On 08/08/2009 08:18 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
  
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 11:30:33AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

  
    
Apropos wasting resources. A lot of Linux audio applications don't have 
EQs by default for the channels of a mixer, we need to add 20 LADSPA EQs 
to 20 channels. There might be OS X and Windows applications that come 
with an EQ by default for every added channel. Do you think each time 
you add a new channel, they also add a copy of the same EQ routine to 
the RAM or do you think one routine for the EQ is shared by all 
channels, one after the other, but anyhow with different EQ setting?
    
      
The code will be shared, and for a typical channel strip EQ
it's  peanuts anyway. Then there's per-instance data which
again for an normal EQ isn't anything to worry about.
It's the GUI that takes up most of the resources. Most
of the GUI code will be shared with other parts, but the
data won't.

Ciao,
    

Okay, this sounds plausible. I only wanted to point out, as I've written 
in another mail, while you replied, that not everybody, but some people 
have troubles because of resources, only when using Linux. There might 
be different reasons for this, but it's a fact that this is a problem 
and I guess this is something that could be fixed.
  


It's a fact that people complain about it and it is a problem for them but it is not a fact that it is a problem with Linux or all Linux software or the kernel or pretty much any of the most stable and mature apps in the open source world.



It's not very smart to compare different OSs and applications, I'm sorry 
that I tend to do this. It would be better to describe some approaches 
and to describe the good and bad experiences just for Linux applications.
  


Yes.

This is the correct way to approach Linux lists.








Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd



_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev