7 Aug
2012
7 Aug
'12
10:07 p.m.
I've wiped and reinstalled my old Core2Duo laptop a few times, and long since lost
track of where I put the custom 64-bit RT kernel I built for it in 2007.
It seems like modern linuxes are using 3.x kernels these days.
I don't feel like going through the whole patch/build dance again anymore though.
I found one from Musix, but it won't boot on my system.
Is there a working/stable debian package for Squeeze or equivalent with a 3.4 kernel or
something 3.x?
-ken
7 Aug
7 Aug
10:10 p.m.
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:07:17 -0700
Ken Restivo <ken(a)restivo.org> wrote:
I've wiped and reinstalled my old Core2Duo laptop
a few times, and long since lost track of where I put the custom 64-bit RT kernel I built
for it in 2007.
It seems like modern linuxes are using 3.x kernels these days.
I don't feel like going through the whole patch/build dance again anymore though.
I found one from Musix, but it won't boot on my system.
Is there a working/stable debian package for Squeeze or equivalent with a 3.4 kernel or
something 3.x?
-ken
Not used it for audio yet, but am finding wheezy (debian testing) very reliable
and fast. It uses a 3.2 kernel.
However, the first thing I have to do is kick out Gnome :(
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
10:37 p.m.
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 21:10 +0100, Folderol wrote:
However, the first thing I have to do is kick out
Gnome :(
But that's not so hard to do, perhaps next year we need to transform
"Lennux" back to "Linux", before we can use it.
I can't remember if I had the choice, using the first installation DVD,
but when I installed Debian it still was GNOME2, so it was ok. However,
there at least seems to be one way (I skip netinstall) to install Debian
directly without GNOME3:
"Flavors: The live images come in "flavors", four providing the desktop
environments GNOME, KDE, LXDE and Xfce, and two text console flavors:
rescue and standard. Many users will find these initial package
selections suitable, installing any additional packages they need from
the network afterwards." - http://www.debian.org/CD/live/
At the moment I prefer Ubuntu Studio Precise and Arch Linux, both
running Xfce, but I'm not making music at the moment. LXDE also is ok.
To avoid "kick out" situations Arch Linus is very handy. It only
installs a basic Linux without X. And Linux major distros IMO reached
the point where it became harder to remove unwanted packages, than it is
to install needed packages to a "naked" Linux.
YMMV!
Ralf
8 Aug
8 Aug
9:23 a.m.
On 08/07/2012 10:10 AM, Folderol wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:07:17 -0700
Ken Restivo<ken(a)restivo.org> wrote:
I use it Sid's 3.2 on my desktop PC for audio (much simpler audio stuff
than anyone else on this list does), and it works very nicely.
I've wiped and reinstalled my old Core2Duo
laptop a few times, and long since lost track of where I put the custom 64-bit RT kernel I
built for it in 2007.
It seems like modern linuxes are using 3.x kernels these days.
I don't feel like going through the whole patch/build dance again anymore though.
I found one from Musix, but it won't boot on my system.
Is there a working/stable debian package for Squeeze or equivalent with a 3.4 kernel or
something 3.x?
-ken
Not used it for audio yet, but am finding wheezy (debian testing) very reliable
and fast. It uses a 3.2 kernel. However, the first thing I have to do is kick out
Gnome :(
I installed using Aptosid, the one I downloaded was set up to use XFCE.
They also have ones set up to use KDE4. GNOME and LXDE.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
3:30 p.m.
For the next beta version of Musix 3 we're moving to Wheezy and
compiling free/libre kernels.
Ken, I think we have some 2.6 rt fot squeeze and 3.x somewhere, if
you're still interested.
2012/8/8 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>om>:
On 08/07/2012 10:10 AM, Folderol wrote:
--
Carlos sanchiavedraz
* Musix GNU+Linux
http://www.musix.es
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:07:17 -0700
Ken Restivo<ken(a)restivo.org> wrote:
I use it Sid's 3.2 on my desktop PC for audio (much simpler audio stuff than
anyone else on this list does), and it works very nicely.
I've wiped and reinstalled my old Core2Duo
laptop a few times, and long
since lost track of where I put the custom 64-bit RT kernel I built for it
in 2007.
