www.makemkv.com

I am very new to makemkv (yesterday), but I have a couple of issues to work out. One, that is the subject of this post, is that makemkv only uses one of my 8 cpus. Is there something (easy) I can do to have makemkv use more processors?

Thanks,

X

makemkv was installed using the script from this thread.
Intel I-7 processor running Ubuntu Linux 12.04 64-bit

To what end? MakeMKV is limited by the I/O speed of the optical drive and the hard drive you are writing the results to. The actual CPU overhead is quite low.

The fastest ripping machine I have here is a dual-core machine that can rip a BD and a DVD at the same time, at 5 to 17X read speeds, while running everything else. The choice of optical drives is more important than number of cores.

Thanks Woodstock - While I am not arguing with you, I am arguing with you. Sorta. Apparently my experience with makemkv cpu usage (as limited as it is) is not the same as what you have experienced. Here is what I observed on my machine.

While running only aMule and makemkv I looked at my system monitor and saw that one cpu was pegged at 100% It varied as to which one as when one dropped down another would immediately shoot up, but one was always at 100%. The other seven were at about 15% or below. As soon as makemkv ended, all cpu's were 15% or below. I started makemkv again and as before, one cpu shot up to 100% and stayed there until I terminated makemkv at which time they all were at the 15% mark once again. During all of this, the memory and swap usage were stagnant. Memory usage was at about 30% or so, while swap was basically zero.

As it is, makemkv created an mkv file for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part1 in just under an hour and that would be easy to live with. I started a rip using a trial copy of dvdfab9 in a Windows7 virtual machine (using Virtualbox), and an hour later it wasn't even 1% done. It would have taken FOREVER for dvdfab to rip it. So I am not complaining about the speed of makemkv, but if I can easily make it faster then why not?

Thanks,

X

The difference may be in that I don't convert TruHD to FLAC; "normal" CPU usage is pretty low for the simple decrypting functionality.

Now, something like Handbrake really likes extra cores.

You're coping media from a slow device to a faster device.

Why would you need to use more than one core? Your optical drive won't read the media any faster if all your cores are used, or just one of your cores are used.

SC