6121 'processing' time is much longer

MrKrawk

After a video downloads from Hulu, the processing time for version 6121 is noticeably longer than version 6119. But the release notes do not say anything about the Hulu module, so is it the engine itself that got new code?

Cats4U

I notice no difference in the Hulu processing times between version 6118* (I didn't use 6119) and version 6120 nor 6121. StreamFab has updated it's ffmpeg.exe from a version of 4.4 shared to a version of 6.0 static for most downloads as of version 6120. YouTube type downloads still use the prior ffmpeg.exe. This could also be the reason for your other question on file size at https://forum.dvdfab.cn/forum/software-support-english/youtube-to-mp3-youtube-video-downloader/425196-6121-is-40-mb-bigger#post425196. The static form of ffmpeg.exe is much larger.

* Note on my 6118 - I have run 6118 both as originally downloaded from StreamFab and modified using ffmpeg.exe 6.0-x shared and MKVMerge 75. I noticed no difference in processing times either ways.

MrKrawk

At about the 50% mark on processing, it sits there for awhile, the hard drive activity light blipping every couple of seconds. It used to take around 5 seconds total including remux, now it's more like 60 or more. Sometimes the screen will go blank too.

Cats4U

I'm being serious now - Have you ever tried Solitaire or any other time waster? Whenever I download a whole bunch of videos, which usually isn't too often, I load up Solitaire and play as many hands as it takes to finish the downloads. Or I'll visit the various forums I subscribe to and do some reading and/or writing. Or worse comes to worst I'll finally get around to seeing about one of my wife's honeydews.
The point is, StreamFab doesn't need to be watched. Watching it makes it appear to go slower. Time for the old saying - A watched pot never boils. Walk away from it. It'll be done when you come back.

MrKrawk

The fact that it is taking considerably longer could indicate a larger problem somewhere.
Actually in the earlier days, streamfab would fail more often if NOT watched, lol.

Cats4U

I am at this very moment downloading the third season of The Great from Hulu. I watched the first 2 episodes come down out of consideration for your comments. There is absolutely no way that I would call the download as taking a long time. The actual download is extremely rapid. Maybe the Processing part is the part that is confusing you timewise. The first 50% of the Processing shows the green line going across (at a very good rate) and then the line stops but the processing continues. Maybe without that visual indicator of the green line continuing, in your mind it is taking a longer time than it is in reality? The green line is just cosmetic and it acts strangely to what one might expect in a great many of the modules. Then the green line zips across in one second when it does the Remuxing. BTW, in the short amount of time for me to write the prior part of this message, the download of the remaining 8 episodes of The Great have been completed.

One thing I didn't pick up until rereading your prior message - If your screen is going blank while using StreamFab you have some other problem with your computer. Or maybe it might be something simple as not having the setting checked in StreamFab's Settings for "Disable screensaver/standby/hibernation when downloading videos."

MrKrawk

I am at this very moment downloading the third season of The Great from Hulu. I watched the first 2 episodes come down out of consideration for your comments. There is absolutely no way that I would call the download as taking a long time. The actual download is extremely rapid. Maybe the Processing part is the part that is confusing you timewise.
Cats4U

As the original message indicated, the processing time is very long. It used to be tick tick tick tick and literally done in a few seconds. Now with the super long pause at 50% and more than one minute to complete. Other services would process at a much slower pace, Hulu was always quite fast.

As far as the screen blank out, I have to wonder if some part of the process is touching the graphics driver (Nividia 3080ti).

MrKrawk

I have determined that regardless of video length, 12 minutes or 120 minutes, the stall point as I will call it, where it is 50% done is the same duration of time.

corey75

I am finding that streamfab, for me, has been HORRIBLY SLOW with HULU on all of it including the download speed and processing time. Here's a screenshot of streamfab downloading a 4k video, and the main competitor flying down a 4k video. Both are coming in on a 2G fiber line. Speed is not an issue with anything but streamfab. I have been having this problem with Streamfab and nobody else since upgrading to 6.1.2.1. The screenshot is of the current 6.1.2.2. This happens on ALL of my computers.

