21 Jul
2007
21 Jul
'07
3:25 p.m.
I am not part of the jackit-dev list, so if you could forward answers from
them to me I would appreciate it. I will be attempting to keep track of it
via the archives though.
And on the other hand, if you are wrong, which I think you are, although
I'm not 100% sure about that, you could be responsible for
continuing to spread a(nother) misunderstanding about jackdmp. (The
previous one was that jackdmp could not work on single processor machines)
Oh I don't have a problem with being corrected on it, just that particular
answer didn't do much to actually answer the question(Which it was a
question, not a statement) as you noticed. I appreciate the help and
corrections though, don't get me wrong though, otherwise I wouldn't have
posted at all;)
Seablade
On 7/21/07, Kjetil S. Matheussen <k.s.matheussen(a)notam02.no> wrote:
(CC-ed to jack-audio-dev list)
"Thomas Vecchione":
Seablade
On 7/20/07, Kjetil S. Matheussen <k.s.matheussen(a)notam02.no> wrote:
cores
"Thomas Vecchione" <seablaede(a)gmail.com>
Mind being a bit more specific? As in no it will handle 4,8, or 16
I heard Jack (jackdmp?) could only take advantage of two cores right
now?
No.
well?
Sorry, that was a short rude answer, especially since I'm not 100% sure of
the answer either. But I would be surprised if jackdmp was limited to two,
or any other high-value fixed number of, parallel sound processing
threads.
And on the other hand, if you are wrong, which I think you are, although
I'm not 100% sure about that, you could be responsible for
continuing to spread a(nother) misunderstanding about jackdmp. (The
previous one was that jackdmp could not work on single processor machines)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user