14 Jun
2011
14 Jun
'11
9:30 a.m.
Dan Muresan wrote:
Certainly not unique. My guess is that nobody worried
about a
(possibly small) performance penalty, and instead used simpler
strategies -- or they weren't using sndfile in the first place.
Consider this: for any request size you choose, NOT cancelling could
double your latency in the worst case if you're streaming from a slow
NFS server.
Err, if you're worried about latency, why are you streaming from
a slow NFS server?
This begs a question -- is it possible to
"reset" the SNDFILE less
dramatically? E.g. would a seek back to offset 0, or a pair of seeks,
or some other trick also reset the data structures?
Really not sure. You should try it and report back.
If not, it might
be nice to add a sf_reset() function or a SF_RESET sf_command()
parameter.
What problem does that fix? Do you even know if there is a problem?
Erik
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/