Is something like this possible?
Code: Select all
$ wineserver [options] wine program.exepossible use? Does wineserver -d0 use less resources than the default?
Can wine and wineserver run in a single command?
Can wine and wineserver run in a single command?
Is it possible to run wineserver [options] in a wine command line launch, instead of having to run wineserver [options] first? The man page does not say whether it can or can not.
Is something like this possible?
Also are there any options to reduce wineserver's cpu usage to it's lowest
possible use? Does wineserver -d0 use less resources than the default?
Is something like this possible?
possible use? Does wineserver -d0 use less resources than the default?
Re: Can wine and wineserver run in a single command?
Wine will start wineserver automatically when you run anything with it. You don't need to start it yourself.
You can turn off debugging with WINEDEBUG=-all. It may speed up some apps where Wine spams lots of fixmes. http://www.winehq.org/docs/wineusr-guide/x275#AEN277
As for limiting Wine's CPU usage, that's something you would have to do in your OS.
You can turn off debugging with WINEDEBUG=-all. It may speed up some apps where Wine spams lots of fixmes. http://www.winehq.org/docs/wineusr-guide/x275#AEN277
As for limiting Wine's CPU usage, that's something you would have to do in your OS.
Re: Can wine and wineserver run in a single command?
Yes, I understand wineserver starts automatically when launching wine and that environment variables can be set. Thank you for the information.dimesio wrote:Wine will start wineserver automatically when you run anything with it. You don't need to start it yourself.
You can turn off debugging with WINEDEBUG=-all. It may speed up some apps where Wine spams lots of fixmes. http://www.winehq.org/docs/wineusr-guide/x275#AEN277
As for limiting Wine's CPU usage, that's something you would have to do in your OS.
What I am wondering is if it possible to run wineserver and it's options in a wine command launching a program.
Re: Can wine and wineserver run in a single command?
grruue the issue is most a case of not understanding how wineserver and wine hooked up to each other.
WINEDEBUG does control wineserver -d, --debug[=n]
+server is -d=2 -server is -d=0 and nothing is -d=1 yes WINEDEBUG=-all switches all debugging channels include server to - state. So WINEDEBUG=-all will end up with a wineserver starting in -d=0 anyhow. So nothing gained special running wineserver
kill and foreground options not really a option to be used in the wine command line anyhow.
So if you were after to adjust persistent or enable wait that is the only things that you cannot access other ways that could possible be usable. Neither alter cpu usage much. persistent is harmful to ram usage.
If you run wineserver -f or wineserver -p so it don't auto die then place top -p [pid of wineserver] you will notice it eats zero cpu load unless applications in the prefix is asking for it todo something. So in reality all the load you see in wineserver is triggered by the applications you are attempt to run. Yes some programs make massive load appear in wineserver and some people think reduce wineserver will help their application. Crippling wineserver would make the application run worse in that case.
wineserver will not run application following it. Wineserver is not a loader. That would have been excess code.
wineserver [options]
wine [program]
Is the only way if you want to run wineserver independent to wine main program. Yes you could put ; in middle to reduce to one line.
WINEDEBUG does control wineserver -d, --debug[=n]
+server is -d=2 -server is -d=0 and nothing is -d=1 yes WINEDEBUG=-all switches all debugging channels include server to - state. So WINEDEBUG=-all will end up with a wineserver starting in -d=0 anyhow. So nothing gained special running wineserver
kill and foreground options not really a option to be used in the wine command line anyhow.
So if you were after to adjust persistent or enable wait that is the only things that you cannot access other ways that could possible be usable. Neither alter cpu usage much. persistent is harmful to ram usage.
If you run wineserver -f or wineserver -p so it don't auto die then place top -p [pid of wineserver] you will notice it eats zero cpu load unless applications in the prefix is asking for it todo something. So in reality all the load you see in wineserver is triggered by the applications you are attempt to run. Yes some programs make massive load appear in wineserver and some people think reduce wineserver will help their application. Crippling wineserver would make the application run worse in that case.
wineserver will not run application following it. Wineserver is not a loader. That would have been excess code.
wineserver [options]
wine [program]
Is the only way if you want to run wineserver independent to wine main program. Yes you could put ; in middle to reduce to one line.
Re: Can wine and wineserver run in a single command?
Thank you for the help. You and dimesio have given some good info to go over.oiaohm wrote:grruue the issue is most a case of not understanding how wineserver and wine hooked up to each other.
<snip>
On a similar question, if you are anyone else has any suggestions, if a program is running fine with all built in wine dlls, is it possible that the program could run even more efficiently and consume less cpu usage if certain real native dlls were used?
Re: Can wine and wineserver run in a single command?
By theory native dlls will always be heavier. But as with all theory there are exceptions. Remember you have to go from Windows API to Linux API's. Wine built-in can take short cuts. These short cuts is why replacing some dlls in wine with native versions is impossible. Reason for impossible the lower down support does not exist in wine. Does not need to exist because it not directly accessible to applications.On a similar question, if you are anyone else has any suggestions, if a program is running fine with all built in wine dlls, is it possible that the program could run even more efficiently and consume less cpu usage if certain real native dlls were used?
The cases where native ends up consuming less cpu than built in its a wine bug somewhere using more cpu than it should.
Yes there is a reason why we keep on saying to people use the min native you can. Majority of the time this is the best performing as well as the most stable.
