17 Feb
2004
17 Feb
'04
5:55 p.m.
On 16 Feb 2004 14:54:13 -0600
Jan Depner <eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> wrote:
Agreed. Your system should rock like crazy except for one leetle
problem. IRQ 9 is higher priority than IRQ 10 so every time you get
disk activity you're probably dropping audio.
Yeah, that's what I would have *expected* -- so I was really surprised
when the latency tests didn't work out that way. Playing PCM audio
while writing, then copying, a 1.5 GB file (half again as large as my
RAM, so can't RAM-cache it), with my disk over 90% full, still produced
what I *think* (if I'm understanding all this correctly) are pretty
good numbers (100% within 1ms of the fragment latency). But I do plan
on tinkering with this, especially if the performance is troublesome
when I start doing real stuff.
But while the disk results looked good, the graphics results weren't
very . . .
-c
--
Chris Metzler cmetzler(a)speakeasy.snip-me.net
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear