18 Feb
2013
18 Feb
'13
10 p.m.
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:57:22 +0100, Paul Davis
<paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:36 PM,
<jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
From what I hear, the throughput of for example linux-lowlatency on Ubuntu
is 10% less than with linux-generic. So, that would be bad for servers in
deed.
Also, it is said to use more battery power, but I have not seen any data
on both of these things, so I really have no sources on that.
I do know that kernel developers in Ubuntu aren't interested in using
-lowlatency configs over -generic ones for these sort of reasons.
If a better response time from the kernel is
something that's Good, why
isn't lowlatency kernels a default in Linux distros (well, at least in
Linux Mint and Fedora) If it is So Good, what are the arguments for not
having a lowlatency kernel by default ?
latency and bandwidth are opposing goals. server oriented (compute-based
or storage-based) systems want to have the highest possible bandwidth,
not
the lowest latency. generally, at least.