[PlanetCCRMA] Latencies in 2.6 vs 2.4 (was: PlanetCCRMA)

Axel Thimm planetccrma@ccrma.Stanford.EDU
Wed Nov 24 19:25:02 2004

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 09:05:50PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 November 2004 20:31, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 12:46:25PM +0100, R.M.Deal wrote:
> >> Does anyone have any idea when PlanetCCRMA, the source for audio
> >> software from
> >> Stanford University, will run smoothly in FC3?  With RH9, it was
> >> an excellent way to
> >> keep up with developments tracked/developed at Stanford Univ.,
> >> using apt-get.
> >>
> >> If this is a FAQ, please point me to the appropriate archive.  I
> >> just installed FC3.
> >
> >Currently PlanetCCRMA is still recommending using FC1 (with
> >PlanetCCRMA's 2.4 kernel) over any 2.6 kernel based distribution for
> >the still unmatched latency features.
> >
> >>   Ralph M. Deal, retired prof. of Phys. Chem.
> That recommendation may not be so ironclad here shortly.

Everybody hopes so :)

> I'm running Ingo Molnar's morning patch at full preemption setting
> here, uptime is about 7 hours now, no glitches as I go about my
> normal daily routines, and its obviouly much snappier than a home
> built 2.6.10-rc2-mm3 kernel.

Sounds nice, but prof. audio apps have rather rigid latency
demands. It would be helpful to measure latencies and report on the
PlanetCCRMA lists (if you are audio/sound interested at PlanetCCRMA's
level). Fernando Pablo Lopez, the maintainer of PlanetCCRMA, could
outline or even guide you through the benchmarking.

Moving this to the PlanetCCRMA lists, as this is more appropriate

> I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop, and it may well, but so
> far it been very solid & apparently at least bullet-resistant.

> >From another mostly retired old coot.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)