Streamfab... what is going on???

jpp72

I have also noticed that the processing is much slower but the download speed remains unaffected for me.

This is my speed 5 minutes ago with 6.1.2.1 on a 1.5Gbps Fiber connected to a US Server from NordVPN (I am in Canada)

Cats4U

If you are going to use 2160p/H265 of course the processing is going to be slower. H265 alone is a CPU hog and then you double up the resolution. That's a lot of bits to process. For test purposes set your download to 720p/H264 and see how fast it processes.
As far as the actual downloads on HULU, I am achieving greater than the 800 mbps that Comcast claims I'm set up for. I'm maxing out at 117 MBps on HULU. No other streamer on SF does that.

jpp72

If you are going to use 2160p/H265 of course the processing is going to be slower. H265 alone is a CPU hog and then you double up the resolution. That's a lot of bits to process. For test purposes set your download to 720p/H264 and see how fast it processes.
As far as the actual downloads on HULU, I am achieving greater than the 800 mbps that Comcast claims I'm set up for. I'm maxing out at 117 MBps on HULU. No other streamer on SF does that.
Cats4U

This was just an example screenshot. I don't download TV Shows in 4K. Only movies. Obviously the bigger the file, the longer it takes to process.

My observations are that at 1080p/H265, the processing is way longer than it was when 1080p/H265 was implemented.

I just did a test right now with a single episode of 9-1-1 Lone Star with v6.1.2.1 x64 and v6.1.1.0 x86. It's even possible the 32-bit version is slower than the 64-bit but i didn't want to uninstall 6.1.2.1. Different architectures can co-exist so it's great for comparison testing on the same hardware.

v6.1.2.1 Processing and Remuxing: 1 minute, 35 seconds.
v6.1.1.0 Processing and Remuxing: 1 minute, 1 second.

The resulting files are bit-for-bit identical.

This means v6.1.2.1 is a full 50% slower than v6.1.1.0.

I also noticed that 6.1.1.0 processes the video and audio separately but 6.1.2.1 does them simultaneously. I don't know if it's because they changed it in the recent versions or if it's because the 32-bit can only use 3GB of RAM so it's better to process separately as opposed to x64 that can use my full 16GB of RAM

Cats4U

Wow, that's interesting about the version difference. The only thing that I've seen change is that SF started using an early version of FFmpeg.exe 6.0 with v6.1.2.0 for all but the Youtube/M3U8 videos (and maybe the MPD, as well). I've been using the newer nightly versions of FFMpeg 6.0 in my modified V6.1.2.1. Either way I'm probably not seeing the delay because I have my settings default to 1080p/H264. I have so many terabytes sitting around unused that it doesn't make sense for me to overwork my CPU with H265.

MrKrawk

I just did a test right now with a single episode of 9-1-1 Lone Star with v6.1.2.1 x64 and v6.1.1.0 x86. It's even possible the 32-bit version is slower than the 64-bit but i didn't want to uninstall 6.1.2.1. Different architectures can co-exist so it's great for comparison testing on the same hardware.

v6.1.2.1 Processing and Remuxing: 1 minute, 35 seconds.
v6.1.1.0 Processing and Remuxing: 1 minute, 1 second.

The resulting files are bit-for-bit identical.

This means v6.1.2.1 is a full 50% slower than v6.1.1.0.

I also noticed that 6.1.1.0 processes the video and audio separately but 6.1.2.1 does them simultaneously. I don't know if it's because they changed it in the recent versions or if it's because the 32-bit can only use 3GB of RAM so it's better to process separately as opposed to x64 that can use my full 16GB of RAM
jpp72

Thanks for this and confirming I am not crazy! I assume that a person's PC specs also affect this time. I have an Intel i9 12900K and the temp file is stored on an SSD. There is apparently a built in fixed time dead spot at the 50% mark, so everything before or after that is probably hardware dependent.

Oh, why the temporary download location to an SSD. If I download to my Seagate Exos drive it sounds like non-stop heavy seeking is going on. (The competition program doesn't do that).