<div class="gmail_quote">2010/12/13 Robin Gareus <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robin@gareus.org">robin@gareus.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On 12/13/2010 01:13 PM, Paul Davis wrote:<br>
> 2010/12/13 Raffaele Morelli <<a href="mailto:raffaele.morelli@gmail.com">raffaele.morelli@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
>> Hi you all,<br>
>><br>
>> what do you think about that? Have you got some personal experience?<br>
>> <a href="http://ck-hack.blogspot.com/2010/10/bfs-in-real-time.html" target="_blank">http://ck-hack.blogspot.com/2010/10/bfs-in-real-time.html</a><br>
<br>
</div>yes. In short: Desktop performance: amazing, Desktop-audio-performance:<br>
good, pro-audio performance: deficient.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> This quote:<br>
><br>
> "If you were doing semi-professional audio recording you might, and<br>
> then you'd need to understand the inner workings of the software and<br>
> the -rt patchset to make the most of it. Just patching it in and<br>
> expecting it to work for you will not really give you any advantage."<br>
><br>
> is not really true. It is true that there are quite a few complexities<br>
> to using the RT patchset's full capabilities. Most people probably do<br>
> not use them. But this doesn't mean that a general claim that the<br>
> patchset offers them no benefits is wrong.<br></div></blockquote><div><br>I really hoped that :)<br>I am now sure that RT patchset is something for kernel folks to deal with, but neverthless that it's something good to apply for me.<br>
<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">quite, but it is true in the sense that it is much easier to screw up a<br>
kernel by blindly applying patches and generating a .config if you don't<br>
know what you're doing (and sometimes even if you know what you're<br>
doing). Also, one needs additional tools (like rtirq) to make good use<br>
of RT-linux, while -bfs runs OOTB.<br>
However these days most distributions do that setup for the users.<br></blockquote><div class="im"><br>well, I always followed <a href="http://www.alsa-project.org/main/index.php/Low_latency_howto">http://www.alsa-project.org/main/index.php/Low_latency_howto</a> and never screwed up a kernel <br>
<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I don't care so much about speed. The important issue in pro-audio is<br>
reliability. It's not the smallest possible latency that counts, but the<br>
max. latency of the system.<br></blockquote></div><br>I really did not understand this statement and anyway I would not agree... why anybody should be safe knowing that his box max latency is 20ms instead of 50ms or 70ms?<br>
<br>Regards<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><i><span></span><span>L'unica speranza di catarsi, ammesso che ne esista una,
resta affidata all'istinto di ribellione, alla rivolta non isterilita
in progetti, alla protesta violenta e viscerale.</span></i><br>