It seems like modern linuxes are using 3.x kernels these days.
I don't feel like going through the whole patch/build dance again anymore
though.
I found one from Musix, but it won't boot on my system.
Is there a working/stable debian package for Squeeze or equivalent with a
3.4 kernel or something 3.x?
-ken
Not used it for audio yet, but am finding wheezy (debian testing) very
reliable
and fast. It uses a 3.2 kernel. However, the first thing I have to do is kick out
Gnome :(
I installed using Aptosid, the one I downloaded was set up to use XFCE. They
also have ones set up to use KDE4. GNOME and LXDE.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
9 Aug
9 Aug
11:22 a.m.
Make sure the 32-bit RT kernel doesn't require PAE. My effectsbox laptop
doesn't support PAE, but runs current beta of Musix 3 nicely. (Well, as
nice as it can, considering it only has 768MB of memory & runs out of
Celeron processor juice with more than a couple of voices running in Zyn.)
On 08/08/2012 03:30 AM, Carlos sanchiavedraz wrote:
For the next beta version of Musix 3 we're moving
to Wheezy and
compiling free/libre kernels.
Ken, I think we have some 2.6 rt fot squeeze and 3.x somewhere, if
you're still interested.
2012/8/8 david<gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>om>:
> On 08/07/2012 10:10 AM, Folderol wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:07:17 -0700
>> Ken Restivo<ken(a)restivo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I've wiped and reinstalled my old Core2Duo laptop a few times, and long
>>> since lost track of where I put the custom 64-bit RT kernel I built for it
>>> in 2007.
>>>
>>> It seems like modern linuxes are using 3.x kernels these days.
>>>
>>> I don't feel like going through the whole patch/build dance again
anymore
>>> though.
>>>
>>> I found one from Musix, but it won't boot on my system.
>>>
>>> Is there a working/stable debian package for Squeeze or equivalent with a
>>> 3.4 kernel or something 3.x?
>>>
>>> -ken
>>
>>
>> Not used it for audio yet, but am finding wheezy (debian testing) very
>> reliable
>> and fast. It uses a 3.2 kernel.
>
>
> I use it Sid's 3.2 on my desktop PC for audio (much simpler audio stuff than
> anyone else on this list does), and it works very nicely.
>
>
>> However, the first thing I have to do is kick out Gnome :(
>
>
> I installed using Aptosid, the one I downloaded was set up to use XFCE. They
> also have ones set up to use KDE4. GNOME and LXDE.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
4:22 p.m.
I tried to install linux-image-2.6-686_2.6.32+29_i386.deb for
Squeeze/Musix beta2 on my UMPC but dpkg threw some errors. I think
maybe is due to not supporting PAE as well.
P.S: David, I'm glad you're doing well with Musix :)
2012/8/9 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>om>:
Make sure the 32-bit RT kernel doesn't require
PAE. My effectsbox laptop
doesn't support PAE, but runs current beta of Musix 3 nicely. (Well, as nice
as it can, considering it only has 768MB of memory & runs out of Celeron
processor juice with more than a couple of voices running in Zyn.)
On 08/08/2012 03:30 AM, Carlos sanchiavedraz wrote:
--
Carlos sanchiavedraz
* Musix GNU+Linux
http://www.musix.es
For the next beta version of Musix 3 we're moving to Wheezy and
compiling free/libre kernels.
Ken, I think we have some 2.6 rt fot squeeze and 3.x somewhere, if
you're still interested.
2012/8/8 david<gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>om>:
>
> On 08/07/2012 10:10 AM, Folderol wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:07:17 -0700
>> Ken Restivo<ken(a)restivo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I've wiped and reinstalled my old Core2Duo laptop a few times, and long
>>> since lost track of where I put the custom 64-bit RT kernel I built
>>> for it
>>> in 2007.
>>>
>>> It seems like modern linuxes are using 3.x kernels these days.
>>>
>>> I don't feel like going through the whole patch/build dance again
>>> anymore
>>> though.
>>>
>>> I found one from Musix, but it won't boot on my system.
>>>
>>> Is there a working/stable debian package for Squeeze or equivalent with
>>> a
>>> 3.4 kernel or something 3.x?
>>>
>>> -ken
>>
>>
>>
>> Not used it for audio yet, but am finding wheezy (debian testing) very
>> reliable
>> and fast. It uses a 3.2 kernel.
>
>
>
> I use it Sid's 3.2 on my desktop PC for audio (much simpler audio stuff
> than
> anyone else on this list does), and it works very nicely.
>
>
>> However, the first thing I have to do is kick out Gnome :(
>
>
>
> I installed using Aptosid, the one I downloaded was set up to use XFCE.
> They
> also have ones set up to use KDE4. GNOME and LXDE.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user 
7 Aug
7 Aug
10:12 p.m.
On 08/07/2012 10:07 PM, Ken Restivo wrote:
Is there a working/stable debian package for Squeeze
or equivalent with a 3.4 kernel or something 3.x?
http://packages.debian.org/squeeze-backports/linux-image-rt-amd64
http://packages.debian.org/sid/linux-image-rt-amd64
backports is at 3.2 - there's a 3.4.X version is in experimental, too.
http://packages.debian.org/experimental/linux-image-3.4-trunk-rt-amd64
10:39 p.m.
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 10:12:02PM +0200, Robin Gareus wrote:
On 08/07/2012 10:07 PM, Ken Restivo wrote:
Hmm. Added to /etc/apt/sources.list:
deb http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports squeeze-backports main
Then:
$ sudo apt-get update
...
$ sudo apt-get install linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-rt-amd64
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-rt-amd64 : Depends: linux-base (>= 3~) but 2.6.32-45 is to
be installed
Recommends: firmware-linux-free (>= 3~) but
2.6.32-45 is to be installed
Breaks: initramfs-tools (< 0.99~) but 0.98.8 is
to be installed
E: Broken packages
Is there a working/stable debian package for
Squeeze or equivalent with a 3.4 kernel or something 3.x?
http://packages.debian.org/squeeze-backports/linux-image-rt-amd64 http://packages.debian.org/sid/linux-image-rt-amd64
backports is at 3.2 - there's a 3.4.X version is in experimental, too.
http://packages.debian.org/experimental/linux-image-3.4-trunk-rt-amd64
Interesting, well I've already exceeded my time budget for "while I've got
this thing on, I wonder if there's a 64-bit kernel for it".
Thanks though!
-ken
10:46 p.m.
On 08/07/2012 10:39 PM, Ken Restivo wrote:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 10:12:02PM +0200, Robin Gareus
wrote:
huh? well maybe `apt-get -t squeeze linux-rt-amd64` will do the trick.
Or simply use `aptitude` and its dependency resolver.
Maybe a bug in debian's backports ?! I don't know.
On 08/07/2012 10:07 PM, Ken Restivo wrote:
Hmm. Added to /etc/apt/sources.list:
deb http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports squeeze-backports main
Then:
$ sudo apt-get update
...
$ sudo apt-get install linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-rt-amd64
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-rt-amd64 : Depends: linux-base (>= 3~) but 2.6.32-45 is to
be installed
Recommends: firmware-linux-free (>= 3~) but
2.6.32-45 is to be installed
Breaks: initramfs-tools (< 0.99~) but 0.98.8 is
to be installed
E: Broken packages
Is there a working/stable debian package for
Squeeze or equivalent with a 3.4 kernel or something 3.x?
http://packages.debian.org/squeeze-backports/linux-image-rt-amd64
http://packages.debian.org/sid/linux-image-rt-amd64
backports is at 3.2 - there's a 3.4.X version is in experimental, too.
http://packages.debian.org/experimental/linux-image-3.4-trunk-rt-amd64
Interesting, well I've already exceeded my time budget for "while I've got
this thing on, I wonder if there's a 64-bit kernel for it".
Thanks though!
-ken
10:47 p.m.
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 13:39 -0700, Ken Restivo wrote:
Interesting, well I've already exceeded my time
budget for "while I've
got this thing on, I wonder if there's a 64-bit kernel for it".
You should build your own kernel-rt. In the end this might be less time
consuming. On my machine it takes around 90 minutes with an Athlon
2.1GHz dual-core, 4GB RAM, CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=2.
