29 Dec
2004
29 Dec
'04
11:51 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 18:29, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 17:30 -0800, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
I guess he was referring to the kernel he built (without the
realtime-lsm). I'll clarify this point in the Planet CCRMA list...
I just booted into 2.6.10 + realtime-lsm, not bad at all in some very
informal jack tests (run jack at 2x128 + ardour + hydrogen + freqtweak).
I'll leave a full build chugging along all night long, should have fresh
packages to test/release tomorrow :-)
-- Fernando
On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 16:52, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 16:21 -0800, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/pipermail/planetccrma/2004-December/007341.h…
http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/pipermail/planetccrma/2004-December/007343.h… On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 15:10, Lee Revell wrote:
> I tried JACK today with vanilla 2.6.10 and had excellent reaults - it
> works with 32 and 64 frames, which previously required Ingo's patches.
> Many of the latency fixes have been going upstream, and it looks like we
> are finally showing some results. I think we may finally have a kernel
> that's usable out of the box for low latency audio.
>
> Can someone else try to verify these results?
I'll try to asap. A Planet CCRMA fellow dweller just posted some very
rough comparison tests between several kernels and 2.6.10 was doing
quite well. The 0.7.33-04 DESKTOP_PREEMPT was doing much better but was
also less stable (but he was testing it with extremely low buffer
sizes).
This was on the CCRMA list? Got a URL? From the above post:
Currently I think that the most usable system is
2.6.10 (that is if you are willing to run all of your audio software as root,
which is not a good idea as a bad bug could bring your system to its knees)
This user like many others is confusing the realtime preempt patches
with the realtime LSM. You should point this out (I am not on the CCRMA
list). The current version of the realtime LSM kernel patch applies
cleanly against 2.6.10.