Flying Fox wrote:Is it just running Handbrake on the RAM disk? Do you also have to configure Handbrake to use the RAM disk as its scratch drive and such? I am a bit of a noob in that area so if you can show where in the settings to change that will be great.
mmmmmdonuts21 wrote:You do this manually every time, or does RAMdisk provide customizable scripts (or something) so it's automated?Where you have to be careful is once you turn off your computer you lose everything, so you have to make sure you export your RAM disk drive image before you shut down and then import the image when your computer boots back up.
ChronoReverse wrote:You must be using the pretty low level quality settings assuming you're encoding to h.264. It's way too easy to become CPU limited when encoding assuming you're not using so much bitrate that it negates the purpose of using h.264.
wibeasley wrote:You do this manually every time, or does RAMdisk provide customizable scripts (or something) so it's automated?
kamikaziechameleon wrote:Wow this is simply amazing. I stumbled in here not knowing anything about anything and this is just cool. I'm thinking of digitizing my limited blu-ray collection, can you provide an abreviate walkthrough with ram disk and handbrake and what not?
Zoomastigophora wrote:The idea is that encoding is both IO and CPU bound. Generally, you don't want to encode a file from the same disk that you're outputting to, so theoretically, the best performance you should get is when the source is entirely on the RAM disk and you're outputting to the SSD. It shouldn't matter whether Handbrake is loaded from the RAM disk or from a hard drive.
Shining Arcanine wrote:Something cannot be both I/O bound and CPU bound. It has to be one or the other. Being bound by something means that you cannot improve performance without improving that thing.
Starfalcon wrote:Shining Arcanine wrote:Something cannot be both I/O bound and CPU bound. It has to be one or the other. Being bound by something means that you cannot improve performance without improving that thing.
How so? If I have a rig with both a slow CPU and slow hard drive running massive photoshop files, I think that would qualify as bound by both CPU and I/O. The CPU would be bound by being unable to process all the filters properly, and the I/O in that the hard drive would be unable to load the files to the ram and CPU to process.
Shining Arcanine wrote:I agree. While performance for each tiny fraction of a second is limited by just one element, the overall program performance is a combined function of all of them. There is a percentage that could be improved with storage system upgrades and a percentage that could be improved with processor upgrades. Let's be willing to accept some imprecision and say that performance is "mostly" bound by one or the other or that it depends strongly on two of them.In your example, the program is I/O bound when loading and CPU-bound at processing. It is never both I/O-bound and CPU-bound at the same time.
mmmmmdonuts21 wrote:I am just using the default encoding settings to (RF of 20) etc. and encoding into a mkv file and using AC3 and DTS passthrough. I do have six cores @ 3.75 so with DVD's it fluctuates depending on the quality and length of the DVD if all cores are 100%. When I said they are not 100% I mean a core or two could dip into the 85-95% range briefly every once in a while
ChronoReverse wrote:The smoking gun is that the CPU usage can varied from something other than pegged at 100%.