2010/12/13 Robin Gareus
<robin@gareus.org>
yes. In short: Desktop performance: amazing, Desktop-audio-performance:
good, pro-audio performance: deficient.
> This quote:
>
> "If you were doing semi-professional audio recording you might, and
> then you'd need to understand the inner workings of the software and
> the -rt patchset to make the most of it. Just patching it in and
> expecting it to work for you will not really give you any advantage."
>
> is not really true. It is true that there are quite a few complexities
> to using the RT patchset's full capabilities. Most people probably do
> not use them. But this doesn't mean that a general claim that the
> patchset offers them no benefits is wrong.
I really hoped that :)
I am now sure that RT patchset is something for kernel folks to deal with, but neverthless that it's something good to apply for me.
quite, but it is true in the sense that it is much easier to screw up a
kernel by blindly applying patches and generating a .config if you don't
know what you're doing (and sometimes even if you know what you're
doing). Also, one needs additional tools (like rtirq) to make good use
of RT-linux, while -bfs runs OOTB.
However these days most distributions do that setup for the users.
I don't care so much about speed. The important issue in pro-audio is
reliability. It's not the smallest possible latency that counts, but the
max. latency of the system.