20% on 1 vCPU when reduced.Do you mean minimized? The menus does use a lot of resources when not minimized or screen saver.
Quote:all i've really done with this patch is to remove the requirement for the front-end displayBut the menu rendering is not being done I assume, or do XBMC still think he has an interface?
- Odon - 2012-01-09 12:50
vikjon0 Wrote:Do you mean minimized? The menus does use a lot of resources when not minimized or screen saver.
Yes, minimized, sorry for my poor english
But why a headless XBMC without GUI is using more resources than a minimized standard XBMC ?
- vikjon0 - 2012-01-09 22:23
Quote:But why a headless XBMC without GUI is using more resources than a minimized standard XBMC ?Exactly, it shouldn't That is what I wanted bladesuk1 to confirm. Maybe my question is stupid but based on the information on hand I though I should make sure.
- Odon - 2012-01-09 23:59
Ok some awfull patch, in XBApplicationEx.cpp, search for "while" and add a sleep(1) just after.
edit: have another issue, database is not responding through web server :/