8 Aug
8 Aug
9:19 a.m.
On 08/07/2012 10:47 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 13:39 -0700, Ken Restivo wrote:
Debian Sid has a 64-bit RT kernel version 3.2.0 in its repository.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
Interesting, well I've already exceeded my
time budget for "while I've
got this thing on, I wonder if there's a 64-bit kernel for it".
You should build your own kernel-rt. In the end this might be less time
consuming. On my machine it takes around 90 minutes with an Athlon
2.1GHz dual-core, 4GB RAM, CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=2. 
9:23 a.m.
2012/8/8 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>
On 08/07/2012 10:47 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
so does debian wheezy/testing
linux-image-3.2.0-3-rt-amd64
-r
--
*L'unica speranza di catarsi, ammesso che ne esista una, resta affidata
all'istinto di ribellione, alla rivolta non isterilita in progetti, alla
protesta violenta e viscerale. (V. Evangelisti)
*
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 13:39 -0700, Ken Restivo
wrote:
Debian Sid has a 64-bit RT kernel version 3.2.0 in its repository.
Interesting, well I've already exceeded my
time budget for "while I've
got this thing on, I wonder if there's a 64-bit kernel for it".
You should build your own kernel-rt. In the end this might be less time
consuming. On my machine it takes around 90 minutes with an Athlon
2.1GHz dual-core, 4GB RAM, CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=2.
9:01 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:23:05AM +0200, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
2012/8/8 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>
Am considering upgrading to this kernel (like Ken,
I'm getting lazy and
would like to go back to a packaged kernel) from 2.6.33.2-RT30: any pros
and/or cons I should be aware of?
Cheers,
S.M.
On 08/07/2012 10:47 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
so does debian wheezy/testing
linux-image-3.2.0-3-rt-amd64 On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 13:39 -0700, Ken Restivo
wrote:
Debian Sid has a 64-bit RT kernel version 3.2.0 in its repository.
Interesting, well I've already exceeded my
time budget for "while I've
got this thing on, I wonder if there's a 64-bit kernel for it".
You should build your own kernel-rt. In the end this might be less time
consuming. On my machine it takes around 90 minutes with an Athlon
2.1GHz dual-core, 4GB RAM, CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=2.
9 Aug
9 Aug
7:51 a.m.
2012/8/8 S. Massy <lists(a)wolfdream.ca>
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:23:05AM +0200, Raffaele
Morelli wrote:
Hi,
3.2.0-3-rt-amd64 works like a charm here, let's say it's a fully featured
debian stock kernel + RT patch.
regards
-r
--
*L'unica speranza di catarsi, ammesso che ne esista una, resta affidata
all'istinto di ribellione, alla rivolta non isterilita in progetti, alla
protesta violenta e viscerale. (V. Evangelisti)
*
2012/8/8 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>
Am considering upgrading to this kernel (like Ken,
I'm getting lazy and
would like to go back to a packaged kernel) from 2.6.33.2-RT30: any pros
and/or cons I should be aware of?
Cheers,
S.M.
Debian Sid has a 64-bit RT kernel version 3.2.0
in its repository.
so does debian wheezy/testing
linux-image-3.2.0-3-rt-amd64
10:36 a.m.
On 08/08/2012 07:51 PM, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
2012/8/8 S. Massy <lists(a)wolfdream.ca
<mailto:lists@wolfdream.ca>>
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:23:05AM +0200, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
That's the one I have running on my desktop machine. Recommended!
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
2012/8/8 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
<mailto:gnome@hawaii.rr.com>>
Am considering upgrading to this kernel (like
Ken, I'm getting lazy and
would like to go back to a packaged kernel) from 2.6.33.2-RT30: any pros
and/or cons I should be aware of?
Cheers,
S.M.
Hi,
3.2.0-3-rt-amd64 works like a charm here, let's say it's a fully
featured debian stock kernel + RT patch. Debian Sid has a 64-bit RT kernel version 3.2.0
in its repository.
so does debian wheezy/testing
linux-image-3.2.0-3-rt-amd64
10 Aug
10 Aug
2:30 p.m.
