14 Mar
2006
14 Mar
'06
3:30 p.m.
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 02:13:59PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
:) that explains it....
On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 19:56 +0100, torbenh(a)gmx.de
wrote:
well i dont think, that doing something simple with the data being
copied does cost anything. you can prove me wrong though...
the memory is the bottleneck. or is this pathetic because of 98% cache
hits ?
so you say that i should not htonl the floats i
copy from my net
buffer
to the jack-port ?
i doubt, this is a great performance impact.
These were just suggestions... of course the performance impact is
small. But when a code path will be called on every sample then even a
0.01% speedup is worthwhile. when i change the packet format next time, i
could change that to byte
swap on a PPC. but considering that PPCs are generally slower than x86
nowadays, this would create more cpu load on a jack-network.
i am puzzled. did anybody actually test it ?
well at least there is some netjack thread now :/
Well, you did post your announcement to a development list - if you only
wanted testers you should have only sent to LAU ;-)
Lee
--
torben Hohn
http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language