[LAD] 2.4 vs 2.6

arisstotle.52613058 at bloglines.com arisstotle.52613058 at bloglines.com
Sun Jul 22 02:39:28 UTC 2007


--- joq at io.com wrote:
On 7/20/07, Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com>
wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 15:31 +0000, arisstotle.52613058 at bloglines.com

> > wrote:
> > > I've been working with the 2.6 series kernel now for some
time with satisfactory
> > > results ie (about 24 msec of latency and solid
stability). I chose the 2.6
> > > series because its the latest, and I wouldn't
have to patch as much to get
> > > support for my hardware (firewire alsa
realtime etc...). But I've been reading
> > > more and more about how the
2.4 kernels can outperform 2.6 when patched properly,
> > > any truth to
this?
> >
> > no truth. its an old data point, no longer valid. that is,
assuming we
> > are talking about RT-patched 2.6 vs. RT-patched 2.4. if you
mean vanilla
> > 2.6 vs. RT-patched 2.4, the latter is still better.
> 

> I'm not sure that is even true any more.  No recent data, but I tested
jackd
> extensively in about the 2.6.7 to 2.6.11 time-frame, and found those
vanilla
> 2.6 kernels quite competitive with RT-patched 2.4 ones, at least
on the
> machines I was running at the time (all uniprocessors).
> 
> The
very early 2.6.x kernels were another story.  :-)
> -- 
>  joq
> _______________________________________________

> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev at lists.linuxaudio.org
>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev
> 

when
you all say RT Patched you mean realtime module built, loaded configured and
used by jack correct?



More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list