On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 15:01 -0400, S. Massy wrote:
Am considering upgrading to this kernel (like Ken,
I'm getting lazy and
would like to go back to a packaged kernel) from 2.6.33.2-RT30: any pros
and/or cons I should be aware of?
Just a pro >= 2.6.39 you get a newer version of ALSA.
9 Aug
9 Aug
12:46 p.m.
On 08/07/2012 10:47 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 13:39 -0700, Ken Restivo wrote:
The compile time is not even 1% of what it takes.
Tweaking the config, knowing and learning about the effects of all the
kernel parameters, how they interact and affect the system is a
never-ending task. It is very easy to screw it up, too.
IMHO it is much wiser to spend the time to contribute to a community effort.
Sure, you can tweak the kernel to your personal system and preferences
when you roll your own. You can learn a lot by doing that and it can be
fun, too.
At 64studio we've learned that the actual performance difference
regarding options that are relevant only to one system vs options that
are suitable for a distributions are minimal. Debian continues that
effort. ..and you get updates.
2c,
robin
Interesting, well I've already exceeded my
time budget for "while I've
got this thing on, I wonder if there's a 64-bit kernel for it".
You should build your own kernel-rt. In the end this might be less time
consuming. On my machine it takes around 90 minutes with an Athlon
2.1GHz dual-core, 4GB RAM, CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=2.
3:29 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 11:46, Robin Gareus wrote:
At 64studio we've learned that the actual
performance difference
regarding options that are relevant only to one system vs options that
are suitable for a distributions are minimal. Debian continues that
effort. ..and you get updates.
Does anyone have any comments on using these Debian RT kernels on Ubuntu
(Studio)?
--
Michał Koziarski
koshimazaki(a)fastmail.fm
4:23 p.m.
On Thu, August 9, 2012 6:29 am, MichaÅ Koziarski wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 11:46, Robin Gareus wrote:
There was some testing done... I think there was not much difference from
low latency to RT. I think it should work though as I have used upstream
kernels for testing. As with any package, it should be no problem to test
it and back out if it doesn't work. Both the stock kernel and whatever you
load should show up at boot time, so if one doesn't work, just boot the
stock one.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
At 64studio we've learned that the actual
performance difference
regarding options that are relevant only to one system vs options that
are suitable for a distributions are minimal. Debian continues that
effort. ..and you get updates.
Does anyone have any comments on using these Debian RT kernels on Ubuntu
(Studio)? 
10 Aug
10 Aug
8:14 a.m.
On 10 August 2012 01:29, Michał Koziarski <koshimazaki(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 11:46, Robin Gareus wrote:
no, i'm using the abogani rt kernels on 64 bit ubuntu 12.04, which i
believe is a pretty common combination. working well here, no
complaints
--
robin
http://fu.ac.nz - Auckland's Free University
At 64studio we've learned that the actual
performance difference
regarding options that are relevant only to one system vs options that
are suitable for a distributions are minimal. Debian continues that
effort. ..and you get updates.
Does anyone have any comments on using these Debian RT kernels on Ubuntu
(Studio)?
9 Aug
9 Aug
6:40 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:46:38PM +0200, Robin Gareus wrote:
On 08/07/2012 10:47 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I totally agree. I've been compiling my own
kernels since 2.0.x, both for
fun and because, especially at the time, size and speed mattered.
However, as the kernel grew in intricacy, especially so in the last
couple years, the trade-off between time investment and
performance/reliability seems to have swung on the debit side of the
pocketbook. This especially became clear to me when I worked on
compiling a kernel for my new netbook in hopes of improving battery-life
only to see my custom kernels consistently drain *more* power than the
Debian stock kernel. In the end, the time spent configuring the system
itself was far more effective, and I have a nagging suspicion that it
may prove to be the same with RT performance.
Cheers,
S.M.
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 13:39 -0700, Ken Restivo
wrote:
The compile time is not even 1% of what it takes.
Tweaking the config, knowing and learning about the effects of all the
kernel parameters, how they interact and affect the system is a
never-ending task. It is very easy to screw it up, too.
IMHO it is much wiser to spend the time to contribute to a community effort.
