michaelni changed the topic of #ffmpeg-devel to: Welcome to the FFmpeg development channel | Questions about using FFmpeg or developing with libav* libs should be asked in #ffmpeg | This channel is publicly logged | FFmpeg 7.1 has been released! | Please read ffmpeg.org/developer.html#Code-of-conduct
<compn>
its from the xz backdoor autoconf build script, curious if anyone else has ever used sed to cat like that.
System_Error has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
kasper93 has joined #ffmpeg-devel
<ePirat>
BtbN, is it expected that patchwork is down completely now?
<BtbN>
It should be back up now
<BtbN>
Just for some reason slow
<BtbN>
Completely upgraded it and made sense of it
<ePirat>
getting a gateway timeout
<ePirat>
so probably too slow for the reverse proxy even
<BtbN>
*** uWSGI listen queue of socket "0.0.0.0:8000" (fd: 6) full !!! (101/100) ***
<BtbN>
Yeah, it's working on 100/100 requests, and just hyper busy
<ePirat>
"fun"
<BtbN>
I guess a bunch of tools hammer it right now, cause it was down for an hour
<BtbN>
It is slowly working through requests, so I hope it settles
<ePirat>
how can this thing be so slow
<ePirat>
it doesnt even do much
<BtbN>
Well, if the DB is trying to process 100 requests in parallel, it gets quite slow
<BtbN>
The VM its on isn't a fast one
<BtbN>
I wonder if the DB is missing some index. It wasn't this slow before
<ePirat>
is it postgres or mysql/mariadb?
<BtbN>
mariadb
<BtbN>
It was a really old mysql version before. Now it's latest mariadb
<BtbN>
and it got dog slow
<ePirat>
weird
<BtbN>
"GET /project/ffmpeg/list/?state=*&archive=both¶m=-date&page=336 => generated 105812 bytes in 14074 msecs (HTTP/1.1 200) 5 headers in 264 bytes"
<BtbN>
14 seconds to generate that page. Why?
<ePirat>
that is incredibly slow…
<BtbN>
I'm gonna turn on slow query logging and watch
<ePirat>
BtbN, thanks a lot for looking into this btw
<BtbN>
The way it's doing mail submission now is postfix ssh'ing into the patchwork box, and submitting all mail to the ffmpeg-devel
<BtbN>
list
<ePirat>
does it do that periodically or per mail?
<BtbN>
every mail
<BtbN>
It's just me subscribing a magic internal address to the list, and adding an my-secret-address: |/my/script.sh
<BtbN>
to the aliases file I mean
<BtbN>
And it then just calls that script for every mail and feeds it the mail via stdin
<BtbN>
It's how patchwork documents to set it up with postfix. Just that there's no ssh in between
<JEEB>
so actual bool types are utilized in those, too
<JEEB>
so if that used to be the problem, then those modules would already fail compilation
System_Error has joined #ffmpeg-devel
rvalue has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
rvalue has joined #ffmpeg-devel
Krowl has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
MisterMinister has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
MisterMinister has joined #ffmpeg-devel
System_Error has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Krowl has joined #ffmpeg-devel
System_Error has joined #ffmpeg-devel
<Lynne>
haasn: we don't usually use bools because setting them may involve cmovs or bitwise ops
<haasn>
on what platforms?
<Lynne>
x86, and others too
<kasper93>
could you show an example?
<Lynne>
afaik ABI-wise they're specified to always be 0 or exactly 1
<Lynne>
at least that's how BBB explained it to me more years ago than he remembers
<Lynne>
(not old, pretty sure he must've been in middle school back then or something)
<Daemon404>
i wonder if this really is measurable in 202r
<Daemon404>
2025 even
<Daemon404>
this sounds very gcc 2 era voodoo
<wbs>
most such microoptimizations aren't usually measurable, but if it can be showed in less nice code output from the compiler, that's at least an observable thing
<kasper93>
0/1 is true, but in practice it matters if you convert int to bool for example. But `int a = x == 0;` would compare too, similar to `bool a = x;`
<kasper93>
wbs: again true, but I'm just curious for my own informatio, in what situation the generated code would be worse
IndecisiveTurtle has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
deus0ww has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
deus0ww has joined #ffmpeg-devel
Lynne has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<Lynne>
compn: I too want more raw support in ffmpeg, particularly blackmagic raw
<compn>
yes blackmagic and red for sure.
<Lynne>
not sure why anyone would buy a red these days though
<compn>
old cameras
<Lynne>
ah
<compn>
i mean, supporting old cameras
<compn>
no idea if people buy red now
<Lynne>
the low cost cinema camera these days is ruled by the bmcc
<Lynne>
eveh though its got an L-mount which precisely no one cares about, blackmagic raw is a much better and modern codec, its full frame (!) and its got 2 xlr ports
<Lynne>
red raw converts to yuv internally afaik, blackmagic use a reversible transformation
<compn>
yuv is good enough /s
<Lynne>
(not even going to say anything about panasonic or sony cinema cameras, which use xavc)
<compn>
i think we're going to see a lot more new 8k cameras
<compn>
or maybe not
<Lynne>
oh they've been around for years now, they're just in the 15k price bracket, not the 3k
<Lynne>
what I'd really like is a camera which can shoot in raw or losslessly compressed codec
<Lynne>
kinefinity promised they'd implement cinemadng in their 6k camera years ago via firmware, but never did as far as I can tell
<Lynne>
yup, red are bullies that will go after you if you do something lossless, hence cinemadng
<Lynne>
which is just one xml file, plus one dng file... for each frame
<Lynne>
there is an open source cinema camera, which while well designed and everything, is pretty fully outdated today, and they've got no plans to bring it up in the 6k full frame era we're at now
<gnafu>
I wonder if anything will change with RED being owned by Nikon now.
<gnafu>
Nikon have been making some exciting cameras in recent years. Very impressive video capabilities, but not "cinema" bodies yet.
<gnafu>
I still shoot with an 8-year-old Panasonic that just does 100 Mbps H.264 for its UHD, but I would love to have FOSS support if I ever upgrade to something that can do raw video.
<gnafu>
First step for me is just moving to something that does 10-bit H.265...
<JEEB>
gnafu: 100mbps H.264 is quite nice, and with cameras you're always afraid of whether new video format settings are just dumb (I've seen this oh so many times, newer format meaning hilariously low bit rate or something)