flash and firefox again

Todd Denniston Todd.Denniston at ssa.crane.navy.mil
Tue Oct 28 15:12:26 UTC 2008

Ed Greshko wrote, On 10/23/2008 08:15 PM:
> Todd Denniston wrote:
>> Frank Cox wrote, On 10/20/2008 10:50 PM:
>>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:10:57 -0500
>>> Richard Shaw <hobbes1069 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I didn't find anything helpful with a quick Google search for "flash 10
>>>> multitheaded" but maybe it is an issue with multi-core machines? 
>>> That's a thought.  I have never been able to watch CNN videos on this
>>> dual-core
>>> machine, even with Flash 10, but they work on the single-core machine
>>> that's
>>> sitting beside it.  Both running F8.
>> have you considered/ever tried forcing flash &| the browser &| X
>> processes to operate only on one processor (core) with taskset, just
>> to see if it may be a context switching/processor cache bashing problem?
>> I have noticed on the dual Xeon 1.50GHz W/512MB I use, that if I lock
>> X to the second processor, when visiting animated sites like
>> http://www.intellicast.com/National/Radar/Current.aspx?animate=true
>> The whole system is smother and the animation is less glitchy.
>> [with out locking X pulls ~85%cpu (of combined cpus),
>>   with locking X pulls ~10-50%cpu (of combined cpus), on that page
>> after it self reloads.]
> Other than in the "Advertisement" area I don't see any other "flash" on
> http://www.intellicast.com/National/Radar/Current.aspx?animate=true .
> When you were talking about "less glitchy" were you talking about the
> radar animation or some other aspect of that page?  The radar animation
> is part of javascript.

You are correct that I was less than clear...
I don't have flash on my systems, as it has to be upgraded too often for 
security holes.

I meant that the animations were less glitchy, and that the whole X session 
was less glitchy.

Todd Denniston
Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane)
Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter

More information about the users mailing list