Sure, you can tweak the kernel to your personal system and preferences
when you roll your own. You can learn a lot by doing that and it can be
fun, too.
At 64studio we've learned that the actual performance difference
regarding options that are relevant only to one system vs options that
are suitable for a distributions are minimal. Debian continues that
effort. ..and you get updates. Interesting, well I've already exceeded my
time budget for "while I've
got this thing on, I wonder if there's a 64-bit kernel for it".
You should build your own kernel-rt. In the end this might be less time
consuming. On my machine it takes around 90 minutes with an Athlon
2.1GHz dual-core, 4GB RAM, CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=2.
20 Aug
20 Aug
11:02 a.m.
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:41:00PM -0400, S. Massy wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:46:38PM +0200, Robin Gareus
wrote:
Well I upgraded that box to Wheezy, and indeed an RT kernel is right there, already baked
in! And it works too!
I think it's a huge step forward to have RT kernels already in a major distribution
(arguably one of the most major, considering how many are based upon it).
I haven't used it for music stuff (and don't have any plans to), but everything
just works, so if I needed to do any audio stuff, it's there.
Thanks for the answer.
-ken
On 08/07/2012 10:47 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I totally agree. I've been compiling my own
kernels since 2.0.x, both for
fun and because, especially at the time, size and speed mattered.
However, as the kernel grew in intricacy, especially so in the last
couple years, the trade-off between time investment and
performance/reliability seems to have swung on the debit side of the
pocketbook. This especially became clear to me when I worked on
compiling a kernel for my new netbook in hopes of improving battery-life
only to see my custom kernels consistently drain *more* power than the
Debian stock kernel. In the end, the time spent configuring the system
itself was far more effective, and I have a nagging suspicion that it
may prove to be the same with RT performance.
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 13:39 -0700, Ken Restivo
wrote:
The compile time is not even 1% of what it takes.
Tweaking the config, knowing and learning about the effects of all the
kernel parameters, how they interact and affect the system is a
never-ending task. It is very easy to screw it up, too.
IMHO it is much wiser to spend the time to contribute to a community effort.
Sure, you can tweak the kernel to your personal system and preferences
when you roll your own. You can learn a lot by doing that and it can be
fun, too.
At 64studio we've learned that the actual performance difference
regarding options that are relevant only to one system vs options that
are suitable for a distributions are minimal. Debian continues that
effort. ..and you get updates. Interesting, well I've already exceeded my
time budget for "while I've
got this thing on, I wonder if there's a 64-bit kernel for it".
You should build your own kernel-rt. In the end this might be less time
consuming. On my machine it takes around 90 minutes with an Athlon
2.1GHz dual-core, 4GB RAM, CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=2.
10 Aug
10 Aug
3:31 p.m.
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 12:46 +0200, Robin Gareus wrote:
On 08/07/2012 10:47 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Full ACK. For example, I never noticed a difference when I set CONFIG_MK8=y
(Opteron/Athlon64/Hammer/K8).
Regards,
Ralf
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 13:39 -0700, Ken Restivo
wrote:
The compile time is not even 1% of what it takes.
Tweaking the config, knowing and learning about the effects of all the
kernel parameters, how they interact and affect the system is a
never-ending task. It is very easy to screw it up, too.
IMHO it is much wiser to spend the time to contribute to a community effort.
Sure, you can tweak the kernel to your personal system and preferences
when you roll your own. You can learn a lot by doing that and it can be
fun, too.
At 64studio we've learned that the actual performance difference
regarding options that are relevant only to one system vs options that
are suitable for a distributions are minimal. Debian continues that
effort. ..and you get updates.
2c,
robin Interesting, well I've already exceeded my
time budget for "while I've
got this thing on, I wonder if there's a 64-bit kernel for it".
You should build your own kernel-rt. In the end this might be less time
consuming. On my machine it takes around 90 minutes with an Athlon
2.1GHz dual-core, 4GB RAM, CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=2.
4531
days inactive
4544
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
23 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Carlos sanchiavedraz -
david -
Folderol -
Ken Restivo -
Len Ovens -
Michał Koziarski -
Raffaele Morelli -
Ralf Mardorf -
Robin Gareus -
Robin Paulson -
S. Massy