29 Jan
2011
29 Jan
'11
3:43 p.m.
On 01/29/2011 03:32 PM, Robin Gareus wrote:
On 01/29/2011 03:29 PM, Jeremy Jongepier wrote:
Hmm yeah, probably the bad thing on my side is the non systematically
approach I took... So I could be wrong...
Anyway, I also made a setup with oom2 > LS via Jack and it looked to me
that just changing jack2 to jack1 gives me a lot of extra trouble,
because of the order in which JACK ins and out gets displayed in
patchage and also the naming of the soundcard ins and outs looks
different to me. LS crashed pretty fast and that made me decide to run
back to jack2.
\r
On 01/29/2011 03:03 PM, rosea.grammostola wrote:
nope, I was just going to point out the same.
what's different is the zombification behaviour. try using jack1 with "-Z"
The mp support of Jack2 seems to be an advantage
when it comes to cpu
load.
I just learned via #jack that smp support only applies when you use JACK
with parallel clients. Bit cryptic but better described here:
http://www.grame.fr/~letz/jackdmp.html
"Jackdmp current implementation allows explicit parallel clients in a
graph to be processed on several available CPU at the same time. A
typical case is:
* in ==> A ==> C ==> out and in ==> B ==> C ==> out
A and B depend of the same input (the "in" driver in this case) and can
be activated on 2 processors, C waits for A and B outputs. "
So afaik if you use Jack2 with a single client like Yoshimi it doesn't
take advantage of its smp support, hence it shouldn't make a difference
whether you use Jack1, Jack2 or tschack.
Hopefully I didn't get this wrong ;)