GTsitouridis 2 Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 I have an issue with docker on QNAP in terms of performance. While I have setup transcoding and it is working just fine, I have a reduced bitrate and as a result bad image. The source is the same (TVHeadEnd on Pi Zero). When using qpkg I get a bitrate of 20Mbps+ while when in docker I get only 10Mbps. At least this is the only thing I can see as a difference. I am also previewing the same channel while switching from docker to qpkg. I did not know if it had to do with networking internal of QNAP, so I tried all possible docker connection methods, all of which yielded the same results. Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37050 Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Hi there, can we please look at example sessions from each so that we can compare? Thanks ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTsitouridis 2 Posted January 23, 2021 Author Share Posted January 23, 2021 Would you like me to sent over some screenshots or sort videos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37050 Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Can you please provide the logging information requested in my link above? Thanks ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTsitouridis 2 Posted January 23, 2021 Author Share Posted January 23, 2021 4 hours ago, Luke said: Can you please provide the logging information requested in my link above? Thanks ! Hallo, So I repeated a test and got logs, image sample and dashboard transcoding info. qpkg test from 10:02 to 10:05 local time docket test from 10:10 to 10:13 local time Logs_docker_10-10_10-13.zip Logs_qpkg_10-02_10-05.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37050 Posted January 28, 2021 Share Posted January 28, 2021 You're getting basically the same transcoding performance from both. I wonder if it's due to the disk or network performance of the docker container. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTsitouridis 2 Posted January 28, 2021 Author Share Posted January 28, 2021 1 hour ago, Luke said: You're getting basically the same transcoding performance from both. I wonder if it's due to the disk or network performance of the docker container. Well.... both are running on the same physical system and on the same mirrored disks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37050 Posted January 28, 2021 Share Posted January 28, 2021 Right but Docker adds a virtualization layer in between. That doesn't necessarily mean it will make a substantial difference, but there is a cost to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTsitouridis 2 Posted January 28, 2021 Author Share Posted January 28, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Luke said: Right but Docker adds a virtualization layer in between. That doesn't necessarily mean it will make a substantial difference, but there is a cost to that. This is more than true. I am just reminding that we are talking about the same physical system and the same array/volume. One other thing, is that I have allocated all available resources to the container, which is barely using them. Edited January 28, 2021 by GTsitouridis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTsitouridis 2 Posted February 21, 2021 Author Share Posted February 21, 2021 On 1/28/2021 at 9:16 AM, Luke said: Right but Docker adds a virtualization layer in between. That doesn't necessarily mean it will make a substantial difference, but there is a cost to that. Hallo, Eventually I think I figure out as to why it is happening. Comparing HW detection logs I found that native emby package on QNAP uses i965 driver, while in docker (running on QNAP) it is using iHD driver. I think this is the case with the following thread: Hardware Encoding Issues (j4125) - Asustor - Emby Community I simply do not know how to go about and correct it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37050 Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 OK that's interesting, thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTsitouridis 2 Posted March 1, 2021 Author Share Posted March 1, 2021 Just now, Luke said: OK that's interesting, thanks for the info. In some thread you have proposed the use of the beta version, which worked ok for me too, thought the image was a bit soft, but reported as HW transcoding. For a week or so, I have been using ghcr.io/linuxserver/emby and that is working perfectly! For this container i965 driver is used. If you wish, I can provide logs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now