Send Motion-user mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/motion-user
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Motion-user digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Motion 4.2.2 vs 4.1.1 CPU usage (rmbusy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:11:24 -0700
From: rmbusy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Motion-user] Motion 4.2.2 vs 4.1.1 CPU usage
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Thanks for this info.? It sounds like 4.2.2 should be less CPU usage
than 4.1.1, so I'll have to do some experimenting here to see if I can
figure out why it's gone up (the profiling link should help with that).?
I have all the notes from when I built 4.1.1. initially, and the source
zip files, so I should be able to reproduce that if need be.
I would not expect going from Ubuntu 16.04 to 18.04 to be the cause, but
I won't rule it out either.? I have a spare drive, so I could install
16.04 on it, and in theory, completely recreate my original setup.? If
only I had the free time to do everything I want to do right now.
I'll keep you posted.
--
Rob.
On 7/19/19 10:35 AM, tosiara wrote:
> This is my ARM board CPU usage over the previous year:
>
> image.png
>
> It is using USB webcam. In 2018 I changed pixel format from MJPEG to
> RAW and it decreased the CPU usage from ~65% to ~35%. In the middle on
> 2018 I merged NEON optimizations which saved even more CPU - to ~23%.
> I constantly update my motion to master branch, but since 2018 CPU
> usage on this ARM device has not changed
>
> So I doubt your issue is in motion's code. It could be compile flags.
> If want to be sure, try profiling motion and compare:
> http://www.lavrsen.dk/foswiki/bin/view/Motion/MotionProfiling
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:16 PM rmbusy <[email protected]
> <mailto:rmbusy%[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> One other thing, in an attempt to reduce CPU usage, I've disabled
> auto_tune, and added mask files to 5 of the cameras to mask out
> foliage
> and areas that could cause excess triggering, and bumped the
> threshold
> from 5,000 to 10,000 on all of the 2MP cameras.? These changes
> were not
> needed with 4.1.1.
>
> I've also noticed a lot more motion detection of changing shadows,
> compared to what I used to see.
>
>
> --
> Rob.
>
>
> On 7/19/19 9:08 AM, rmbusy wrote:
> > OS is Linux (before, Ubuntu Xenial 16.04 LTS, now Ubuntu Bionic
> > 18.04.2 LTS).? In both cases, I built motion from source.? I
> started
> > by installing the package with apt-get install motion to get all
> the
> > dependencies, then built from source and switched to it.
> >
> > Since there are really only 3 types / configurations of cameras, I
> > only tested the 3 types.? I watched the output of 'top' for about a
> > minute for each test.? I also waited for the initial startup to
> settle
> > (time for camera to respond with images) before recording the
> > numbers.? I don't have 4.1.1 building yet, so these numbers are for
> > 4.2.2.
> >
> > For the 2MP snapshot camera, after startup, before connecting to
> the
> > web page, it hovered between 25% and 45% CPU usage.
> > After starting the web page, the numbers hovered between 78.5%
> and 81.5%.
> >
> > For the 1MP streaming camera (5 frames / sec), it hovered
> between 23%
> > and 33%.
> > After starting the web page, 33.7% to 45.9%.
> >
> > For the 2MP streaming camera (5 frames / sec), it hovered
> between 42%
> > and 53.6%.
> > After starting the web page, 63.6% and 70.3%.
> >
> > I'm a little surprised no one had usage numbers between the two
> > versions.? Considering I'm using the same configuration files (with
> > updates for the new parameter names in 4.2), I was expecting others
> > would see this problem.? It's an issue for me, because I have more
> > cameras I want to add, but at this point with 4.2.2, the CPU is
> maxed
> > out.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rob.
> >
> >
> > On 7/18/19 11:12 PM, tosiara wrote:
> >> Could you compare CPU numbers running only one camera? The best to
> >> make 8 separate tests with each camera. This could help to
> understand
> >> the issue better
> >> Also, which OS are were you using before and now, and which motion
> >> version - binary package or compiled yourself?
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:33 PM rmbusy <[email protected]
> <mailto:rmbusy%[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>> I upgraded my system to the latest version of Linux, and at
> the same
> >>> time, upgraded Motion from 4.1.1 to 4.2.2.
> >>>
> >>> I have 8 RTSP cameras set up, 5 cameras configured for
> snapshot mode at
> >>> 1 frame per second (all 2MP), and 3 streaming at 5 frames per
> second (2
> >>> 2MP, 1 1MP).? All of this is running on a quad core Rock64 w/
> 4GB DRAM,
> >>> at the default CPU frequency (1.3GHz).
> >>>
> >>> With 4.1.1, I was seeing around 150% CPU utilization (via
> top), and
> >>> when
> >>> connecting to the web page, around 300% CPU utilization. Since the
> >>> Rock64 is a quad core ARM processor, max is 400%.
> >>>
> >>> Now with 4.2.2 and the same camera configuration files
> (updated with
> >>> new
> >>> option names), I'm seeing CPU utilization of 250%, and when
> connecting
> >>> to the web page, the numbers are maxed out, and the web page is
> >>> basically non-responsive.
> >>>
> >>> Since I upgraded the underlying OS, I can't rule out that it's
> >>> requiring
> >>> more CPU cycles for Motion to do the same thing, but that seems
> >>> unlikely.? Running top doesn't show anything else using CPU cycles
> >>> (other than top).
> >>>
> >>> Can anyone confirm if 4.2.2 is using significantly more CPU
> cycles than
> >>> 4.1.1?? If I can't find a way to reduce the usage, I may have
> to go
> >>> back
> >>> to 4.1.1.
> >>>
> >>> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Rob.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Motion-user mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/motion-user
> >>> https://motion-project.github.io/
> >>>
> >>> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/options/motion-user
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Motion-user mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/motion-user
> >> https://motion-project.github.io/
> >>
> >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/options/motion-user
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Motion-user mailing list
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/motion-user
> https://motion-project.github.io/
>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/options/motion-user
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Motion-user mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/motion-user
> https://motion-project.github.io/
>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/options/motion-user
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17360 bytes
Desc: not available
------------------------------
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Motion-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/motion-user
------------------------------
End of Motion-user Digest, Vol 157, Issue 24
********************************************
