Hmm... several things changed that could be relevant.
One thing that might be worth doing is running "pd -d 1" and seeing if there's any obvious difference in the amount of data flowing from Pd to the GUI process.
I gather that 'sid' refers to the very latest unstable version of Debian, so there's also a possibility that the X server itself is having trouble in some way...?
cheers Miller
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 07:36:46PM +0300, Yury Bulka wrote:
Thank you for your reply,
Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca writes:
How much CPU does Pd (both halves of it) really use while it's acting slow ? That could be a big hint either way. In the process list («ps» or «top»), see whether «pd» has a big %, and see whether «pd-gui» has a big %.
I did the following experiment:
- opened 'top' in a terminal
- opened pd and created new file
...the CPU is mostly idle
- with dsp turned off I tried to add one object (a non-existing [test] one) and move it around
...when I move the object (the window is already updating slowly, around 2 fps), the Xorg process raises to about 70% CPU usage and puredata process remains at 2-5%. The command «ps -A | egrep -i 'pd|puredata'» gives the following:
17 ? 00:00:13 kswapd0 783 ? 00:00:00 pppd 1045 ? 00:08:51 mpd 26605 pts/4 00:00:01 puredata 26608 pts/4 00:00:00 pd-watchdog
(I was running it with JACK, but running through ALSA gives the same results with only additional puredata process).
The same situation with Pd-extended (except the process name:).
I will post my Xorg.log as an attachment...
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list