Your message dated Sun, 14 Oct 2007 19:25:26 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#446643: saned is started twice with the same priority, one
copy gets in the way of another copy
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: xsane
Version: 0.99+0.991-2
I turned on the local scanner, put some sheet of paper into in, started xsane.
Looked with "ps aux" on the process list and saw saned there. Then I started
acquring a preview of a A4 sheet of paper. Looking of the list of processes
with "top", I noticed two copies of "saned", both running at the same priority
(NI 0). After the preview was acquired, I discovered that one "saned" copy
terminated.
Scanning was very slow.
However, if during a scan the priority of the former copy of "saned" (that
starts together with xsane and terminates at its end) is manually reniced to a
worse value (i.e. +19), scanning gets a lot faster. This suggests that the
former copy of "saned" is not really useful. The next time scanning is started
(e.g. for the next sheet of paper), the priority of the new copy of "saned" is
automatically niced to the priority of the copy already in memory (which is
+19) for an unknown reason, which makes the scanning even slower than before.
To get scanning faster again, the user has to set it manually to a better value
(e.g. to 0).
I expect that either only one copy of saned is in the memory or, if two are
really needed (for what reason I cannot understand), then former one should
start with a worse priority and the latter one with a better priority.
I'm using the mustek_pp driver and the scanner called "MD 9890". The system is
a debian etch with a few newer packages. Other configuration data:
$ aptitude show sane-utils | grep Version
Version: 1.0.18-5
$ aptitude show libsane | grep Version
Version: 1.0.18-5
$ aptitude show libc6 | grep Version
Version: 2.5-7
$ grep sane /etc/services
sane-port 6566/tcp sane saned # SANE network scanner daemon
$ grep sane /etc/inetd.conf
sane-port stream tcp nowait saned.saned /usr/sbin/saned saned
$ grep sane /etc/xin*
grep: /etc/xin*: No such file or directory
$ uname -a
Linux mpino2412 2.6.18-5-686 #1 SMP Sun Aug 12 21:57:02 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux
$ cat /etc/sane.d/mustek_pp.conf
...
scanner "mustek" * cis1200
Hoping to see a soon fix
Best regards
Sasha
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
"sasha mal"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> I turned on the local scanner, put some sheet of paper into in,
> started xsane. Looked with "ps aux" on the process list and saw saned
> there. Then I started acquring a preview of a A4 sheet of
> paper. Looking of the list of processes with "top", I noticed two
> copies of "saned", both running at the same priority (NI 0). After the
> preview was acquired, I discovered that one "saned" copy terminated.
>
> Scanning was very slow.
> I'm using the mustek_pp driver and the scanner called "MD 9890". The
The mustek_pp forks a reader process when scanning, so having 2 saned
processes running while scanning is perfectly fine and expected.
Your scanner is a parallel port scanner, so you have to expect it to
be slow ...
By renicing the parent saned process you're slightly modifying the
scheduling priority and the reader process gets more CPU time which
can help a bit, as you've seen, but it could as well have degraded
performance.
No bug here, sorry, you need a faster scanner.
JB.
--
Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169
GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169
--- End Message ---
