30 Mar
2008
30 Mar
'08
11:46 a.m.
On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Arnold Krille wrote:
Am Dienstag, 18. März 2008 schrieb Mark Knecht:
The question is not really whether it works at all, but rather how reliable it
is. Even if it is possible to run a vanilla kernel with a < 10 ms latency
setting it will be far more reliable to use a properly tuned -rt system. With
the -rt system it is pretty much guaranteed that the kernel nor any other
processes might ever make jack fail to meet its deadline. With a vanilla
kernel you might just have been lucky.
So even if i were to record with a high latency setting (e.g. i don't need low
latency for monitoring or live instrument effect processing) i would still
use a properly tuned -rt system. A single xrun can ruin an otherwise magic
take/recording, a maybe unrepeatable performance. To minimize the chances of
this happening is IMHO almost always justifying the use of an -rt kernel
when doing audio recording/processing..
Regards,
Flo
--
Palimm Palimm!
http://tapas.affenbande.org
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Arda Eden
<ardaeden(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Still it has to be noted that you can achieve 5ms latency without a
RT-kernel... Even with an el-cheapo builtin soundcard... So is it really necessary to have a realtime
kernel in order to use
linux audio applications without any latencies or xruns ?
It is not possible to use ANY kernel with NO latencies. EVERY kernel
has latencies. The question is how low do you want the latencies to
be? If you can exist with 50mS or higher you might get away with a
standard kernel. If you want to run with 1.2mS latency then you will
absolutely have to have a real-time enabled kernel.