and the purpose of this would be...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stapp, Acy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 10:12 AM
Subject: RE: [MP3 ENCODER] LAME: does the encoding code support distributed
processing?
> I've found the better solution is to distribute the encoding
> per song instead of per frame. No changes are required to whatever
> encoder you are using.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Nick Burch
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 4:36 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] LAME: does the encoding code support
> distributed processing?
>
>
> Hi
>
> I'm not all that clued up on the algorithms, but I think there is a more
> fundamental problem with your idea than
> the encoder.
>
> Distributed.net will dish out about 15k a day to a pII-300 running 24/7.
> Seti@Home will dish out about 500k a
> day to a 24/7 pII-300.
>
> 128kbps mp3 data is about 1mb a minute, and the uncompressed wave is about
> 10mb a minute. Most
> people feel the seti@home data throughput is high. Unfortunatly, a pII-300
> running lame for 24 hours (about
> 1x encoding) will need about 14 gigabytes sent to it, and will return
about
> 1.5 gigabytes to the server. That
> sort of data throughput is unacceptable on all but a decent corperate lan.
>
> So, even if the enoder will do it (which I think it will, based on
previous
> postings), the data you'll need to shift
> around will be a bigger problem. Maybe for your few workstations it'll be
> OK, but I'm not sure it'll have all that
> many other applications.
>
> Nick Burch
>
>
> --
> MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
> --
> MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
