On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Dirk wrote:
> Well, it works. Thansk for all the tips.
>
> The problem is the batch option. For some reason -b doesn't work for me
> but -B and --batch do. So, there is no need for "nice" or changing
> priorities for at. The environment for at is also okay. (well, in my
> cas
Well, it works. Thansk for all the tips.
The problem is the batch option. For some reason -b doesn't work for me
but -B and --batch do. So, there is no need for "nice" or changing
priorities for at. The environment for at is also okay. (well, in my
case).
Just to make things clear I have attache
--- Dirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all. Can anyone explain me why lavrec doesn't work very well with the
> "at" command? It doesn't matter if I use a script with a lavrec command
> or if I use the lavrec command directly with at.
>
> Lavrec does exactly what I want except scheduling a captu
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 09:28:11AM -0500, Scott Moser wrote:
> You'd have to run the 'nice' via a shell script.
>
> I'm fairly certain that if you had a shell script that kicked off
> lavrec, within it, you could call 'renice -n 10 $$' or start lavrec with
> 'nice -n 10 lavrec', and it would get s
You'd have to run the 'nice' via a shell script.
I'm fairly certain that if you had a shell script that kicked off
lavrec, within it, you could call 'renice -n 10 $$' or start lavrec with
'nice -n 10 lavrec', and it would get started appropriately.
Also, I thought that lavrec made some attempts t
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 07:53:35AM -0500, Scott Moser wrote:
> I once had problems with 'at' versus 'cron'. Cron jobs worked fine, at
> jobs didn't. Tured out that it was a priority issue. By default 'at'
> starts jobs with a low priority.
>
> Try putting the jobs in a higher que with at -q:
>
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Dirk wrote:
> Should "at" execute the lavrec command with exact the priority as when
> you start directly from commandline?
See my message earlier, and 'at' man page
The answer is 'no'.
>
> And another thing, I have a 2.4.20 kernel patched with the set from Con
> Colivas. Bu
On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 08:37, Zsolt KOZAK wrote:
>
> Everybody!
> Does anyone use lavrec with ext3?
Yup. Have been doing so forever.
> If yes, is ext3 fast enough?
Yup.
b.
--
Brian J. Murrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
I once had problems with 'at' versus 'cron'. Cron jobs worked fine, at
jobs didn't. Tured out that it was a priority issue. By default 'at'
starts jobs with a low priority.
Try putting the jobs in a higher que with at -q:
(from 'man at')
Queues with higher letters run with increased nicen
On 2003-06-04 14:07, Dirk wrote:
Oh, and xfs
filesystem, but that matter for "at" either I guess.
Dou you use lavrec on xfs also when you use it from the command line?
I have ext3 partitions but I have an ext2 filesystem dedicated for
grabbing videos, because ext3 is too slow for me... I hav
Should "at" execute the lavrec command with exact the priority as when
you start directly from commandline?
And another thing, I have a 2.4.20 kernel patched with the set from Con
Colivas. But I don't know if that makes a difference for at. Oh, and xfs
filesystem, but that matter for "at" either
On 2003-06-04 12:58, Fabian Ritzmann wrote:
Lots of inserted and deleted frames. When I use directly from
commandline there are hardly any inserted or deleted frames.
You probably considered that but just to make sure - did you check that
there are no fancy screensavers or heavy-duty cron job
Dirk wrote:
> > >Hi all. Can anyone explain me why lavrec doesn't work very well with the
> > >"at" command?
> > >
> > What do you mean under "doesn't work very well"? Could you explain it?
> >
> Lots of inserted and deleted frames. When I use directly from
> commandline there are hardly any inse
On 2003-06-04 12:15, Dirk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 12:00:08PM +0200, Zsolt KOZAK wrote:
What do you mean under "doesn't work very well"? Could you explain it?
Lots of inserted and deleted frames. When I use directly from
commandline there are hardly any inserted or deleted frames.
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 12:00:08PM +0200, Zsolt KOZAK wrote:
> On 2003-06-04 11:36, Dirk wrote:
>
> >Hi all. Can anyone explain me why lavrec doesn't work very well with the
> >"at" command?
> >
> What do you mean under "doesn't work very well"? Could you explain it?
>
Lots of inserted and delete
On 2003-06-04 11:36, Dirk wrote:
Hi all. Can anyone explain me why lavrec doesn't work very well with the
"at" command?
What do you mean under "doesn't work very well"? Could you explain it?
It doesn't matter if I use a script with a lavrec command or
if I use the lavrec command directly with at.
Hi all. Can anyone explain me why lavrec doesn't work very well with the
"at" command? It doesn't matter if I use a script with a lavrec command or
if I use the lavrec command directly with at.
Lavrec does exactly what I want except scheduling a capture doesn't
work. (very well)
Thanks,
Dirk
17 matches
Mail list logo
