<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFa_cKmqRudZ+NtUtk=VEzKAkvKMAGkOot5xOrfQHje4exCaeg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>although it isn't proven yet .. i think
that your problem may come from the fact
that you want to have 19 different engines,
and you keep flicking switches to go from
one to the other.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span> Nope, I don't want to switch engines.
Everything runs at once, and runs very well by the way.
I just want to take more advantage of what I have, by
running some things asynchronously, exactly the way some
are already doing using multiple motherboards.<span
class=""><br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>the "engines" i'm referring to are your many multiple
clients (19 or so). <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
OK. I am not flicking switches to go from any to any other. I am
sending MIDI events, which are triggering synths, and sending data
along JACK paths which do not and are not changed after they are
built, as long as the box runs. That's why it's called "Concurrent
Patch Management" (
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lsn.ponderworthy.com/doku.php/concurrent_patch_management">http://lsn.ponderworthy.com/doku.php/concurrent_patch_management</a> ).<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFa_cKmqRudZ+NtUtk=VEzKAkvKMAGkOot5xOrfQHje4exCaeg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>i think you're still confused by terminology here, in a
way that doesn't advance your situation. Nothing in a JACK
system runs "asynchronously". Everything is "synchronous",
which means that within a given process cycle, all clients
will be processing audio samples taken from, or to be
written to, the same locations in the hardware buffer of
the audio interface in use. They work on the same "time
slice". Changing this would break the fundamental
assumptions and design of JACK (all versions).<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
No, I know very well that nothing in a single JACK system runs
asynchronously. The point is that if a single JACK system cannot be
flexible enough to use most of the computing power I have, because
of the limitations of any synchronous design, multiple JACK systems
will be employed within the one box, just as others already employ
multiple JACK systems on multiple motherboards to serve the same
purpose. I am hoping to avoid having to run each JACK system in its
own Docker container, and at least in theory, it should be possible
to do this using netjack1, netjack2, or jacktrip, but it appears
that either localhost may not have been tested very much as a
network for these, or there may be another limitation somewhere of
which I'm not aware which prevents that from working.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFa_cKmqRudZ+NtUtk=VEzKAkvKMAGkOot5xOrfQHje4exCaeg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>what you are talking about is parallel vs. serialized
execution of clients (which some might term "sequential
execution"). parallel execution means that clients can be
distributed across cores or cpus or whatever; serialized
execution means that only 1 client can execute at a time,
so unless that client has its own internal processor-level
parallelism (e.g. ardour), it will make no difference how
many cores/cpus/mobos you have - only 1 of them will be
used at a time. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
No, I am not. I am talking about expanding the paradigm at large,
to use available resources, however it can be done. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFa_cKmqRudZ+NtUtk=VEzKAkvKMAGkOot5xOrfQHje4exCaeg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>your workflow has some parallelizable elements and some
elements that must be run serially/sequentially. it is an
odd design, significantly outside the intended scope of
what JACK was intended to be used for. some people think
it can be made to work for a flow like this. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
In point of fact it works very nicely right now, as far as it can.
I have to admit that I don't care how JACK was intended to be used;
I care merely what it can do. Certainly the tools which the Wright
brothers used in 1903 were never designed to build airplanes :-)<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<div style="color: #993300; font-size: 0.8em; font-style: italic;">
Jonathan E. Brickman <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jeb@ponderworthy.com">jeb@ponderworthy.com</a> (785)233-9977<br>
Hear us at <a href="http://ponderworthy.com">http://ponderworthy.com</a>
-- CDs and MP3 <a
href="http://ponderworthy.com/ad-astra/ad-astra.html">now
available!</a><br>
Music of compassion; fire, and life!!!
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>