[LAU] disadvantages of a realtime kernel

[Cassiel]

Hi you all,

I can't understand that:

"[...] So, why hassle around and make a realtime kernel available in the
repositories if Debian can work on making other security and stability
related issues better?"

what's the relationship between (realtime) and (security or stability)?
If you plan to use a realtime kernel surely you do not want to boot it on a
production server (my belief).
To me applying an RT patch implies you want to stress your box to achieve
extremely low latency paying a certain price in terms of "stability" for
other non-audio appz.


Platforms: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/
these are the offical Ingo Molnar RT patches, never saw platform related
ones and never read about they will ever be

Hardware: RT patches add features to the kernel and without touching the
rest of the code, so an RT kernel supports the same hardware of a generic
one.

Disadvantages: compile an unbootable or nonworking kernel is a little bit
simpler :-)

cheers
r


2008/11/27 Grammostola Rosea <rosea.grammostola at gmail.com>

> ... Some rumors say
>
> [quote]The realtime preemption patches are not only unstable, they are
> available for far less platforms. So, why hassle around and make a
> realtime kernel available in the repositories if Debian can work on
> making other security and stability related issues better?[/quote]
>
> Is a realtime kernel less stable?
>
> Are they available for far less platforms?
>
> Do do support the same hardware as the normal kernels does?
>
> Any other disadvantages?
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
> \r
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/attachments/20081127/c2dbb02d/attachment.htm